In the novel And Then There Were None by Agatha Christie presents the readers with a question, do you think any man or woman has the right to take the law into their own hands? While some may argue that men or women have the right to take the law into their own hands, they are incorrect because somebody might not be in the right state of mind so they could punish people in cruel ways or simply punish people who do not deserve it. Two people who support the fact that men and women do not have the right to take the law into their own hands are Justice Wargrave as he was not in the right state of mind and Emily Brent as she did not commit a crime. Although some may argue that men and women have the right to take the law into their own hands, they …show more content…
In other words, Vera killed Cyril by telling him he could swim out to the rocks. Even in cases like Vera’s where they were guilty but were not convicted, men and women still do not have the right to take the law into their own hands, as seen with Vera. She had started to go crazy with the guilt of what she had done. Therefore, even in cases like Vera’s, no man or woman has the right to take the law into their own hands because Vera was already getting punished with the fact that she was going mad from her killing Cyril. Men and women do not have the right to take the law into their own hands, this is seen with Justice Wargrave. Justice Wargrave was a lunatic who had nine other people come to an island where he killed them all and then killed himself. According to the text “I have a definite sadistic delight in seeing or causing death. I remember the experiments” (285). In other words, Wargrave has a violent pleasure in death and would conduct experiments. This shows that men and women do not have the right to take the law into their own hands because, with Wargrave and the other people like him who enjoy killing, if they could take the law into their own hands, they would kill with the excuse that they had been guilty but did not get