Comparison Of John Steinbeck's Of Mice And Men

Imagine a dog being hit by a car, and say whether it should be left or saved from suffering until death. Now compare that to John Steinbeck’s novella mice of men with Lennie, George, and Curley. Lennie being the dog, George being the “relieved suffrage”, and Curley being the suffrage. George shot Lennie preventing him from being tortured by Curley. John Steinbeck author of “mice and men” did not say whether he was punished or not leaving it up for the readers to decide. Therefore George should not be punished for killing Lennie although technically against the law, theoretically shouldn’t be punished due to it being that it was done to save Lennie, it was “self-defense”, it also saved Lennie the torture to come. First of all, Lennie was like family to George. George cared and looked after Lennie bringing them closer. If a family member was lying there in pain waiting for a more painful death should he be put out of his misery instead of suffering? It would just be inhumane to watch another human being go through a high amount of torture and pain after knowing they could have been saved from the suffrage. If you kill someone which is going through such high amounts of

It was the 1930s and nobody had the technology to track finger prints yet. Everyone there also believes it was self-defense which legally George couldn’t be jailed for. He has done nothing wrong in eyes of the law because they have no evidence besides the dead body and the luger being in his hands last, but even still there is no evidence left due to the late time stamp and lack of technology. No one besides George knows about what actually happen, but considering the vouch of everyone they said it was self-defense, due to them knowing where George was, nearly the entire time meaning they believe Lennie took the luger. With all of this being said you cannot punish George if you can’t charge him with