Family And Justice In Montana 1948 By Larry Watson

In Montana 1948 by Larry Watson, the Haydens face a terribly difficult decision between justice and family. The novel shows that justice is a better choice than family, especially when a family member commits a crime. Even though justice was never served since Uncle Frank ended up killing himself, the Haydens were going through the motions to get justice. The narrator of the story’s Uncle Frank is a rapist that rapes his Native American patients. When Uncle Frank was found out by the majority of his family, there was some confusion, but the one person who’s decision mattered chose justice. This individual is Wesley Hayden; he is the most important person to make a decision between family and justice because he is the town sheriff. Besides

But to keep society safe, those who commit heinous crimes or know people who have should turn themselves or these people they know. Like how Uncle Frank takes advantage of Native American women who are entirely helpless in a room alone with him. To get Uncle Frank to break his habit of taking advantage of Native American women he has to be arrested and put on trial because “sins- crimes- are not supposed to go unpunished.”(76). As well in “Barn Burning” Sarty’s Dad kept on burning down people's barns which housed livestock and crops to be sold for money to survive. Then again the only way to get him to stop would be to get him arrested, but in the end, he is killed. Before his demise, he made the trip to court but has gotten his son Sarty to lie for him (from what we can tell). But Sarty knows this is wrong, and his Father is a terrible person for doing this. He also knows that the people at court “want only truth, justice”(11). They only want the truth to get justice for those who have been wronged. Also in an article about a family who had turned in their son into the cops because "If we had not come forward and someone else was hurt it would have been impossible to live the guilt"(Goldman 4). His family decided to turn him in to keep others safe and to save themselves from the potential guilt they would feel if he went out again and hurt another person. It is clear that wanting to save new

The main reason people choose family here is that they must love their family. There are many conflicts when selecting between justice and family when a family member commits a crime. Firstly if a person were not to help out their family member and turn them into the family member would be "hurt by what [they] saw as betrayal."(Smith 2) So to avoid this, they end up just helping them out when they really should not. However, if the crime is severe enough the family members helping out the person who committed the crime will be seen as accomplices to the offense. Another reason why people would help out their family member who has committed a crime is that it is the emotionally easier option. If this person were to turn in their loved one, it would be emotionally draining. The person most likely loves this person and does not want them to go to jail, but then again it is the right thing to do. All the conflicting feelings would just overwhelm the person until they make their final decision. In the end, this woman who ended up turning her kid into the cops said: "it wasn't something she wanted to do but was something she had to do"(Smith 1). As a person who knows about the crime that her son committed she felt an obligation to turn him in for his own good and society's safety. Overall helping out a family member who has committed a crime is no good for anyone. It is no good for the person who committed it