Should Crispin Have Killed John Justified?

"The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the rights of every individual to claim the protection of the law, whenever he receives an injury,” said Chief Justice John Marshall. The laws during this time did not protect Crispin. Some would agree that Crispin should have killed John Aycliffe. and some would disagree. Crispin should have killed John for three reasons, because young Crispin was in danger, cruel John was trying to attack him, and Crispin could save his friend Bear. The first reason that Crispin should have killed John is that Crispin was in danger. Crispin’s mother gave him a cross that meant he was Lord Furnivall’s son this meant he was heir to a throne. Therefore, many people were jealous and did not want him to have power. Because Crispin was accused of stealing, many people were searching for him. Also, John was falsely accusing Crispin of stealing. The second reason that Crispin should have killed John is that John was trying to attack him. Trying to win favor with the queen, John wanted to gain power by annihilating Crispin. In order to keep her status as queen, Lady Furnival asked John to dispose of Crispin. Sinister John desperately wanted to kill Crispin. The third reason that Crispin should have killed John is because he could save his friend Bear. A friend and father figure, Bear was loyal to

Crispin did not have a desire for power or royalty. If Crispin would have killed John, Crispin could have been safe and free thus become king. Crispin desired peace and escape from the cruel towns people. Another reason, Crispin should not have killed John is because the act of killing another person could lead to being punished, therefore, Crispin could have been punished for killing John. Killing is wrong, and probably went against his religious belief. Killing John could lead to being scared with guilt for