English 9, Period 5

Teacher: Dr. Schneider

Student: Eunwoo Shim

Clash in the Courts

Quiet in the courtroom! Quiet! That’s better. Ahem. We have all heard Mr. Richard Connell give his story, “ The Most Dangerous Game.” The two principal characters, Rainsford and Zaroff, hunted two different types of game. Rainsford hunted animals; Zaroff, humans. In the end, Rainsford, after being forced to run for his life, killed the General. So then, what is that? What did Rainsford do, exactly? Was it murder, or self-defense? Or perhaps taking the law into his own hands?

Attorney 1(Prosecuting Attorney): Rainsford deserves to be punished for murder. What General Zaroff did was wrong, I admit. But what right does that give Rainsford? How can he declare himself a one-man jury and decide that Zaroff is worthy of death? If Rainsford can take matters into his own hands and declare who’s worthy of death and who’s not, then there was nothing wrong with the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution.

Attorney 2(Defending Attorney): That’s absurd! That was an entirely different situation! This is the 21 st century, my dear fellow! Rainsford never did take the law into his own hands. What he did was both of two things: self-defense and keeping his honor as a duelist.

Self-defense I say because Zaroff would have killed Rainsford, anyway. How could Rainsford keep quiet about such a man? He would have become equally guilty of murder if he had. So isn’t it only probable—

Attorney 1: Objection, your honor, objection! We are not discussing probabilities that never occurred; we are discussing facts. You don’t know that Zaroff would have killed Rainsford You cannot say probably because probably isn’t certainty .

Attorney 2: Are you saying that Zaroff wouldn’t have killed Rainsford? That he, who had the blood of dozens upon his hands would have allowed one man to go for honor’s sake? That he, living for danger though he may, would rather have armies come marching in to destroy him than break his promise?

Attorney 1: I said that Zaroff killing Rainsford was merely a probability. You don’t know for sure. For all you know, Zaroff might have locked him up and never allowed him to leave. For the last time, we are dealing with facts , not probabilities .

Speaking of facts, here is one: Rainsford himself said that the world was made up of hunters and the hunted. He was a hunter until he came into a situation where he fell from favor and became one of the weak. How can you change a rule in the middle of the game? How can he change it, even when it is being applied to him the other way around?

Attorney 2 (crimson with disbelief): You have no idea what you are saying right now! If that be so, and if, as you argue, the weak can be preyed on by the strong, then we cannot condemn Hitler anymore. There was never anything wrong with the Holocaust, and there will never be anything again in this world because the strong will always be in rule. Slavery was never wrong, wars were and are never wrong, and Hitler’s followers will never be wrong. Is that what you’re saying?

Attorney 1: You’ve twisted my words around! Of course I can’t condone Hitler! And anyway, what does Zaroff killing people have to do with Rainsford being justified? He cannot make himself the law, court, judge, jury, and then the executioner.

Attorney 2: You know, I never got to carry this thought through: there was no murder, only a duel. Rainsford dueled with Zaroff and won, fair and square. Rainsford gave plenty of warning to Zaroff: “Get ready,” he said. And Zaroff agreed: “On guard, Rainsford.” Despite the fact that Rainsford was fatigued and half a nervous wreck, he still won. If anything, Zaroff didn’t play fair.

              Personally, I think Rainsford was right in killing Zaroff. If Rainsford hadn’t killed Zaroff, he would have continued to kill human beings. You can’t have those type of people because they are more than just dangerous; they are deadly. Suppose Zaroff had spread his insanity to other people? The world would have indeed become a terrible place to live. We would have Hitler all over again, except worse this time.

Back to Dr. Schneider's Home Page