In The Cask of Amontillado Edgar Allen Poe uses symbolism, humor, and Essay

In The Cask of Amontillado Edgar Allen Poe uses symbolism, humor, and irony to develop his theme of how Fortunato's foolishness costed him his life - Essay Example Though originally used as a mere instrument by which the story could take off, it takes on a life of its own as it symbolizes the perceived wealth and success in life of its owner. It is a symbol that Fortunato refuses to believes exists but then with his curiosity getting the better of him, he embarks down a path which symbolized his ultimate doom. A more important perhaps to the story is the way that Fortunato is dressed as a court jester during the carnival. As everyone knows, a court jester is someone who is the life of the court. He makes people laugh by making fun of other people. This costume symbolizes the very personality of Fortunato, which is the happy-go-lucky type of person who unfortunately, tends to say or do things that he may not realize slights those around him as what happened unknowingly between him and Montresor. The story also makes good use of humor in the statement â€Å"Luchresi doesnt know Amontillado from a Sherry". It would seem that as far as the social circle that Fortunato and Montresor move in, Luchresi fancies himself a wine conneseiur although his actions betray him as a pretender. Hence the laughter and comedic intonation in the dialogue between the friends. However funny the statement is though, it is still considered by Montresor to be an additional slight upon his person since he believes Luchresi to be a man knowledgable about wines and sherrys. Finally, we come to an analysis of the names and settings used by Poe in the story. I would like to begin with the discussion regarding his choice of the name Fortunato for his doomed character. It is truly ironic that the name Fortunato actually means a man blessed with good fortune in life. Fortunato met the exact opposite during his lifetime. Fortunato has only the worst of luck as he died a horrifying and secret death at the hands of the man he considered a trustworthy friend, Montresor. Then we have the irony of the two settings used for the story, the carnival masquerade

The courts decisions over the last thwenty five years or so reveal a Essay

The courts decisions over the last thwenty five years or so reveal a remarkably confusing approach to the purpose of cross-examination under s1(f)(ii)Criminal E - Essay Example gainst the national interest are easy to fathom and understand but lately, especially the last two decades, court decisions that require adjudication of cases in which the good or the bad moral character of the defendant is relevant to the resolution of the facts in issue, had been murky and muddled that students of law are often left befuddled. This is to be expected as the allowance of evidence of the bad or good moral character of the accused is fully in the discretion of the judges.3 Some jurors disallow hearing of evidence of the character of the accused on the pretext that it is irrelevant to the case. According to Elliott, â€Å"evidence is relevant when it has a tendency in reason to establish the probability or improbability of a fact in issue†4 Relevancy or the materiality to the issue of fact raised in the pleadings is extremely important because if evidence is relevant as well as competent, then that evidence is admissible. What is then relevant and thus admissible is therefore, dependent on the juror’s discretion. All that the court has to say after it refuses admittance of evidence is that it does so â€Å"in the interest of justice by virtue of Criminal Justice Act 1988 section 25(1).5 Wigmore’s Axiom of Admissibility which is supposed to facilitate the judges’ exercise of their discretion to allow or disallow admission of evidence as to the good or bad character of the accused merely confuse the judges and everybody else. According to Wigmore, what can be admitted are only facts with rational probative value unless some specific rule clearly forbids its admission. Again the term ‘rational probative value’ is dependent on the interpretation of each judge. The Alfred Altmore Pope Foundation case tersely expresses this dilemma: No precise and universal test of relevancy is furnished by the law but the determination of whether particular evidence is relevant rests largely on the discretion of the court, which must be exercised