Charged 1: Involuntary Manslaughter of Juliet of
the House of Capulet
Through analyzing textual evidence, the defendant, Romeo of
the Montague house, is proven not guilty of the charge of
involuntary manslaughter of Juliet of the house of Capulet. In
evidence provided in The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, Romeo
kills himself as a result of Juliet's own previously verified death,
therefore Juliet should be guilty of Romeo's death. Friar
Lawrence provided Juliet the poison, therefore he is guilty of
both their deaths.
Charged 2: Grand Theft, in connection with the
pilfering of dowry
Through analyzing textual evidence, the defendant, Romeo of the
Montague house, is proven not guilty of the charge of grand theft(in
connection with the pilfering of dowry). Romeo did not steal the
dowry, as he gained no financial profit from his marriage. The
families provided nothing for the marriage, as it was unknown to
both, therefore he did not gain any wealth from being wed to Juliet.
Charged 3: Contribution to the Delinquency
of Minors
Defending Romeo the house of Montague
•Romeo should not be accused with manslaughter due to the following
• Mercutio was Romeos BFF
• Juliet realized Romeo was dead and poisons herself
• Juliet stabs herself with a dagger, reasons for her stabbing herself is, she
felt Romeo got tricked into dying, but why did he get the poison
• Paris could possibly be the main reason Why Romeo might be charged
with involuntary manslaughter of Juliet, because Paris was in the middle of
an already relationship with Romeo and Juliet. Paris wanted to marry Juliet,
but Juliet didn’t want to. Juliet goes to the nurse for advice but the nurse
thinks she should marry Paris. Juliet is surprised about the answer of nurse
showing disloyalty. She then goes to Friar Lawrence for advice. Friar
Lawrence gives Juliet a potion to make believe that she’s dead so the
wedding can be cancelled. Overall, the events that lead to the drinking of
Juliet potion could be a main factor of this case.
Counterargument 2&3
Lord Capulet claims that young Romeo stole a marriage dowry from his soonto-be son-in-law; his soon-to-be son-in-law. This does sound a bit contradictory,
does it not? How can any sane human accuse another of stealing an item, when no
such item existed? All those here know that young Juliet and Paris never married.
Lord Capulet admits this himself, for he planned on marrying them. Sadly, right
before the wedding could occur, Juliet faked her death. Such a tragedy too, to think
one’s own daughter had died without having any way of knowing otherwise. But
the court has not convened for sympathetic grievances of the prosecution’s
daughter. No, the court has convened to talk of the innocence of young Romeo
instead of his guilt. For, as said before, how can he have guilt, when no crime
Perhaps the court needs a hypothetical situation to make things clear.
Hypothetically speaking, Lord Capulet left ten thousand dollars and the deed to the
house to Paris when he married Juliet. Well, as the court knows well, they never
married, so that point in Lord Capulet’s argument has a flaw. Also as the court
knows well Juliet married Romeo. Yet, yet when they returned from their wedding
Lo! The dowry remained untouched. Lord Capulet had complete possession of
whatever he could have promised to Paris.
Conclusion Remarks
Romeo should not be prosecuted for something he played no
role in. He was as much of a victim as Juliette.
• There are not solid proof that Romeo did steal the dowry. Even
after they were “married” Romeo gained nothing from the
marriage. The dowry remained the possession of the Capulet
• Romeo can be considered mentally ill and unstable.

similar documents