english essy

Topic 1 should be treated. Below is a sample.

This is a well written, sample student essay written on topic 1. The essay creates an interesting and debatable argument for why Mrs. Peters and Hale should be found not guilty. While the essay is strong, it does have one weakness in that it is missing some analysis as to the women’s individual motives for hiding the bird and helping Minnie. Remember that topic 1 asks you to do both, argue for the women’s guilt or innocence and also analyze their motivations. Essay 1 In the play “Trifles” written by Susan Glaspell in 1916, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters hid a dead bird found at the crime scene. As a juror deliberating the guilt or innocence of these ladies for tampering with evidence, I confidently advocate and argue their innocence. They are indeed guilty of hiding a dead bird, but did they actually tamper with “evidence”? Mirriam-Webster defines evidence as something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter. The bird would in all probability, have been included in the list of other “trifles” and deemed as insignificant rather than as evidence by the people with the authority to legally submit it as evidence, the sheriff and county attorney. I argue Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters’ innocence of tampering with evidence based on the bird’s lack of recognized validity as evidence. Let’s presume that Mrs. Wright has been found innocent by reason of insanity of the murder of her husband. It is certain that she committed the murder, but true motive has escaped the authorities. The sheriff and county attorney searched the house for a motive. The sheriff has gone over everything himself the day before (5). In the kitchen all they notice are “kitchen things” (9) and how untidy it is. They conclude “there is nothing important there- nothing that would point to any motive” (9). They search the house based on their perception of where motive is likely to be found; the bedroom, and other areas in the house, and outside in the barn. Being males in a male dominated society the kitchen is an area of little significance except for the obvious “women’s work” that should be performed there. In view of their outlook on life and the accepted general mindset concerning women and things pertaining to women, it is very unlikely that the men would have ever found the dead canary wrapped in a silk cloth in a small red box kept in a sewing basket. Tampering with evidence is against the law because of the potential to affect the outcome of an investigation which could affect the verdict. In this case the fact that the women removed the bird did not alter the outcome of the investigation. It would never have been found, first of all and if found, it is highly unlikely that the men would have connected it to the crime and considered it evidence. If it is not evidence, then there is no question of tampering. Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters stand in the kitchen and observe the life of the woman that lives there. They weave the truth based upon their sympathetic understanding of Mrs. Wright’s life and daily plight in light of the surroundings, circumstances, and facts. The dead bird isolated from the understanding that Mrs. Wright was a happy, outgoing, well-dressed woman engaged in the community prior to marriage to Mr. Wright and currently quiet, withdrawn, unhappy, shabbily dressed, lonely and isolated (15) with nothing positive in her life except a singing bird is in and of itself just a dead bird. There is nothing significant about that; birds die. Were the men capable of making the same connection between the death of Mrs. Wright’s bird and the death of her husband that the women made? I think the men would have problems picturing Mr. Wright wringing the neck of a helpless, fragile, little bird. He was considered a “good man who didn’t drink, paid his bills and kept his word as good as most” (23). The women saw this possibility clearly with evidence to support it. When the county attorney saw the cage, he merely saw that it was empty (25). Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Wright saw the cage and based upon their understanding of Mrs. Wright’s living conditions and Mr. Wright’s cold demeanor noted that “one hinge was pulled apart” “as if someone had been rough with it” (21). Without insight into Mrs. Wright’s life and the general perception of Mr. Wright as a good man who pays his bill, thereby being accepted as a good provider to his wife, the men would consider the bird just another “trifle” taking up women’s time and energy rather than evidence. We must keep in mind that Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters have been invited into the Wright home to pick up things on behalf of Mrs. Wright. They have obviously been given access because they are considered women of integrity and in good standing in the community. They are law abiding and God fearing. They are also both typical of the times. They live in a male dominated society expected and accustomed to deferring to their husbands. This accounts for the attitudes and atmosphere as they go about their task of gathering things to help Mrs. Wright through her ordeal. The men are condescending and their remarks seem to cut Mrs. Hale while Mrs. Peters seems unaffected by them. Both women sympathize with Mrs. Wright in her position and role of wife subservient to her husband. Mrs. Peters is “married to the law” (30) and Mrs. Hale keeps a clean farmhouse (11). They are not considered or viewed as threats to the justice process. Their presence or task is not significant enough to be deterrents, influencers, or interference in the process of investigating the crime. In the end, it is determined to be unnecessary to check what they remove from the scene. The men conclude that anything the women decide to remove is insignificant to the case. The women identify the bird as significant and the motive for murder, however their input was not uninvited, would have been unwelcome, and would in all probability have been ridiculed and unaccepted if offered (29). The stamp of “trifle” was applicable to everything they removed. They were guilty of handling trifles, not tampering with evidence. Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters are typical and yet have much in common with Mrs. Wright. Could their husbands ever consider that they share Mrs. Wright’s plight? In view of this, would the men consider Mrs. Wright’s life to be undesirable or unhappy? Would the men see the same implication without the women’s insight into the reality of Mrs. Wright’s life and condition? Could they change their perception of Mr. Wright as a brutal, abusive man capable of killing a fragile, helpless animal and make a connection that amounts to a motive for murder? I believe the men considered Mrs. Wright’s life and the Wright marriage to be the status quo. With this point of view it is very unlikely that they would have ever arrived at the same conclusion as Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters concerning the bird. In conclusion, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters are not guilty of tampering with evidence because the item in question, the bird, would never have been legally submitted by the authorities as evidence to prove Mrs. Wright’s guilt in the murder of her husband or her innocence by reason of insanity.