Lord of the Flies is a famous novel written by William Golding that tells a horrific story of what would happen if a group of boys were left on a island. The question presented is if one of the boy’s leaders Jack, was put on trial upon his return home would he be convicted of crimes against humanity. The government would charge Jack because his actions throughout the novel were homicidal and pure evil. The definition of crime is an action that is considered to be evil, shameful or wrong. He was a leader that thought of leading his faction by fear because he believed that he was the only one qualified to have power. Jack had most of the inhumane qualities throughout his leadership compared to all the boys. His main focus was hunting for food…show more content… Anything that does not use humane qualities would be a crime against humanity. Therefore Jack’s actions in killing, torturing and slaughtering the pig would be inhumane therefore a crime of torture. Even more so when the same act was committed against Simon (another young boy stranded on the island). Jack could be qualified as someone who was sleep and food deprived, but if you look at the facts he was a sociopath from the beginning. One would argue that he is not because of his certain actions that made him like a young scared child only trying to impress the others. Like for example “His voice trailed off. The hands that held the conch shook. He cleared his throat, and spoke loudly (pg 139). The humiliating tears were running from the corner of each eye (pg 140).” He for rare moment’s possessing qualities that make him childish and humane again, but he always conquers those with anger and…show more content… When in fact he does he has full awareness of his actions for example; He throws a spear at Ralph with "full intention” trying to kill him, and then sends the rest of his clan after him to finish the job. He is aware of all his actions and escalates when he sees the he finds new power with ruling by fear.
Jack’s charge would be guilty, or should be at least. With the probable argument of him being a minor and going through the stages of insanity left on an island with nothing, the ruling would probably prove to be not guilty. Just because the court would not know of his personality before leaving for the island plane. If they knew him beforehand the court ruling would be very different. Jacks traits did escalate with the absence of regular society but should not of escalated to that
