Compare And Contrast King Lear And The Lance Of Justice

In Shakespeare's King Lear he argues that those in possession of wealth are invincible to the “lance of justice”. He depicts the poor unable to hide crimes and easily caught while those that are wealthy with status and power can twist justice to be unaffected by it. I agree with Shakespeare's argument that the rich avoid justice while the poor are forced to take the entire punishment. Literature such as “A Young Person’s History of the United States” by Howard Zinn, and “Scarlet Letter” depict those who are wealthy or have the status of one who does to hide crimes and sin with “gold” and “robes and furr’d gowns” in the attempt to hide from justice. In addition history during the Progressive Age depicts the rich avoiding punishment while the poor suffer. In Howard Zinn’s book he goes over the history of the United States and speaks mostly the manipulation of the justice system. Within the book, he speaks of a time during wars where the United States would draft abled men into service. It is a law that
In the story an average woman committed a sin, adultery, with a priest and had a child. Yet, when sentenced to exile with her child the father is not found out. The people seemed to overlook the one man who had contact with her, the priest. The reason he was allowed to stay in his comfortable position while the woman stayed in exile was because he had status and power. That status and power made him invincible to accusations in which no one even thought of him as a suspect. Justice failed to pierce his sin covered in gold, which is why in the end the vengeance of the woman’s husband is what achieved it. His immunity to justice is seen all the way to the end where even when he reveals his scarlet letter people could not make the connection the the sin. While the woman lived alone in exile he lived in the city, the difference being the status of the