Artificial Law

For many years people have been debating these questions about Marry Shelley’s Frankenstein: who is the real monster? Who is to blame? There is a lot of gray area, an unclear line where Victor’s responsibility ends and the monsters begins. In the book, both creatures commit terrible deeds; Victor abandons his unstable invention with no regard to consequences and the monster kills his family out of revenge. In my eyes, these two characters mirror each other very closely in corrupt morals and actions, as discussed in the Doppelganger theory, which I agree with. However, in the topic I am going to be examining we must first look into the issue of artificial intelligence. The definition of the phrase simplified is the ability of a man-made object, usually a computer or machine, to think/learn and make decisions on its own. I think this idea can be applied to Frankenstein’s monster. So, essentially, my main question is: since Frankenstein’s creation is technically artificial intelligence, could it be held criminally responsible for the murders of William, Henry and Elizabeth? In order for a proper crime to occur, there must be two elements present: a wrongful deed (actus reas) and a guilty mind (mens rea). We know that the murders are the wrongful actions, but is the guilty mind the monsters or Victors? An article I found on MIT’s website called “When an AI finally kills someone, who will be responsible?“, analyzes the same question in three scenarios. In this blog I will explain how two of these scenarios could be related to the novel.

From Pixabay

The first scenario is called  “perpetrator via another”. This happens when the offence was committed by an animal or mentally ill person, who would thereby be proclaimed innocent (arXiv). Now, even though the monster is not a human, I don’t think we can classify him as an ‘animal’ in this context. Within a year of observing the De Lacey family he is able to learn and comprehend language, which usually takes a human four to six years to master with daily practice and interaction, something the monster never truly had. As for mentally sound, it’s a bit unclear. We know that the reason he killed was because Victor gave him the motive for revenge after leaving him to deal with the toils of the world alone. We also know that the monster is logical and eloquent, as shown through his narration in chapters 11-16, and his conversations with Victor. He uses complex sentences and rational arguments in a calm manner to deliver his valid points. With this level of intelligence one should assume the creature was also able to understand feelings like empathy and mercy, although with no real reciprocal connections to others, I don’t think he did. Even through having intellectual maturity, his emotional and moral capacities were never able to evolve, leaving him child-like, hyper fixated on revenge, and in my opinion, not mentally sane. Therefore, in this scenario, the guilt would not fall on the monster or Victor.

From Wikimedia

“The second scenario, known as natural probable consequence, occurs when the ordinary actions of an AI system might be used inappropriately to perform a criminal act…The key question here is whether the programmer of the machine knew that this outcome was a probable consequence of its use.”(arXiv). I think this situation falls back on Victor’s significant lack of consideration of the consequences when creating unnatural life. We know that Victor never intended to use his accomplishment for malicious purposes if he was triumphant in creating it. The problem is that Victor could never think past his obsession with seeing if he could be successful in fathering life. In the many months he spent researching and executing his plan, I can’t understand how he never stopped and thought ‘hm, what’s gonna happen if this actually works?”. Nevertheless, he didn’t, and now we’re left to infer that Victor had no knowledge that this could have been the outcome of his invention. So, again Victor is not to blame for the murders. Then who is? In my opinion, when we try to break it down into one or the other like we want to, we can never get an answer that can satisfy everybody. There is always a different lens to look through, an alternative angle to consider. This is why my final answer is: both or neither. The two protagonists are two sides on the same coin, one would not exist without the other molding them into what they become. Victor built a being out of nothing, and the creature broke a man into a mouse, both breaking natural laws and possessing too much power for a happy ending to ever be an option.


arXiv, Emerging Technology from the. “When an AI Finally Kills Someone, Who Will Be Responsible?”.  MIT                             Technology Review. MIT Technology Review, 12 Mar. 2018. Accessed 13 May 2019.                                                   


Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Douglas Clegg. Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus. Penguin, 2013.




Of Monsters and Raccoons

What would a perfect world en-tale? Imaginatively, I’m a woman living in Italy, standing on a balcony during golden hour, gazing at the ocean, eating peaches while the breeze gently blows my dress around my ankles, the planet is no longer dying and social equality has finally been achieved in all nations. Realistically, of course, this could never happen due to a number of reasons, the main one being that the only people capable of saving the human race from our epic demise via plastic and apocalyptic natural disasters are (not completely exclusively) old, rich, white men on top of the capitalist pyramid, hoarding all the worlds money and hope like a bunch of raccoons guarding their trash feast from a Taco Bell dumpster. Now, you may be asking yourself, does this inane rant about our current dumpster fire of an economic and political system have anything to do with Mary Shelley’s, Frankenstein? In this blog I’m going to be analyzing the theory developed by Karl Marx and  Friedrich Engels, Marxism, and how it can be applied to the story, primarily through our thick-headed, narcissistic protagonist Victor Frankenstein and his increasingly disregardful and dehumanizing relationship he has with his creature.

From Flickr

The theory outlines the differences between the social classes as the bourgeoisie (the rich raccoons) exploiting the working class (the proletariat). In order to achieve sweet, sweet social justice the lower class must, in some form, overthrow the bad and boujee’s through revolutions and/or riots, which I’m eagerly anticipating to see in the final chapters of the novel. It’s easy to designate these roles onto our characters; the creature being the oppressed and Frankenstien being the well-dressed. From the very start of their interactions, Victor has treated his creation with the hostility of a thousand, self-entitled, burning suns: “I had worked hard for nearly two years… but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart.” (Shelley 58-59). The power imbalance is extremely evident, we go from Victor happily playing God and holding power over his monster, to the immediate scorn and ridicule. Then, the monster is abandoned by his sole potential point of human connection and kindness, and cast away from any attempted communication with other people when he goes soul-searching through the Swiss highlands. Meanwhile, our poor, helpless, vulnerable Victor is busy having his privileged man-tears moped up by his friend Henry ( which is another, less extreme example of class imbalance within the novel), and finally going home to his family.

From Flickr

Speaking of family, let’s talk about Victor’s. He grew up in a rich household, this advantage undoubtedly shaped his worldview by making him gaze down upon it instead of seeing others as equals: “My family is one of the most distinguished of [Geneva]… and my father had filled several public situations with honour and reputation. He was respected by all who knew him, for his integrity and indefatigable attention to public business” (40).  Due to his privileged family, Victor’s ego becomes bigger than the holes in the courts evidence against Justine (rest in pieces), which causes his attitudes towards his “vile insect” to be incredibly oppressive, much like how the bourgeoisie are to the proletariat (104). For the rest of their interactions, Victor offers no chance of a redemption arc for the creature in his eyes; he makes it very clear that his disgusting excuse of an astronomical scientific breakthrough will never be his equal. Hopefully, the conclusion to the two’s explosive dynamic ends with the creature overpowering Frankenstein to complete the theory, I know I will find it tremendously satisfying to live vicariously through the monsters victory.


Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Douglas Clegg. Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus. Penguin, 2013

R. vs Mortiz

There are many things in our modern world to be thankful for (if even  certain circumstances could make one think otherwise), such as quick internet, indoor plumbing and ready-to-cook meals. As well as more advanced infrastructures like medicine, technology, and law. Compare these themes back to when Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein and you’ll understand my point of being grateful. However, in this blog specifically I am going to be discussing the evolution of law, and how the trial of Justine Mortiz would have played out according to the current Canadian Justice System.

Obviously, the biggest difference’s between the two law systems exist in the forms of developing in separate continents and centuries. With the development of technology brings the biggest impact on criminal justice and court room proceedings. Things like DNA testing, forensic investigations, and security cameras now play major roles in crimes. Along with an exponentially better understanding about human biology, now autopsy’s can be done in order to positively identify the cause of death in a victim. All these things have been incorporated into contemporary crime investigations in order to satisfy our modern philosophies about crime: every person is perceived innocent until proven guilty, therefore, cold hard proof is needed in order to successfully penalize the guilty and keep the innocent safe. Of course there are many other steps of a trial that need to be explored, like the defendants, in this case is Justine’s, alibi, witness testimonies, determining the category of homicide and its respective punishment (luckily along with the evolution of human knowledge came the betterment of human decency cough cough capital punishment cough).                                                                                                                                                                                             

From Wikimedia

Let’s talk about  how Justine’s trial played out. From what we can conquer from the story, Justine was accused as the murderer due to the jewel that was found on her person after the murder occurred that was previously on the body of the deceased. The causation of Williams death is determined to be strangulation due to fingerprint bruises on his neck. The Frankenstein family testified as witnesses and spoke very highly of Justine, plus Justine had an alibi that could have been proven by several people, including Elizabeth, (the person who seemed to be most distraught by Williams death). In just one day Justine was charged as guilty and sentenced to death, the punishment for more than 200 different crimes at this time. Now, to the best of my abilities and extent of my knowledge, I will translate these circumstances into how they would be handled and investigated today.

Aforementioned, proof is what would be needed in order to either convict or clear Justine of committing homicide. For the sake of discussion, let’s pretend we want to prove her innocence. Starting with the cause of death, the body would be taken to a coroner to have an autopsy preformed it to exclude if there could be another cause. If it turns out to be strangulation, we could deduce whether the strangler was Justine by having her compare her hands to the marks on Williams neck to see if they lined up. Forensic scientists could examine the body and surrounding area for DNA samples for evidence that proves Justine was at the scene where the body was discovered. Since it was said that prior to the killing, Justine was sick and bedridden it wouldn’t make sense for her, say hair, to be on Williams clothes if she had not been near him or doing his laundry. Next, the alibi issue. This could be easy enough to prove, just get Justine’s aunt whom she visited and owner of the shed where she stayed the night, maybe even someone who had seen entering the Geneva gates in the morning to testify that she was not present in the Painpalais on the eve of the murder. Even Elizabeth had known that Justine was out at the time, and surely the jury would be have to believe that if the beloved cousin of the deceased was defending the accused, surely she must be innocent?

From Google images

On the other side of the coin, the mens rea of the crime must be proven. Mens rea is the mental knowledge or intent to commit a crime. The actus reas is the physical action which occurred, which is what the forensics and witnesses are trying to prove. Both elements must be proven in this crime. In this case we would investigate the motive. What was Justines reason for killing her friend? Was it for the acquirement of the jewel? If it was, why not just steal it in the night, and not go through the trouble of a possible murder trial? Why would she want to steal the jewel? To sell it? The family spoke very highly of Justine, and her of them, she did not truly need the money if they were treating her kindly. How could she betray their trust like this? Also, is this twelve year old child truly capable of murder? With all these questions and leads that would have to be pursued, the trial would take much longer than a day to complete successfully. Lastly, as far as punishment goes, the penalty for first and second degree murder is life imprisonment (25 years). This allows for the opportunity of new evidence to be found and the trial could be taken up again. If this happened back then, well, the whole ‘march to the gallows’ shtick would be a bit of a road block wouldn’t it? Fortunately, we’ve left these barbaric punishment practices in the past, and we should all appreciate our modern law methods, even if they sometimes seem restrictive and harsh.



White, Matthew. “Crime and Punishment in Georgian Britain.” The British Library, The British Library, 22 Apr. 2015,                                                             britain/articles/crime-and-punishment-in-georgian-britain.