Murder in The Most Dangerous Game by Richard Connell Essay Example

"There are four kinds of Homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable, and praiseworthy." (Ambrose Bierce). The story The Most Dangerous Game by Richard Connell gives the reader a suspenseful and engaging experience about a sailor whose boat crashes and has to beat a general in a game of cat and mouse with fatal consequences for three days. In the end, the hunter, Sanger Rainsford, ends up winning by killing General Zaroff. There are good arguments for both points of murder and justifiable homicide.

Someone could argue that Rainsford had committed murder by killing Zaroff. By the time Rainsford had killed Zaroff, he had already known that the game was over and that his life was no longer in danger. The text states, "He heard the hounds. Then he leaped far out into the sea. … A man, who had been hiding in the curtains of the bed, was standing there… Rainsford did not smile. 'I am still a beast at bay,' he said, in a low, hoarse voice. `Get ready, General Zaroff.'...' One of us is to furnish the reprise of the hounds. The other will sleep in this excellent bed'... He had never slept in a better bed, Rainsford decided." (Connell 12). After Rainsford had escaped, there was no need for him to go back to the island. He could have escaped and alerted the authorities, but instead, he swam to the other side of the island, went into the house, hid in the curtains, and waited until Zaroff got to his room and killed him. 

While one can argue that Rainsford did murder Zaroff, there can also be a good argument that what Rainsford had done could be considered a justified homicide. Zaroff shows Rainsford how he gets people to the island if they do not get there from a shipwreck. The author wrote, "'They indicate a channel,' he said, 'where there is none; giant rocks with razor edges crouch like a sea monster with wide-open jaws.  They can crush a ship as easily as I crush this nut.' He dropped a walnut on the hardwood floor and brought his heel grinding down on it. 'Oh, yes,' he said, casually, as if in answer to a question, 'I have electricity. We try to be civilized here." Civilized? And you shoot down men?'" (Connell 7). Rainsford shows clear distress when being told this information. Rainsford could have been acting for any potential victims to Zaroff's game when he killed him. He also might not have known if anyone would believe him if he told anyone, so he could have thought killing Zaroff was his only possibility.

In conclusion, multiple pieces of evidence point to the fact that Rainsford could have committed murder or justifiable homicide. Rainsford could have murdered Zaroff because he could have left after he won the game instead of going out of his way to go back to the house to kill him. Alternatively, the reader might assume Rainsford committed justifiable homicide by considering his motives for killing Zaroff, such as stopping Zaroff from being able to make someone else his next potential victim. With this in mind, there are good points to both sides.