Ok, I am writing a research paper using the Argument that Friar
Laurence (from Romeo and Juliet) is not guilty of any wrong doing. Let
me Explain myself, yes he married the two of them in secrecy this
could be viewed as wrong, but he did so to end the war between the two
house-holds. There was no way to know that Tybalt would kill romeo's
best friend later on that day and no way to know that romeo would kill
tybalt. The friar did what he thought was right in the situation.
Another example I'm using was that he gave Juliet the potion to fake
her death for three days. at the same time he wrote a letter to romeo
telling him not to worry because Juliet wasn't really dead. The letter
ends up not reaching romeo intime because fate/the plague happened to
slow its deivery, Romeo's friend also did the unexpected and ran to
the place that romeo was banashed and told him that juliet was dead.
these are all things that were out of the hands of the good intending
friar. So Romeo dies and then Juliet dies and every one throuout
history wrongly blaims the friar.
So that is my research paper but my teacher just told me that I need
more sources and possibly an example in the more recient modern years
of a person whose innocence of a wrong doing was proven by the fact
that the deeds that they did were meant to be good and honest and they
couldn't have known how other people might react or how that would
effect the outcome.
Thanks, Adam

---

Clarification of Question by boattaxi-ga on 25 Nov 2005 08:24 PST

is there a record in recient history where a man or woman thought they
were doing the right thing to help one or more people, but this good
deed blew up in their face because of circumstances that they couldn't
have planned for?

I think you're on shaky ground. Many people who commit wrongful acts
think they are doing the right thing. Unless a person is criminally
insane, belief that one is doing the right thing isn't a very useful
defense in a court of law. To choose an extreme example, Adolf Hitler
thought he was doing the right thing.

this would be an example: a guy doesnt know that the train bridge is
being fixed, so he goes to work and thinks he is doing the right thing
by raising and lowering the bridge. what he didn't know and couldn't
have known is that the train's were running ten minnutes late or early
because a  person robbed the train and was in the train conductor
booth driving the runaway train. The bridge guy raises the bridge five
minutes earlier than is required in the manual because he is a great
worked and is trying to be the best bridge raiser in the world, if he
wasn't so "above and beyond super worker" than the bridge would have
still been down for the hostage train and no body on the train would
have been killed. as it is some people are placing the blame on this
poor guy for him doing something that he thought was right and some
people say "look it was chance that this guy, the above and beyond
five minutes early guy happened to be working the same shift that a
train was hijacked, sure if he hadn't been five minnutes earlythan the
train wouldn't have died but there is no one to blame except the train
robbers"

Boattaxi,
I am sympathetic to your R&J argument about Friar Laurence, but much
less to that in your comment.
My feeling is that Frair L's role is part of the complete tragedy:
even his well-meaning actions, each of which seems to support and
protect R&J, also go awry, most tragically. As in a classical tragedy 
- think of Oedipus -  despite everything done to avoid the tragic end,
the inevitable finally occurs; even the well-meaning persons share
responsiblity for the unavoidable.  No one is left untouched; the
drama is heightened by the hope that a way out has been found, but
this is only a fleeting moment, increasing the emotional impact when
the audience recognizes that the plan to save R&J is inexorably
involved in their tragic end.
Friar L is not "guilty"; in a classical tragedy, no one is guilty;
they do what they cannot avoid doing.

Well, that is my quick interpretation, and I am no expert, and maybe
my interpretation does not support yours, and maybe these websites
don't either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy
http://www.answers.com/topic/tragedy

Good luck, Myoarin

OH, I got carried away and forgot the question in your last paragraph:
a modern example.
Some people won't like this example, and if you or your teacher don't,
then it is  no good, but a lot of people in Europe would accept it: 
Pres. Bush and the Iraq war.  Many see it as Bush jr.'s trying to
complete his father's effort there, a well-meant attempt to eliminate
a despot and to allow democracy to prevail: all "good and honest and
they couldn't have known how other people might react or how that
would effect the outcome."
The outcome is, of course, still open, but with a glance at Vietnam
and the Russians' engagement in Afghanistan, a tragic outcome cannot
be ruled out.   Include 9/11 as a tragic (very) incident  - like
Tybalt's killing Mercutio.

Well, you don't have to accept it, but I think a good dramatist could
make a convincing tragedy of the story.

Regards, Myoarin

I think instead of going after a political angle I'm more looking for
an example in recient history of a specific person who was standing
trial in an american court. The similarities don't have to be exact
but it would be conveniant if the person on trial would have been
aquitted.
Adam

Fair enough:  what about "whistle-blowers" in corporate or government
organizations?  They all felt themselves "to be good and honest
...."(perhaps spiteful, too).
I cannot think of any specific examples, but a Google search gets
almost 4 million hits.  You would have to refine the search to
eliminate many sites of a general nature.
I expect that there are individual examples that end almost any way
you want, from final vindification and reinstatement/rehabilitation to
ones who not only lose their job but also their case and end as
defeated, broken persons.

I like this better, myself.
Good luck, Myoarin

I've always felt that the point about Friar Laurence is that he is an
example of how anyone's best intentions can go horribly wrong - it's
not a matter of real guilt or responsibilty, but rather the guilt that
goes with not having seen "the big picture".


That's why Shakespeare writes in the extra priest who fails to get the
message through to Romwo - sheer chance plays a part in the tragedy.

And it's not marrying them that's the problem - it's the cover-up afterwards.

No-one is truly innocewnt or guilty of the tragedy.