In the story "Lamb to the Slaughter," should Mary get away with her crime? Why or why not?

The answer to this question is, of course, a matter of personal opinion.  I will present arguments for each side of the issue and allow you to make up your own mind.

On the one hand, we can argue that Mary Maloney should not get away with killing her husband in “Lamb to the Slaughter.”  Murder is never an acceptable thing to do.  We are allowed to kill in self-defense or in war.  We are...

The answer to this question is, of course, a matter of personal opinion.  I will present arguments for each side of the issue and allow you to make up your own mind.

On the one hand, we can argue that Mary Maloney should not get away with killing her husband in “Lamb to the Slaughter.”  Murder is never an acceptable thing to do.  We are allowed to kill in self-defense or in war.  We are not allowed to kill just because someone provokes us.  When we look at things in this way, there is really no defense for Mary.  She has murdered her husband and should be caught and punished in order for justice to be served.

On the other hand, we can make two arguments in Mary’s favor.  First, we can claim that she was not legally responsible for what she did.  She was in shock and acted automatically, without thinking.  She did not truly mean to kill her husband and therefore should not be punished.  More importantly, we can argue that Mary is not morally culpable.  Mary has been a good wife to her husband.  We see in the story how attentive and solicitous she is towards him even when she is 6 months pregnant.  In return, he is going to leave her while she is pregnant.  Remember also that this story was written in 1953 when women were much more dependent upon husbands than they are now.  He is going to create a situation where it will be hard for her to make her way in life and he is doing so for no apparent reason.  Because of this, he really deserves to die.  She should get away with killing him because he deserves it for what he is doing to her.  (Also, she was so clever in making an alibi that she deserves to go free just for being so inventive.)

Which of these arguments makes more sense to you?