Hattix t1_j919uwk wrote on February 18, 2023 at 1:49 PM

Allowing the act of escape at all is negligence. Dr. Frankenstein cannot argue that he was negligent before he was negligent, it makes no sense. He should instead argue that a reasonable person could not have foreseen the consequences of the monster escaping, thereby placing agency onto the monster itself. If your cat escapes and somehow sets into motion a chain of events resulting in an old lady being hit by a bus, you are not liable for that. The monster, being an unknown quality, could not be predicted in advance and a reasonable person would not assume it would turn murderous.
The monster is deeply philosophical and intelligent. This gives it its own agency. Given it is an intelligent being, it is the one which should be on trial. It should argue diminished responsibility, given the abuse it suffered in captivity. Frankenstein would do well to argue the monster's intelligence and education means it is a legal person of its own accord.
Frankenstein was clearly in possession of his faculties. He could argue he was in a manic state of bipolar II, but his best chances are to argue the monster was intelligent enough to know right from wrong. He may have created the weapon, but he did not use it.