Trifles Justice and Judgment Quotes

This is the first set of lines that shows us a split between the world of women and the world of the law. More than that, it's showing us that in this play the world of the law is the world of men. Silly "woman stuff" like cherry preserves isn't nearly as important as the all-powerful male dominated law. What do you think? Are the men right to think Mrs. Wright is being ridiculous? Or are they being insensitive jerks?

Here we see the line in the sand between these two ladies. Mrs. Hale is already raring to defend Mrs. Wright from male law enforcers. But, at this point, Mrs. Peters is still pretty much on the side of the law. Where do you think most of the audience is at this point in the play? Whose side are we on? Does it change?

We get some juicy irony in this line. All through the play, men and their laws are equated with cold rationality. So it's ironic that in order to convict Mrs. Wright the men have to find evidence of sudden, irrational anger. Since the men are almost crippled with a Spock-like dedication to logic, they're pretty much the worst possible people to solve this crime.

Again we see Mrs. Peters standing up for the logic of the law, and Mrs. Hale going after it with a sledgehammer. It's hard to miss that in this little interchange Mrs. Hale's criticism is downright irrational. So what? The law shouldn't search murder scenes in people's houses because it's not nice to snoop? A little weak, Mrs. Hale. It's cool, though. The fact that some of Mrs. Hale's arguments are a wee bit flimsy ultimately makes her a more complex character and this a more complex play.

Notice the pattern here? Mrs. Hale says something about how the men are jerks and Mrs. Peters makes excuses about how what the menfolk are doing is really important… and stuff. Over and over the play reminds us that the women are separate from the world of law.

Before she takes another jab at John Wright, Mrs. Hale actually gives us some of his good qualities. Check how everything that was good about him is somehow equated this male-dominated world of law. He pays his debts, didn't lie, and didn't get hammered on Saturday night. On paper, he was a stand-up guy. However, as a human being, he was a insensitive monster, who made his wife's life miserable for years.

Oh, snap. Things are getting real. This is the first time Mrs. Hale steps over the line and protects Mrs. Wright's secret. Mrs. Peters have found the dead bird and put the whole murder mystery together. We've already heard them talk about the fact that Mrs. Wright didn't have a cat, so we know Mrs. Hale is lying. What do you think? Has Mrs. Hale already committed a crime in the eyes of the law? Or is this the last step before she jumps over the edge?

For the County Attorney, the investigation is a logical, step-by-step process. So since he's the head representative of law in the play, we figure it's pretty safe to assume that this is how the law itself in viewed. It's cold and logical, and it doesn't take into account people's emotions. The play hits us over the head with the fact that this makes the play's law enforcers really bad at their job. They need to think outside of the box a little and dig into the emotional life of this household to crack this case.

Mrs. Peters has come a long way as a character for a short little play. Even though she's been the one sticking up for the law the whole time, she's the one who make the first move to get rid of the evidence.

So here we are: the thrilling conclusion. Instead of turning over the evidence to the authorities, our super sleuths hide it in hopes that the murderer will go free. In the eyes of the male-dominated law, this is a crime called obstructing justice. But in the eyes of the ladies, Mrs. Wright was justified because of the years of emotional abuse, which, of course, represents the way male-dominated society abuses and neglects all women. It opens up a lot of big questions, right? If women aren't allowed to take part in making the laws, why should they have to abide by them? If they aren't allowed to participate it society, are they wrong to create their own morality based on what they think is right?