audius did hold in Denmark. How then, if Hamlet killed Claudius is it possible that Hamlet could be able to explain a murder ofsuch huge proportions, as that of the State's King? There is a definite danger in attempting toconvince people that their King, a man of such divine rank, is anything less than that. The onlycharacter in Hamlet that did such a thing was Laertes. Furthermore, this incident only took place as aresult of mistaken identity; an assumption that Polonius died at the hands of Claudius, when in reality,Hamlet was responsible. This is an audience's first indication that Hamlet is a man of action. It washowever, revealed that Claudius was in no way responsible for the death of Laertes' father, andconsequently, allowing Laertes and Claudius to conspire against Hamlet.One area of considerable significance in the delay of Claudius' condemnation is the burden of proof.Surprisingly, this concept of "needing evidence" existed in its earliest form through Shakespeare'sHamlet. In today's society, charges of the murderous sort are somewhat protected by the principlethat all people are innocent until proven guilty. In Shakespeare's time however, it is interesting tonote that someone like Hamlet exercised this ideal, seemingly a victim to the crime himself, and to theElizabethan era in which this crime is evident.Brilliantly, Hamlet plans out an opportunity for Claudius to indicate some guilt, therefore allowing hisconscience to freely carry out the murder of Claudius."Well, my lord.If he steal aught the whilst this play is playing,And 'scape detecting, I will pay the theft. (Horatio Act III sc.ii)As the plot rises in action, Hamlet discovers enough through the play within Hamlet, known as TheMousetrap...
