part 5 and 6

Part 5 and 6 
         This story leaves me with nothing but the question, did George have the right to kill Lennie? I am turned more towards the no side because George new that Lennie wasn't always making the best decisions butt he didn't did not know. George killing Lennie is equivalent to punishing an infant. For instance if an infant broke a lamp or tipped over a chair and broke it, would you through it out in the cold? No. 
         I made this connection because Lennie didn't quite understand the harm he was making. Like earlier in the story when he hurt Curley, he did not fully understand the strength he actually had. Also the only reason I would be leaning towards the "right side" would be because in ythe end two people died and the second time was ajust a punishment for what Lennie had done. 
            In conclusion I think that I am more on the "George should not have done that side" because the solution to the problem should most deffinetly not have been to kill Lennie because he didn't even understand what he had done in the first place.