A strong case the prosecuting lawyer makes is with the way he talks about Meursault’s previous days prior to the event. This doesn't have anything to do with the crime. It has more to do on trying to figure out the person he is. One by one people are called up to speak on behalf of Meursault. This is where the examination of the crime shifts to a condemnation of Meursault’s strangeness. The prosecutor definitely takes advantage of all of Meursault’s weird behaviors such as him being totally apathetic throughout the funeral of his mother, how he offered a smoke to the guy, how he slept through parts of it, and how he didn't even know how old his mother was.
“He said the truth was that I didn't have a soul and that nothing human, not one of the moral principles that govern men’s hearts, was within my reach… we find [emptiness] in this man, an abyss threatening to swallow up society.”
At the beach, after the fight, Meursault is walking on the beach and, once again, is complaining about the heat. The reflection of the Arab’s knife reflected the sun into Meursault’s face and it sets him off. He shoots him. Then, Meursault shot the man four more times after that. When he did it he said, “it was like knocking four times on the door of happiness.”
I think if he hadn’t shot him four more times the verdict would have been very unjust. However, because he said this and showed no remorse or tried to defend himself, the verdict is a little more just in that sense. I don't think he should have been sentenced to the guillotine simply because killing someone for killing someone else doesn't seem very productive. Particularly in Meursault’s case as he says we are all going to meet death anyway. But also, I am not really sure what would really deem someone worthy of a fate like the guillotine.
One of the most inconceivable things about Meursault was that, he did not look to the Lord for help throughout the trail. He didn't believe in God at all and constantly refused to see the Father and when he was forced to, he called him “monsieur” instead. The court uses everything peculiar thing about him against him, to portray such a “horrible man.” I think it focuses more on his strange personality as opposed to staying on the topic of the death of the Arab. I think it is fairly normal to dissect the criminal to establish the type of person they are. This is evident when they twist Marie’s words in order to highlight Meursault as different.
Overall, the prosecutor most appeals his argument effectively to the jury through ethos and pathos. He then wraps it up by offering a plausible scenario of what happened.
“I had agreed with Raymond to write the letter in order to lure his mistress and submit her to mistreatment… Raymond had been wounded. I had asked him to give me his gun. I had gone back alone, intending to use it. I had shot the Arab as I had planned… to make sure I had done the job right, I fired four more shots, calmly.”
It’s pretty convincing.
It would have been worse if he had said what actually made him kill him as that would make him more evil. He also didn't do anything to defend himself.
In the setting and society of this story, I don't believe someone like Meursault could ever have a fair trial.
Everyone deemed him very strange and was even referenced as “Monsieur Antichrist” by the magistrate. Meursault has no faith, empathy, nor any pleasing traits that could have put any doubt in the jury’s mind. Like the question poses, he is so at odds with society’s conventions and morals. By the time Marie, Salamano, and, more importantly, Raymond have something positive to share, no one really takes them into consideration as they already know what they believe. After all that they have heard, they can no longer accept that everything was merely happenstance. Because ridiculous, right? I think the jury was too bias and prejudice to have been able to offer him a fair trial. There are always going prejudices and biases, though. But at least in this decade, jurors wouldn't have really gone to that great of an extent of branding him inhuman for refusing to believe in God nor meet with the chaplain. No one can seem to get past the fact that he is apathetic to these events. Helen Keller referred apathy as one of the greatest evils in humans. I think that is why Meursault is seen as this monster, as the people in this jury have that same belief.
“Not once during the preliminaries hearings did this man show emotion over his heinous offense.”
Even when they read how he is being sentenced to the guillotine, they ask him if he has anything to say and he says, “no.”
“He reminded the court of of my insensitivity; of my ignorance when asked Maman’s age; of my swim the next day; of the Fernandel movie; and finally of my taking Marie home with me… He said the truth was that I didn't have a soul and that nothing human, not one of the moral principles that govern men’s hearts, was within my reach… we find [emptiness] in this man, an abyss threatening to swallow up society.”
More than anything I don't think he really deserves much of a fair trial as he didn't have to shoot someone 5 times.
There is a clear distinction. The people of the jury no longer see him as one of him but as a heinous monster. People can’t sympathize him even one bit.
Perhaps this is too different of a comparison but I started to think about how the Boston Marathon Bomber was not just a horrible person for his actions but also because during his trial he was totally indifferent. He barely spoke. Granted there was not much he could say to defend himself. More than anything everyone kept saying he didn’t even show any remorse. (So showing no remorse/being empathetic is still seen as inhumane). What I remember the most is just hearing how above all Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was an apathetic and sociopathic terrorist. People won’t/didn't care about how he used to be loved by his teachers, classmates, friends, and family, etc, but instead his name will forever make people think of pure, heartless evil. (It really stuck to me so that is why I bring it up and it was all we wrote about in General Paper for a month). It was crazy how he didn't seem to care as his fate was being decided right in front of him. He had to listen to all those victims talk about how they will forever have some sort of reminder of this tragedy (due to loss of limb or family member). Yet the whole time he was impassive and showed no remorse according to everyone. I couldn't fathom how he couldn’t feel the least bit sorry for his actions after hearing all of these testimonies. I don't know why it is that empathy is seen as a universal
This jury consisted of strangers. None of these people truly knew nor understood entirely what Meursault is about. Of all the people that spoke about Meursault, Raymond seems to do him some justice but it’s incredibly too late by the time he speaks. No one really believes him. I think it was all in the way other people talked about the way they seen Meursault. I think a major fact is about perspective. They met him at the worst time ever.
“I blame myself every time for not having paid enough attention to accounts of executions. A man should always take an interest in those things.”
“with the guillotine was the fact that you had no chance at all, none.”
“I remember feeling a little disgusted by him at the time.”
“The thought of being the spectator who comes to watch and then can go and throw up afterwards, a wave of poisoned joy rose in my throat.”
The only two things that are certain in life is that you are born and somewhere along the way you die. The thing is you don't know when. Or how. Or why. Unless it gets determined by a jury. This is it for Meursault. He is going to be beheaded and he wants a huge crowd for it. I think he thinks there is this kind of rush, and a possible enjoyment, that people get from this experience. They're also lucky to realize that they're not in that position. Meursault says how they at least have a better chance of escaping the guillotine (but still dying nonetheless). I think he wants a huge crowd at his execution so they can feel that feeling. The more people that go, the more they will never forget it. It will stay with them forever. I also think it is a little sick to have such a bold (i guess) desire. He also might have said this as he wants to distract himself and “make the best of the limited time he has left.” it’s a crazy thing to fantasize. I think with how strange he was, it will surely make headlines for various newspapers and it will gather the attention of many people who will want to go see his public execution.
It is weird because his father went to one and then threw up after it. And now that is the fate his son has been given. It’s not any better. Young Meursault was disgusted his father went to one but now he is going to be up there, possibly making some disgusted for watching one and making others throw up.
The chaplain seriously can't believe how Meursault doesn't look to the lord for forgiveness or help. He said everyone in his place, whether they were religious or not before, they always looked to the lord. Meursault said he won’t call him Father because he isn’t his father. This shows disrespect to religious people and it also shows that Meursault doesn't understand and or know about how/why you refer to him as Father. He never bothered with religion which was not very common during these times. Meursault says, “I may not have been sure about what really did interest me, but I was absolutely sure about what didn't.” and he literally doesn't have time to waste on things that don't interest him. The more the Father talks to him, the more annoyed Meursault was. He keeps saying how it is all the same. We are all going to die. He refuses to embrace the Father. I think when he is yelling at the Priest it isn’t entirely about just not believing in religion but he is just letting up all his pent up anger he has been holding back for years. He finally has released all that frustration out. So in way religion did help him.
“The utter pointlessness of whatever I was doing there seized me by the throat…”
Existential thinking is about the universe being unfathomable; individuals must assume responsibility without knowing what is right or wrong.
Meursault is the epitome of this discussion. He says “there’s people worse off than me.” so there is no point to worry or feel regret for his actions or feel pity for himself. Meursault constantly invalidates his feelings as he is so quick to accept his fate. He doesn't fight it at all in the trial.
The scene with the priest is also relates to existential thinking. Meursault questions the purpose of faith, sin, and death. Ultimately saying that death is inevitable. So why does it all matter? Why make a big deal of one person's death when millions of others did/will too. “Deep down I knew perfectly well that it doesn't matter if you die at thirty or at seventy since in either case other men and women will naturally go on living… in fact nothing could be more clearer.” “only the words yesterday and tomorrow still had any meaning for me.” This shows more of how time is just an illusion. People are the only ones that think in time. We made up the dates and decided to choose a calendar. We are always stuck in the present, so can time really exist?? Meursault is probably on this train of thought more than he ever has before because his time is running out. He is in jail and is trying to make light of his fate.
Raw is the first thing that pops into my head. Great poetry is always raw. It makes you feel things. A great poem will elicit all sorts of emotions as you read and analyze it. It should spur a connection with you.
