Why did the Jury Kill Meursault?

Family Guy" Brian Goes Back to College (TV Episode 2005) - IMDb 

    The trail of Meursault focuses entirely on his character; rather than on the events of his murder of the Arab man. The justice system, as portrayed in The Stranger, is heavily biased towards those higher up in society. If anyone else other than Meursault committed the same murder, if anyone else is capable of committing the same crime, they would have been able to easily escape justice. All Meursault had to say was it was self defense. You have to do is have someone from the apartment complex say something about Raymond's dispute with Arab men and Raymond to show his cut from the knife.

    However Meursault admits to his crime in full. This deeply disturbs the Magistrate as normally someone who confesses to a crime is remorseful. But not only is Meursault not remorseful but he cannot he produce a motive. This is why I believe the Magistrate fixates on the extra shots. If this was some cold-blooded hit there would be no reason to shoot multiple times. And it can't be moment of anger because Meursault doesn't even know the man he shot. The Stranger represents Arab people as a monolith; not one of them has a name or is an individual despite them making up a majority of the population. It's not just Meursault that doesn't view the Arabs as individuals, but the entire society, justice system included does.

    The jury is now faced with the decision of what to do with a man who defies all their beliefs on what a member of society should look like. Meursault doesn't share any identity with the jurors. If Meursault said he was religious the court would be able to pin some sort of morality system onto him. But Meursault isn't understandable; not even to the reader who is aware of his every thought. I like the comment someone made in class of how Meursault doesn't have ill-intentions but he has no-intentions. No-one in the court room is prepared for this, and so I believe they choose to execute Meursault not out of an "eye for an eye" philosophy but because they are afraid of him. This fear is also what drives the reporters to Meursault's case.

Comments

  1. This will sound bad, but here me out. It's one thing to kill people because you have some motivation against them (they owe you a lot of money, they attacked you, etc.) or even because there's something wrong with you mentally, but it's a completely different story if there's no premeditation or motivation. I can kind of understand the jury's decision. Good post.

    ReplyDelete
  2. No intentions as opposed to ill intentions ... I like that. I like that a lot. That's the whole thing that makes him indecipherable. He does things seemingly with no cause, and when it's as big as killing a man, it's impossible to figure out why he did it. That's probably a fair reason to be killed, at least by the standards of the time.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I definitely agree that the court sentenced Meurault to death out of fear. Not because he's a murderer, but because his existence threatens everything that gives their life meaning, like religion and morality. Him dying without showing any remorse leaves them without answers, and that's scary to them. Great post!

    ReplyDelete
  4. You really nail the confusion of the examining magistrate in a way I haven't seen before: Meursault is all too willing to *confess* to his crime (or to his actions, which he doesn't quite seem to view as fully "criminal"), and this is confusing to the magistrate specifically *because* we typically associate "confession" with related ideas like remorse, regret, a desire for redemption. This helps explain why he gets so worked up about his crucifix and why he's so upset that Meursault is making HIS beliefs "meaningless" somehow. It's specifically that this idea of a "confession" withoiut any sense of guilt or remorse makes no sense to him. If Meursault were offering a defense, or excuses, or extenuating circumstances, those arguments would at least be comprehensible. They truly can't comprehend a confession that is simply matter-of-fact and honest, without any apparent aim of saving himself or presenting himself as not guilty.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts