mersault and the failure of the judicial system
We all crave justice. It feels good to see that, at the end of the day, the righteous triumph and the evil fail. But, of course, life is rarely so cleanly cut. The Stranger is the perfect example of this fact. Mersault's killing of the Arab was not in the slightest a crime of passion- he simply felt discomfort from the presence of the Arab's knife reflecting the sunlight. He remarks at one point that "Still, to my mind he overdid it, and I’d have liked to have a chance of explaining to him, in a quite friendly, almost affectionate way, that I have never been able really to regret anything in all my life. I’ve always been far too much absorbed in the present moment, or the immediate future, to think back," a theme that will eventually lead to his ruin. Can a man who only lived in the present be held fully accountable for actions that, for all intents and purposes, was a mistake?
Throughout the book, Meursault makes it clear that he has no hatred or love toward anyone. His relationships with others lack any form of attachment, which is evident in how he interacts with people like Salamano and Raymond. For instance, with Raymond, a man whose nature is apparent to those around him, Meursault remains indifferent. Even while Raymond uses him as a tool for his own gain- such as writing a letter to his mistress- he continues to help and hang out with him. Though the other tenants despise Raymond and consider him dangerous, Meursault doesn’t let their opinions sway his own lack of one, and he forms no moral conclusions about him, or about anyone for that matter. Salamano is much the same- people judge him cruelly for how he treats his dog and shun him because of it. But juxtaposed to Raymond, Salamano reveals a tender side that nobody else in his apartment could ever know, due to shunning Salamano before he ever had the chance to prove himself. This lack of judgment reflects Meursault’s detached approach to human relationships and shows how he floats passively from one person to the next, unanchored by sentiment or expectation. This unique perspective enables him to judge people more objectively than anyone else, unburdened by societal weight.
However, at the trial this view of the world is put against the viewpoint that one "ought to have." During his numerous interviews and between testimonies, the court becomes increasingly frustrated with his apparent lack of motive. The Chaplain goes as far as to call him "the Antichrist" due to this unique worldview. But all of these titles imposed upon him, opinions formed on him are moot. There is no opinion to be had on Mersault but the only objective truth about him- he cares about nothing. And the court is so desperate to punish him that he ends up on the chopping block of the guillotine, staring down his fate. Has the justice system failed him? Does Mersault deserve death for what he did? And is Mersault even a bad person? I think that last question answers the other two and is the most important, and the answer is a resounding no. He is only a "bad person" if you expect out of him what you would expect from the average person. But of course, still today people are not the same. You can't expect the same out of everyone. And I think it serves as a nice anecdote for today's world as well, not just the world of occupied Algeria.
David 11/12
Personally, I wouldn't view Meursault's death sentence as a failure of the justice system. Societal standards exist for good reason- they are sets of behavioral expectations based on common human empathy and courtesy. Meursault fails to display either of these vital characteristics, and it eventually manifests in his cold-blooded murder- an offense that undeniably deserves severe retribution.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Meursalt should not have been sent to death with his main crime being his nature is abhorrent to society.
ReplyDeleteIt seems maybe too obvious to say, but if it weren't for this very specific set of circumstances that result in Meursault standing on that beach holding the gun and enclosing his hand around the trigger, there's no indication that his "strange" way of being in the world would have ever caused problems for anyone. Once he commits a crime, his whole life is judged. But before he commits the crime, we get a perhaps jarring sense that people around him generally LIKE Meursault--they see his general silence and detachment as him being a "good listener" (like Jake!), and Marie sure seems to fall for him pretty quickly. His buddy Emmanuel at work has a blast with him during their lunch hour, running and jumping on the back of that truck. It's not clear how legible his eccentricities are to others around him--it's only when Marie starts mentioning marriage that his answers get a bit dicey.
ReplyDelete(Incidentally, this quote you've included, from the older Gilbert translation, reflects an important ambiguity that seems more clear in the Ward translation: in other contexts on these blogs, I've been suggesting a distinction between "regret" and "remorse." I'd say Meursault seems capable of feeling *regret* for his actions on the beach, as they change the circumstances of his life in ways he does not enjoy, and he generally wishes it had gone otherwise. But *remorse* seems to imply a necessarily moral interrogation of his own actions and values--he sees his earlier actions as WRONG and wants to make amends somehow. The court would be pleased if he could express *remorse,* but not necessarily regret. (The difference between "I really should not have done that, and I renounce my actions" and "I wish I didn't get caught".) So the translation you're using really does matter. I'd love to see a scholar of French comment on whether "regret" or "remorse" is the more apt word in this sentence, since Gilbert uses "regret" and Ward uses "remorse."
Great post David! While Meursault had no motive or intention to kill the Arab, I still believe he should be punished with the crime of manslaughter. During the trial, I agree that they should have focused on the scene of the crime itself instead of making assumptions on Meursault's thoughts based on his past. But still, Meursault killed another human being and demonstrated that he is a danger to society; thus, he should be penalized.
ReplyDeleteMeursault doesn't really have a motive towards the things that he decides to do; he just does the first thing that comes to his head, and whether that thing is right or wrong doesn't matter to him, because he simply cannot distinguish between right and wrong. But I agree with your statement; you only see Meursault as a "bad person," because he doesn't act like everybody else. Nice blog post.
ReplyDeleteAwesome post David! I don't think he should have been sentenced to death, maybe some time in prison but not a death sentence. At most, maybe a life sentence but even then, I feel like that's harsh. I like how this book gets the reader thinking about whether or not his punishment was fair or not and how that acts as a sort of commentary on society.
ReplyDeleteI think you're making a good point when you ask if someone can be held accountable for their actions if it was a mistake. I think mistakes shouldn't excuse someone's actions especially when the "mistake" leads to a death. However, I do think that Meursault didn't have ill intent or consider his actions as right or wrong. Nice post!
ReplyDeleteI like how you discuss Meursault's crime through his own eyes and through the eyes of those delivering his sentence. I agree that Meursault's apathy towards life in general is what landed him on death row. It isn't that the courts desperately wanted to put him behind bars for the murder of an Arab; they were searching for a reason to justify his crime, and he failed to provide one, as he didn't think a reason existed. Overall, a very interesting post!
ReplyDeleteAmazing reflection, David! I like how you highlight Meursault’s indifference, especially in his relationships with Raymond and Salamano, showing his unique detachment from societal expectations. Your point about the trial is striking—it feels like Meursault is condemned more for not fitting societal norms than for his actual crime. It raises a great question: is Camus critiquing the justice system, or exposing how subjective morality really is? At the end of the day, however, I do believe that due to Meursault actions (killing another man) deserves punishment.
ReplyDelete