The Stranger: A Critique Of The Judicial System
By Ruby Mitchell
Meursault did not deserve to die. This is the mindset that I was in as I finished reading The Stranger, and I believe that this was Camus’ intention. Throughout the novel, Meursault is portrayed as a morally questionable character, often choosing to withhold judgment in times when judgment is completely necessary, and refusing to form solid opinions on people that the average person would disapprove of. Despite this moral ambiguity, Meursault is not a completely bad person, and Camus doesn’t try to depict him as such. Before the murder he commits, nothing about Meursault’s moral ambiguity ever actually strays into the territory of him being morally bad or corrupt in any way, he is only ever portrayed as neutral. The prosecutor in Meursault’s murder trial takes complete advantage of this moral ambiguity, and uses it to paint Meursault as a morally-vapid monster who is a threat to our society. The court focuses more on Meursault’s morality than his crime, choosing to talk more about the treatment of his mom and his response to her death than the events of the murder that he committed. To the court, the actual crime he committed is insignificant. The victim’s sister is never brought up to testify against Meursault––even though she logically should be one of the main witnesses for the prosecution’s case––and the man who Meursault offered a cigarette to at his mother’s vigil is brought up instead. Clearly this case is not about the crime itself, not about providing justice for the victim, it is really Meursault’s morality that is on trial.
The real crime that Meursault commits that leads to his death is his inability to play the court’s game. The mistake that Meursault makes in court is being too honest: he doesn’t have a motive, he doesn’t admit to feeling remorse, and he attempts to blame the murder on the sun. All of these explanations are true, but none of them fit what he is expected to say. As readers, we get a better view into Meursault’s thoughts and reasonings, and with that better perspective we get a more nuanced outlook on his crime and his overall moral character. While his reaction to his mom’s death might seem cold, the reader gets the added context of his weird, slightly rocky relationship with her. Later in the novel, we even get a concrete explanation of the way he went about understanding his mothers death: “Maman must have felt free then and ready to live it all again. Nobody, nobody had the right to cry over her” (Camus 122). In this passage, we get our first glimpse of Meursault actually engaging with his mother’s death with any emotion other than indifference, and the emotion we see is one of gratitude. He feels that she must have been ready to die, and that is a good, beautiful thing. He doesn’t lack any care for his mother’s death, he just has a less negative view of death than the average person, which hinders his ability to grieve in the way that he’s expected to. The court doesn’t paint him this way, though. Instead, the court paints Meursault as an unloving son who cares more about smoking cigarettes and meeting new women than “properly” mourning his mother’s death. The court fabricates a bastardization of Meursault’s relationship with his mom, successfully painting him as a monster in the eyes of the jury.
The court also chooses to focus on Meursault’s lack of remorse for having committed the murder more than the fact that he committed it in the first place. This portrayal of Meursault is more true to his seemingly emotionless character, though the court still manages to change it to fit into their narrative that he is some sort of monster. Meursault himself agrees that he feels no remorse for this murder, acknowledging that “I couldn't help admitting that he was right. I didn't feel much remorse for what I'd done,” and later going on to clarify that “I had never been able to truly feel remorse for anything” (Camus 100). While this lack of remorse, or lack of care, for the crime that he committed does seem heartless, it’s not very hard to believe when considering the rest of Meursault’s character. Meursault might not be able to feel much remorse, but we don’t get solid evidence that he is able to feel any other type of emotion either. Meursault is apathetic when his girlfriend confesses her love to him and asks to marry him, reacts very calmly to his arrest and questioning, and doesn’t even seem to have any discernible reaction to being told that he was to be executed. While Meursault’s lack of remorse actually stems from an inability to truly feel any emotion, the court uses it to paint him as a careless criminal who kills without thinking twice about it, and uses that characterization to justify his execution.
Meursault is sentenced to be publicly killed “in the name of the French people,” which cements the fact that his trial was unjust and not properly executed (Camus 107). Meursault committed no crime against “the French people.” If anything, he committed a crime against the Arab people, but this colonial court would never have viewed that as a heinous enough crime to deserve the death penalty. The only crime that Meursault committed against the French people was mystifying them with his constant honesty and refusal to play into the games of the court. Meursault confused the court, and the prosecutor was able to take that confusion and spin it into terror and hatred, prompting the jury to come to the conclusion that Meursault deserved to die. Camus spends the entire novel establishing Meursault’s point of view and the rationale behind all of his actions. He then places us in a court full of people who are uninterested in understanding Meursault’s point of view or rationale, with this lack of understanding eventually leading to his death. Camus uses The Stranger to parody the unjust and superficial nature of the colonial Algerian judicial system, painting it as a system that disregards the testimony of the victim’s family, makes harsh and life-ending judgments based on evidence that fails to paint the whole picture, and punishes a man more for his social shortcomings than the crime that he committed.
Works Cited
Camus, Albert. The Stranger. Translated by Matthew Ward, Vintage International, 1989.
I agree, he shouldn't have been sentenced to death. He is sentenced based on his lack of morals. The prosecutor barely focuses on the actual murder.
ReplyDeleteWhen thinking in terms of Meursault's "remorse" or lack of remorse, as it reflects his moral character, I always think about the distinction between REGRET and REMORSE. He might REGRET that circumstances led him to be in that spot on the beach with the gun in his hand and the sun shining so bright and the wine making his judgment cloudy and the finger to close around the trigger--he would "rather it hadn't happened," for a range of reasons. But how do we measure REMORSE, and how is that different from regret? I think it has to do with a MORAL perspective on the action being regretted--it was "wrong," not just "it would have been better if I hadn't done that."
ReplyDeleteAs with so much else in this trial, though, how DO we measure Meursault's "remorse" accurately? How do we know he DOESN'T feel remorse? Because he TELLS us so directly. But what if he chooses to present a facade of remorse? What if he plays along with the magistrate and asks for God's forgiveness and throws himself on the mercy of the court? He could save himself--his performance would satisfy the court (which really isn't interested in justice at all, as you indicate), and he would likely not be sentenced to death. They're practically begging him to just say it was self-defense, but he refuses to lie about that, and he refuses to lie about his remorse.
I guess the point I'm getting at is that actual remorse can't be PROVEN, just asserted--and we don't have much to go on other than the speaker's insistence that they feel remorse. Part of the absurdity exposed by Meursault's predicament is that he dooms himself by not *performing* remorse that he doesn't feel--he COULD play the system and get himself free, or at least spared the death penalty. But he chooses to be honest instead.
I agree that Meursault’s inability to play the court’s game is what ultimately leads to his conviction. His lack of remorse and failure to conform to societal norms makes him seem more dangerous than the actual crime he committed. As you mentioned, the trial is less about justice and more about his social shortcomings.
ReplyDeleteI love your point about Meursault's view on his mother's death and death in general. He doesn't believe death as a particularly bad thing-just as he views all other things-but simply something that happens. Perhaps this is why he felt no remorse for killing the man either. To him, the man's death was neither an impactful nor deeply unfortunate thing. It was simply something that just happened.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea of Meursault not deserving to die is very interesting. I agree in the sense that his lack of emotion or caring led him to not playing the courts game. However, would this excuse the fact that he killed a man in such a brutal way? Great post!
ReplyDeleteGreat post Ruby! While I do agree that Meursault's trial was unjust and not focused on the actual crime, I still believe Meursault should be punished for manslaughter even though he lacked the intention and motive to kill the Arab man. The jury should have focused on the actual crime and gave a fitting punishment to Meursault instead of judging his morality and social shortcomings.
ReplyDeleteReading the end of this novel, I was completely perplexed by the sudden proclamation that Meursault should be executed. I had found the trial rather ridiculous up to that point, and that was the breaking point. Without a doubt, Meursault is a guilty man who deserves punishment for his crimes, but certainly not a man who deserves a punishment for the wrong "crime" entirely! The court and prosecutor were frustratingly focused on their societal expectations from a guilty man, and were taken aback when they did not receive the same. Great post!
ReplyDeleteI postponed commenting on this blog for a while, since I knew you would create an eloquent argument that I would struggle to find any cracks in - not that I only read your blogs in search of them. Sure enough though, I found no wrong assumptions and I think that you bring up really great points. Why is it that Meursault's morality - as a French man - is more intricately challenged than his crime? I will say that I think "in the name of the French people" is more to say that, since he won't play into the game and blame the Arab man, he would deface the French image if they allowed this apathetic French man to live. The French honor is of the utmost importance in the trial and his mistake was not passing the blame and appeal to the racist court. Maybe his lack of remorse and decision to not blame the Arab man makes him MORE moral than other racist French people, since his intent was blurred by his lack of judgment and impairment of the sun as opposed to the strong intents of vindictive racist people. Great post! As always, you challenge me to think harder in my comments. :)
ReplyDeleteI really liked your point about how Meursault’s trial was more about his emotional detachment than the actual crime he committed. It’s interesting how the court focuses on his behavior around his mother’s death instead of the murder itself, painting him as a monster for not grieving the “right” way. Like you said, his lack of remorse isn’t because he’s heartless, but because he just doesn’t experience emotions the way others do. Camus really shows how unfair and shallow the court system can be, leading to a tragic outcome. Great post!
ReplyDelete