As I was reading about Meursault’s
trial, I noticed a strange pattern: all the named witnesses called to testify
in the trial seemed to believe Meursault, or at least not fully blame him for
his actions on the beach.
Meursault’s friends (or the closest
acquaintances he has) very much give Meursault the benefit of the doubt. Celeste
seems to understand what has happened with Meursault. He repeatedly states that
what happened to Meursault was “bad luck” and that it could happen to anybody
(92). He believes that Meursault’s criminal actions were completely out of his
control. While Celeste might not fully buy Meursault’s explanation that the sun
caused it, he seems to understand Meursault’s circumstances. He accepts that
there might not be a simple ideological reason behind Meursault’s actions. Similarly,
Salamano provides testimony that portrays Meursault positively (he was nice to
his dog) and, when asked a question about Maman and Meursault, he says “You
must understand” (95). Salamano assumes that everyone has a baseline
understanding of why people do things sometimes. Marie explains that after her
testimony, “it wasn’t like that, there was more to it, and that she was being
made to say the opposite of what she was thinking, that she knew me and I hadn’t
done anything wrong” (94). She
understands that there can be other unexplained forces (she was made to say things). Raymond says that
Meursault’s experiences were “just chance” (95).
People who have no reason to be on
Meursault’s side make excuses for him. The director home said that Maman
complained about Meursault, but no more than one would typically complain about
relatives (89). After Meursault verifies the caretaker’s testimony, the
caretaker “gave [him] a surprised and somehow grateful look” (90). Perez does
not incriminate Meursault because he did not see anything. The prosecution seemed
to cherry-pick what the witnesses said about Meursault’s behavior, and even
nudged some witnesses to get back on track—trying to incriminate Meursault.
The jury, a group of nameless people,
finds Meursault guilty of a crime which he did commit. They see everything each
witness says—luck, chance, other mysterious forces—and disregard it. Yet, as
the judge points out to Celeste, “we are here to judge this sort of bad luck”
(92). Camus gives the reader a moral dilemma: where do the facts of the murder
and the “excuses” (luck, chance, etc.) intersect? As readers, we know that
there isn’t really a cause for the murder other than forces neither us nor
Meursault understands. His friends seem to have faith that he wasn’t to blame
for this sequence of events. Where do we stand? Where does Camus suggest we
should stand?
Where would an outside
Meursault-like character stand on Meursault’s own guilt? Meursault does not
believe in fate, chance, religion, or any mysterious outside forces, so he
might take the murder at full face value and think that Meursault is guilty.
However, he could also accept Meursault’s testimony about the sun and believe
that. What do you think?
Wow, I never realized how sympathetic the witnesses are and I wonder if they feel morally conflicted about condemning a man who does not fit neatly in their philosophy of the difference between good and bad people. In addition, I love your question about how Meursault would judge his guilt. I think that if a Meursault-like character was on the jury he would be undoubtedly convinced about the man's guilt, but outraged that the judge is putting on trial a man's philosophy/character.
ReplyDeleteIf Meursault were judging his own trial, I really don't know what would happen. It's true that he does not believe in outside forces and might simply convict him of murder, yet Meursault would understand the feeling from a scorching sun. I personally think that Meursault would have given two different answers, depending on which Meursault is overseeing the trial - a pre-murder or post-murder Meursault. Pre-murder would directly convict him of murder like the judges (but without the prying into Maman's funeral), while post-murder would consider the sun and might lessen the sentence.
ReplyDeleteIt was strange how his friends defended his behavior in the trial. I think that if a Meursault-like person was in the trial, they would have found Meursault guilty, but at the same time dislike how the jury is prying too much into his personal life and insulting his personality and way of thinking.
ReplyDelete