How Should Meursault Be Punished
The conclusion of Meursault's case ended with the result of the death penalty by guillotine, which although I expected still left me frustrated. Meursault is without a doubt guilty and should be punished for his crimes, but I don't think that the death penalty is a fair punishment given the mental and emotional state he is in throughout the book. During the actual murder, for instance, he is clearly in a very chaotic mental state due to the physical distress he is experiencing, but just because it seems like a crazy explanation to the court it is completely discounted. Again when he is questioned about whether or not he feels remorse for his crimes, or sadness at his mother's death, the jury makes judgments based off of their idea of a typical person, which is not fair to do as Meursault is far from a typical person. He should not be judged for not feeling these emotions, as he seems almost physically unable to. Of course, I am not saying his actions should go unpunished, but rather that due to reasons such as his lack of understanding, he should be given a lighter sentence which is more representative of the intent behind his actions and the danger he presents to society.
In my opinion, a sentence like10-15 with parole would be a much better punishment. Although it is a much more modern take on justice for the time the book is set in, I think it would actually benefit everyone more. Of course, someone has been murdered, and naturally, people want to see harsh punishment for something like that, but making Meursaults life terrible or ending it when there are much better and more humane alternatives is not a good solution. In this case, he would have lots of time to reflect, and being stuck in prison and his sentence might make him see that he should take advantage of the moments he has left. There may be some turning point, where he does feel emotion, but faced with the prospect of his whole life ahead of him instead of a pending execution his outlook on life becomes a much more positive one. Eventually, when he is released I don't think would be a threat either. As long as he checked in with and kept up with his parole officer, his honest nature would make sure the police were aware if he ever started down a train that would lead him to commit a crime just like the murder.
This whole take on justice pretty much disregards the entire direction that Camus is trying to take the book in, but I thought it would be interesting to imagine how Meursautls's character would have reacted to a sentence like that. Whether time in prison would have allowed him to reflect and come to a different conclusion about life is a point that is not brought up a lot. Rather than everything having no meaning and the belief that no matter what he will die so he should make peace with it and live his last moments in happiness, Camus's protagonist might have come to a conclusion more along the lines of “what I do and contribute now will lay down the foundations for people in the future.”.
I agree. The trial was pretty unfair and it just felt like society wanted to get rid of him due to his differences. I would have been much more satisfied with a conviction that resulted from a trial without using Meursault's character against him. It is interesting to note though that even with the death sentence, Meursault was able to reflect in prison, accept death, and be happy.
ReplyDeleteWhat I still don't understand about Meursault's trial is why lying is never considered. Not only could he chose to lie about his murder, but he could also lie in order to maintain social appearances. He is aware of social norms, but he it's just entirely natural for him to just blindly tell the truth. It's definitely unfair to sentence someone to death when they told the truth about everything.
ReplyDeleteThe court doesn't seem very professional in this sense. They aren't treating him the same as they would another person who committed the same crime. They are letting emotion play far too large a part in this trial considering the crime was committed without emotion.
DeleteI agree with the fact that the trial was confusing and unfair. For starters they didn't even care about the victim of the crime. And even so, instead of focusing on the crime they focused on why he is a bad/different person rather than the fact that he committed this crime. There was also a lot of silencing going on till the very end. For all of the trial they didn't really want him to talk but then once they decide his fate they give him the chance to speak.
ReplyDeleteI do agree, I feel as though the court judged based on morals and character rather than objectively, and far too emotionally. I also think that the idea of execution isn't always the greatest, because as you mentioned, with execution one would have little purpose left in life. I do believe that if Meursault was eventually released, he wouldn't pose as a danger to society as it doesn't seem to be his nature.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with how harsh the sentencing was. The Court kept going back to his mothers funeral, which didn't make much sense to me, they were more putting Meursault's character on trail versus the murder he committed. Along with this, they don't acknowledge Meusaults words, laughing at them. It just isnt right to sentence to someone to death, especially in Meusaults case.
ReplyDeleteI really like your take on this! It's interesting to think about how different sentences could have changed Meursault. I agree that parole would be a better punishment. Rather than Meursault being the problem, I think it was mostly Raymond who started all of the drama. As long as Meursault avoids these kinds of people, I feel like he would fit into society just as well as anyone else, as he probably did before everything that happened in the book.
ReplyDeleteTo me a really interesting thing about the court is how they barely talk about the crime, let alone the victim himself. This trial seems a lot more focused on how he fits in society which isn't quite fair and doesn't really favor Meursault since he doesn't fit in at all, hence the name "the estranged one". I think Camus is trying to provide some sort of commentary on how people who don't fit in with the rest are cast away by society.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I definitely agree that the fate he is assigned is frustrating. It feels like the prosecution is really half-witted in really trying to understand the situation, which makes it unfortunate that a man like Mersault, who is incapable of reading social situations, is put at the brunt of this half-wittedness. They make no attempt to examine the facts of the case, but instead examine the morals. But the most unbelievable part about the whole case is that there is no mention that the killing may have been an act of self-defense. We, as readers, know full well that the Arab man pulled a knife on him first, but this is totally omitted in the trial. If this tiny detail were to come up it would completely change the course of the trial and definitely lessen Mersaults extreme sentence. If Mersault had received this lesser sentence, I definitely think he would've cooperated like you said.
ReplyDeleteI agree like so many other people. I think some of the points you bring up in your final paragraph like how he might have reacted when given time to reflect are really interesting. I think at the end he finds some sort epiphany like when he realizes the motives behind his mother and Perez falling in love.
ReplyDelete