Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Consequences of crime on an individual
Consequences of crime
Consequences of crime
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Consequences of crime on an individual
In modern society, a person is sentenced to death because they pose a significant risk to society. Do you believe that Meursault is a risk to society? Does he deserve the death penalty? Is he more or less dangerous than a criminal who commits a crime with a clear motive? Meursault is detached from the world he killed somebody just to kill somebody so, he committed premeditated murder which means he has no feeling to what he did. Even in the trial He didn’show feeling to what he did by killing that arab, and court is where they determine what they are going to do to you so he should showed a little emotion. In today’s society some crimes are not as harsh ,even compared to what meursault did which is murder and by that the premeditated kind. He does deserve the death penalty for what he did and especially because the man is of another race that just add’s to the charged that’s being charged against him. In chapter 7 he was asked a series of questions, by a detective, and they were asking him deep question like for example:”He began by asking bluntly if I’d …show more content…
In this example here they asked him questions about the murder: “Why did you fire five consecutive shots?” his response was: I thought for a bit; then explained that they weren’t quite consecutive. I fired one at first, and the other four after a short interval”. He paused why answering the question and that kinda gave them the idea of why he did it and how he had it planned, because he went back in his memory and remembered how and why he did what he did.
These are all examples of questions he asked and wondered.
Meursault resists being typecast into an archetypal moral category in many of his deeds and actions. Many of his actions in Part One of the novel help contribute to the fuzzy picture of the character. For example, at his mother's funeral, Meursault does not cry or weep in the typical mourning fashion, but rather sleeps during the vigil and entices one of the other mourners present to smoke a cigarette with him. This would be typically considered "evil" behavior, in the context of the story. He could easily been seen as disrespectful and seditious toward his mother and the established procedures of mourning, which seem to be fairly definite at that era in France. However, this "evil" mold can easily be shaken if one considers that Meursault may be more shaken than anyone else present at the funeral. Considering the other events in the novel, it seems as though he does not have a large capacity for emotion. Based on this, it is not unreasonable to assume that the events leading up to and including his mother's death may have overtaxed his limited scope of emotion, and he was therefore nearly incapable of mourning in the "normal" or expected way for his mother, but rather had to resort to his own, more c...
Every character that revolves around Meursault seems to be in direct contrast to him. Meursault is an amoral person who does not seem to care passionately about anything. He acts in accordance with physical desires. In other words, Meursault is a sensualist person. At this particular time in his life, his path crosses with his neighbor, Raymond, who feels as though his girlfriend is cheating on him. He decides to take revenge with minor aid form Meursault. Meursault helps him only because he thinks he has nothing to lose if he does. As things lead into one another, the first major violent act of the book is committed.
At first glance, Meursault could be seen as an evil man. He shows no grief at his mother’s funeral, worrying more about the heat. His first reaction to his mother’s death is not sadness, it is a matter-of-fact, unemotional acceptance of the situation. “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know.” Later on in the story, Meursault kills an Arab on the beach, and his only concern is that he has ruined the calm, pleasant day he was having. When he is in jail, the magistrate comes in an attempt to save Meursault’s soul, but instead of cooperating, Meursault simply confounds the magistrate by refusing to believe in God. Even at his trial, Meursault doesn’t show any remorse for having killed the Arab. Based on this evidence alone, how can we not see Meursault as evil?
our main characters questions, and how he is constantly questioning how their can be such evil
Chapter 6 of part I of The Stranger concluded with Meursault’s conscious decision to shoot an Arab because of the physical discomfort the Arab’s knife caused him. The significance of the ending of part I is that it was the first demonstration of Meursault’s awareness of the possible consequences of the act that he committed. This awareness continues into the second part of the novel as he is arrested and trialed. The reason for Meursault’s trial is the murder of the Arab. His insensitivity towards Maman’s death and lack of a social conscientious are factors that contributed to support further investigations, but are not reasons to trial him because they have not ‘harmed’ society on a way that he could be arrested for. For example, if Meursault
Society believes Meursault as an emotionless killer or a stranger to society’s morality, Meursault then can’t explain why he couldn’t feel any emotion, drive, or thoughts of remorse for his murder. Lastly, when the chaplain visits Meursault against his wishes, this scene shows how society expects everyone to ask for forgiveness from God when near death. Meursault then thinks it is absurd and refuses to believe it because he says it’s ridiculous and there’s no time at all.
Since he cares little for the affairs of the world, claiming they do not mean anything, then justice—a major concern of the world—also means nothing to him. His actions both before and after his decision to kill a man without provocation demonstrate his apathetic view of the world, and his indifference to justice. Therefore Meursault’s search for justice, culminated by the court’s decision to execute him, remains an example to all of the inability of society to instill justice in criminals. Meursault’s perpetual refusal to acquire a sense of morality and emotion instigates skepticism in all who learn of his story of society’s true ability to instill justice in the
“Next came Raymond, who was the last witness. He waved to me and all of the sudden blurted out that I was innocent” (95). This scene is ironic because prior this trial, Raymond doesn’t express any sense of loyalty. But in this scene, Raymond shows loyalty towards Meursault. He says that the Arabs hated him and Meursault was there by chance. This scene is important because it shows how everything that occurred was indirectly caused by Raymond and Meursault’s friendship under the pretense of “chance.”
While coming to terms with the absurd was a gradual process for Meursault, his final days and his heated conversation with the chaplain, and his desire for a hateful crowd of spectators show that he was able to accept the absurdity, and revel in it, finding satisfaction in spite of those around him and justifying his murder. His ego had reached an all-time high as he neared his execution, and his satisfaction left him prepared for the nothingness awaiting him. This process was a natural psychological response to his mortality, for his peace of mind. Therefore, Meursault is not the Stranger, an alien to society, but a troubled man seeking meaning and satisfaction in a life and a world that was overwhelming unsatisfactory and absurd.
The trial portrays the absurdist ideal that absolute truth does not exist. This ideal destroys the very purpose of the trial, which seeks to place a rational explanation on Meursault’s senseless killing of the Arab. However, because there is no rational explanation for Meursault’s murder, the defense and prosecution merely end up constructing their own explanations. They each declare their statements to be the truth, but are all based on false assumptions. The prosecution itself is viewed as absurd. The prosecutor tries to persuade the jury that Meursault has no feelings or morals by asking Perez if “he had at least seen [Meursault] cry” (91). The prosecutor then continues to turn the crowd against Meursault when he asks him about his “liaison” with Marie right after his mother’s death. Though Meursault’s relationship with Marie and his lack of emotions at his mother’s funeral may seem unrelated to his murder, the prosecutor still manages to convince the crowd that they are connected to one another. The jury ends up convicting Meursault not because he killed a man, but because he didn't show the proper emotions after his mother ...
The conflict is established at the end of Part I, when Meursault kills an Arab; an action not uncommon in Algiers during this period of social unrest (the 1930’s). He does not do it intentionally, but rather because of the intensity of the moment and the blinding sunlight reflecting off of the Arab’s blade. The fact that Meursault kills an Arab is of little importance in this novel. The jury and the general population despise him because he is different, not because of the murder. Even Meursault’s lawyer predicts that the punishment will be minimal. Throughout the entire trial, the prosecution stresses Meursault’s lifestyle and his indifference to everything. They bring up his mother’s funeral and say that he showed no signs of emotion. To make things worse, he went to a Fernandel comedy and had sex with Marie on the very next day. The prosecutor once states, “...all I see is a monster.”
Doyle knows how to have the reader questioning till the end, by giving clues to the final conclusion and not giving all the inf...
Finally, it can be asserted that the suffering of Meursault is a result of his disbelief in God. As he does not believe in God, he cannot find out any meaning in his life. Consequently, he is aware of the fact that no matter what choices he makes, the ultimate result is death. To him there is no life after death, so he has neither any fear for punishment nor any hope for reward.
middle of paper ... ... He wanted to file a legal appeal, but he knew they would all get rejected. Meursault was not sentenced to death because he killed the Arab, but because of his absence of emotion to his mother’s death. The people wanted him dead because he posed a threat to the morals of the society.