While reading the book, The
Stranger, I instantly felt distrust towards the Narrator. His lack of sympathy
and objective narration made it seem as if he was holding back his emotions
from the readers. I thought that his lack of emotion and apathy towards his
scenario was a product of Albert Camus's writing style. This assumption was
proved to be false when he shot the Arab sympathize with Meursault? Are his
actions the result of built up stress brought onto him by his Mother's The
Death Penalty is an extremely harsh punishment; did Meursault deserve it?
Personally,
I think he did. This is because I believe that justice should be served based
on merit. If you do something legally wrong, you should be punished accordingly
for that crime. Despite this, I think that discovering the motive behind
offense is important. In The Stranger, there was no obvious motive for the
shooting. Meursault simply did it because he wanted to. This would be
drastically different if the Arab charged at him with a knife or something.
Instead, the crime is completely unmerited. I think this is the reason the
Court was so interested in Meursault’s reaction to his mother’s death. I don’t
think they judged Meursault was purely judged for this crime by how he reacted
to his mother’s death, but rather I believe that the investigation used that
reaction to create a reasonable motive for his crime.
By proving that he was
unsympathetic during his mother’s death, the court proves that Meursault is a
“monster” that doesn’t account for the effects of his actions. The motive here
could simply be, “He’s a Monster who doesn’t care if he hurts (Or kills) other
people”. I believe this is the reason why the punishment was so harsh. From
their perspective, he could very well shoot another person for no reason. This,
in my opinion, justifies such an extreme punishment. Do you guys think that
Meursault deserved the Death Penalty? Do you think that Meursault was
prosecuted because of him reaction to his mother’s death, or by merit? Leave a
comment down below!!
I definitely think that Meursault's lack of tears at his mother's funeral played into his sentence, but in all honesty I don't think that's justified. He's not a monster, although perhaps it's easier for us to see that through his eyes. He isn't looking to kill people, it just happened. While that certainly doesn't justify his crime or excuse the Arab's death, I do think that, as far as murders go, he has a pretty sympathetic motive, and anyways, wouldn't life in prison do just as well to keep him out of the public as the death penalty?
ReplyDeleteI see where you're coming from, like an "eye for an eye" mentality, but I think capital punishment is never really deserved. It's a shame that Meursault didn't live during modern times, because I feel that he could have at least pleaded insanity. Moving him to a psychiatric ward would do as well as jail or the death sentence, and it would potentially "cure" him of his inability to have emotion (unless he wouldn't want to).
ReplyDeleteI agree that Mersault deserved his penalty. He killed someone. However, I do see Mersault as a sort of sympathetic figure and throughout the trial I found myself secretly wanting Mersault to make it out of prison. Mersault's anti-social personality made me, as the reader, want him to succeed in his relationships and his works.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that Meursalt is deserving of a harsh punishment, although I'm conflicted on whether or not he is deserving of the death penalty. Regardless, he killed a man without feeling remorse and person like that is a danger to society. Had the court made that case, as you said, I agree the death penalty would be justified.
ReplyDeleteI believe Meursault was guilty and deserved to be severely punished. However the only reason he actually received the punishment was because of his sheer stupidity. He had countless times where he could have pleaded his case or "massaged the truth" (not entirely lied) and would've received a much softer punishment. It wasn't as if he was attempting to be a martyr or had any sort of noble cause for accepting his fate. Rather, he simply did not understand what he had to do/say even when others were explicitly telling him how to proceed.
ReplyDeleteThe question for readers is, does the court seem *correct* in its implicit estimation that Meursault represents a dangerous element that must be contained. Do we see it as inevitable that he would end up killing again? Does there seem to be anything inevitable about the crime he does commit? We get such a strange and specific set of circumstances that lead him to this point on the beach--I suppose it's possible that similar circumstances could put him in a different compromised position. But the novel does insist that there's something entirely arbitrary and random about the particular way events play out: Meursault *could have* turned around and walked away. On a different day, he might have. Maybe if the sun wasn't so hot, or if the first two fights had gone differently, or if he'd been more in the mood to deal with the emotional women back at the house, or any number of other factors.
ReplyDeleteCamus seems to pose the question: isn't it absurd that a death sentence could eventuate from such an arbitrary sequence of events? Isn't the premeditated murder of Meursault in a public square every bit as absurd as the circumstances he's experienced that have brought him here?