A Hesitant Defense of Meursault

In Albert Camus's The Stranger, Meursault is sentenced to death for not conforming with the jury's view on humanity. The thing that condemns Meursault the most in his trial is his lack of visible grief for his mother's death. It is this lack of grief that causes the jury to believe he is inhuman. The jury and Meursault have differing views on what makes one human. The jury believes that a base of humanity is that one will feel love and grief for a parent who passes, and will mourn in a unspecified way that they deem appropriate, but one which Meursault clearly violates. As such, the jury is convinced by the prosecution that Meursault is a "monster", as they continuously paint him throughout the trial.

But we the audience, with full insight to Meursault's thoughts, can see him as a person, and know they are misinterpreting the events as well as failing to understand Meursault as a person. Meursault takes enjoyment of from the physical things in life, the murder was not premeditated, and his mother's advice is mentioned throughout the novel, suggesting Meursault did care for his mother, even if it was not as shown or typical of what society would expect.

In light of this, we must ask ourselves: Did Meursault deserve the death sentence? And can anyone really make judgments about what makes one human?

Meursault was a person, and felt emotions, even if they were not the ones deemed appropriate by society. Does this make him human? Or does his general indifference to emotions truly make him an inhuman monster? And most importantly, why? Who has the right to decide what one must feel to be a human?

At the end of the day, Meursault undeniably was a murderer, as so legally did deserve some sort of punishment. However, in addition to being punished for murder, he is also being punished for failing some abstract notion of humanity pushed by society, leading me to conclude that the death sentence was an unnecessary extremity.

Correcting A Wrong With Another Wrong?

The death penalty is offered in 30 states in the United States. Last year 23 people were executed on death penalty. Was their crime bad enough to end their lives? An eye for an eye? Does it make sense to correct a wrong with another wrong?

In The Stranger, by Albert Camus, Meursault, the main character, is put on death penalty for murdering another man. To end another's life is an awful crime. He cut the Arab's life short probably by 50 years, causing so much pain to his family and friends that will have a lasting impact on them forever. But then something does not add up. How can killing a man be corrected by killing someone else? Meursault's friends will suffer just as much as the Arab's friends. His death will still be painful. My personal opinion is that convicted felons would be punished more if spending the rest of their life in prison. There they are stripped of their freedom and have nothing to do but think of the awful mistake they made to get in prison. This I personally feel like is the more morally correct decision and the felon would still serve their punishment.