Is Meursault Guilty For Crime Essay

Meursault's character is the determining factor in his conviction and sentencing. His social rebellion is deemed immoral and abominable. The reader and the novel's characters both try to rationalize Meursault's actions in order to give his life meaning. But according to Meursault, life is meaningless and consequently needs no justification.

When it becomes clear that if he stayed any longer there would be conflict, Meursault knows that all he has to do is turn around. All he has to do is walk away, "But the whole beach, throbbing in the sun, was pressing on my back" (58). He takes a few steps towards the Arab, the glare of the sun becoming physically painful, and after a few more steps the Arab draws his knife. The sun flashes off the knife, blinding Meursault, his sweat in his eyes preventing him from seeing, the light scorching and stabbing at his eyes. "The trigger gave" (58) and it was all over for Meursault. The sun’s power over Meursault, shown through the strong imagery, forces Meursault to fire the revolver and kill the Arab. What makes it worse; he fires four more times to make sure the sun is dissipated for good.

When Meursault first speaks with his lawyer, he asked Meursault to say that he had held back his “natural feelings. “[Meursault] said, ‘No, because it’s not true.’ [The lawyer] gave [him] a strange look, as if he found [him] slightly disgusting” (65). Here, we see someone looking for causation, and Meursault being blunt about how there truly is not a cause for the murder. As the trial commences, the only thing Meursault notices it how “the trial opened with the sun glaring outside”, and that “despite the blinds, the sun filtered through in places and the air was already stifling” (82, 83). Both of these descriptions use diction that is very similar to the diction used to describe the heat and light on the day of the murder. This can lead to the conclusion that the only possible cause for the murder that could be justifiable for society is the heat, how oppressive it is, and how it ultimately led to his final murder of the Arab.

The same moral ambiguity is also present in Meursault's murder of the Arab and the ensuing trial. As far as absolute morality goes, the murder is without question an act that falls on the "evil" side of ethics. That point is not a topic for debate, but in the reasons behind it the reader can find even more of Meursault's moral ambiguity. At the time, he does not seem to know why he is doing what he is doing, but it is certainly not out of spite or malice, nor out of any specific hatred of the Arab himself. He could be harboring a grudge on behalf of his friend, which would be understandable, since Raymond is one of the only people we see Meursault truly connect with in the novel, if it can even be called that. He could be taking preemptive action in self-defense, especially after he sees the knife glinting in the Arab's hand. In truth, it is never truly revealed what his motive for his rash action was, making it hard again to

The conviction of Meursault represents another main point of absurdism, that life is precious. It only takes forty five minutes for an entire jury to unanimously decide to send Meursault to the guillotine, which is unreasonable. Camus is trying to point this out as one of society’s wrongdoings. The prosecutor's argument had appealed to the jury's emotions and society’s standards rather than reason. If the jury had not felt the emotions that were supposed to influence their decision, the prosecutor's argument would have seemed completely irrational. In a rational world, Meursault's emotions regarding his mother or her funeral would not have influenced his verdict. Meursault commits a crime against an Arab, while Raymond, who had also done so earlier in the book, did not get into any trouble. He would still be found guilty, but only for the crime he committed. This would have definitely lightened his sentence; however, Meursault is sentenced to death. Camus proves the court’s hypocrisy and shows how human

The answer is simple: it does not relate to the murder of the Arab. Being the representative of society, the jury opposes Meursault and accuses him of not conforming to society's natural ways, and being what we nowadays refer to as the "odd one out". They exclude him from society for his odd clear-cut and sincere demeanor, and for his manifestation of an inexpressive character. Another example is the moment in which the magistrate, a local member of the judiciary having limited jurisdiction, especially in criminal cases, questioned Meursault.

In the novel The Meursault Investigation, Kamel Daoud weaves a sister story for Albert Camus’s The Stranger, and has a dialogue of sorts with Camus. At times Daoud’s novel is very critical of Camus, standing in opposition to the attitudes and themes in The Stranger. The existence of The Meursault Investigation and the character of Musa is a criticism of the incomplete picture that Camus paints in his story, and the namelessness of “The Arab” that Meursault killed. Daoud gives a name to Meursault’s victim beyond that of “The Arab.” At other times, Daoud’s book parallels a lot of the ideas put forth by Camus. This can be seen as Harun slowly comes to resemble the man who killed his brother after committing a murder

7.Meursault realizing that the jury most likely thinks that he is guilty. This contributes to the conflict because during the trial, Meursault barely pays attention, but there is a moment when he realizes that because he hadn't yet found meaning in his life, others have tried to do it for him. The trial forces Meursault to confront his existence and as he listens to the opinions of others about him, he understands that there is a part of himself that he cannot control because it lies within the minds of those around him. This is significant to the conflict because he becomes aware that the people around him and within society have different views on his actions than he does, which results in his exclusion from

He sees the Arab while, "he is alone…lying on his back with his arms behind his head." (57) This statement alone shows that the man had no interest in hurting Meursault. Meursault approached the man, who was probably still shaken up from being attacked, with a gun, so the Arab took out a knife as a warning to Meursault. So in return, Meursault shot the man five times and his only excuse is that the sun was shining in his

Meursault is truthful, therefore not only is his guilt dealt with at the murder trial, but his personal views and opinions come out as well. In fact, during the trial his lack of emotion about his mother’s death seemed to be of more importance than the murder he committed. From this it seems that truth is a crime and

Meursault was introduced as a young man whom recently found out his mother, Maman, died. He was not the most emotional person, but he dealt with his feelings the best he knew how. Meursault lived his life on the verge of truth and honesty. He was honest within every aspect of life, from women to freedom. He was never certain about anything in life ,but one thing he was sure of, death was inevitable. After murdering an Arab, he was on trial in front of many people being interrogated with many questions about why he did what he did, but also to evaluate his psyche about the situation. Unlike others, Meursault did not hide from the truth and that is what others could not cope with. Living his life the way others were afraid to, Meursault was the outcast in his society.

What is equally absurd is that Meursault remains passive and detached over the course of a year of interrogations, and despite the pessimistic nature of his situation, he is able to feel a sense of comfort and belonging within the system trying to condemn him. Ironically, those witness testimonies that sought to free him prove to be the most damaging, and the religious people who surround him and purport to love all men unconditionally persecute him for his lack of belief. Everyone is astonished that Meursault has no emotions about the murder --no sense of remorse or desire to repent. Most men in his position find

This easy-going, pleasant hedonism is interrupted permanently by Meursault's murder of the Arab on the beach. Not only is he incarcerated, but also he must examine the reality behind the illusion of his trial and, ultimately, of his life. Introspection has not been his metier. It takes him a while to realize that the judge, the jury, the journalists, even his own lawyer, do not wish him well. Meursault finally realizes that he is going to be convicted, not because he killed an Arab but because he did not mourn his mother's death.

Both Meursault’s lawyer and the prosecutor create explanations for Meursault’s crime that are based on reason and logic. The prosecutor even claims to have figured out the intent behind Meursault’s actions saying, “I have retraced for you the course of events which led this man to kill with full knowledge of his actions”(100). However, rationalizing behavior only serves to deny the alarming idea that the world is completely random. Therefore, Meursault’s trial shows absurdity and society’s futile attempt to impose rationality on every aspect of the universe.

The courtroom portrays Meursalt as an appalling man for enjoying himself the day after his mother’s funeral. The broad statement said by the prosecutor shows that society does not allow one to have any entertaining moments after a time of repentance because it is thought to be disrespectful. A quick rebuttal by Meursalt’s lawyer helps realign the trial so that it is actually focusing on why they are having the trial in the first place by saying, ““Come now, is my client on trial for burying his mother or for killing a man?” The spectators laughed.” (96). The trial never focuses on why Meursalt killed the Arab man and no one ever bothers to make any real efforts to discover his motives. This reveals that the courtroom is more interested in the type of person Meursalt is and how he can be a danger to society than the death of the Arab. The courtroom judges Meursalt as a heartless man with the only intention of killing a man because he felt like it, yet neither ever proves the killing of the Arab, not even in their closing speeches.