When Is a Person Guilty?
During the in-class discussion on The Stanger by Albert Camus on the seventh of November, we talked about a topic that was incredibly fascinating to me, we concluded that Meursault was one hundred percent guilty when he shot and killed the Arab man and should at least be punished lightly, but the question became when exactly Meursault became guilty? or to be put more broadly, when is anyone considered guilty and no longer innocent? I have concluded that there are three times a person can become guilty: when they decide on committing the crime mentally, the act of committing the crime, and finally, the one that actually matter in society, being declared guilty in court.
When a person decides they will be committing the crime, I believe already in that moment they are no longer innocent. Obviously, there will be no consequences to this, as no one have been harmed and no crime have actually been committed, but just by thinking about it and putting it in your conscience in my opinion takes you to the middle line of no longer being innocent, but not yet guilty. This stage was actually quite hard to pinpoint in the novel, mostly due to Meursault's psyche.
The novel makes it quite clear that Meursault has some kind of mental issue, often feeling emotionless and unsympathetic, this was actually what I wanted to write about on the blog originally, but due to my previous two blogs being about very similar topics, I decided to change things up a bit. However, going back to Meursault's psyche, I feel he has displayed sociopathic tendencies as well as symptoms of Asperger's, either way, it is quite hard to conclude Meursault's moral compass and thus difficult to find when exactly did he went from mentally innocent, to guilty.
The next way of being guilty is a lot more obviously: action, doing something, of course, instantly makes the perpetrator at fault, but this also connects to the third point, law, because it of the quite popular phrase "innocent until proven guilty". Even if everyone is one hundred percent sure you have committed the crime, you will not be punished for it until you are trialed and declared responsible, and with Meursault's case, it is quite ambiguous the exact point where he has done enough to be considered guilty.
The very first scene that one can claim Meursault became guilty in was when he decided to write the letter for Raymond, this action does certainly make him involved in the underground world and automatically makes him liable in the eyes of the law. However, writing a letter is not illegal and one could definitely make the argument that, indeed, Meursault didn't acknowledge, or even realize that he is being dragged down to committing a crime, with phrases like "I didn't have any reason not to please him" and " I understood his wanting to punish her" displaying his lack of sympathy but also shows he does not realize he's committing a crime and is only simply doing what he is told. Personally, I do not believe he would have been declared guilty in court after this event, nor did his mentality change, but the actions he committed does make him not exactly innocent.
The next time Meursault dives further into being guilty is during his first encounter with the Arabs along with Raymond and Masson. This scene, in contrary to writing to letter, he does no action that makes him guilty, but with his usage of "we" and preparing to fight does show a change in his mentality and makes him guilty psychologically. Once again though, nothing in this scene would've made him condemnable in court.
Obviously, he was guilty when he shoots the Arab, but I would like a make the argument that he becomes fully guilty (thoughts, action, and under law) during his second meeting with the Arabs. I believe this is where we can see a complete shift in his psychological behavior with the sentence "It was then I realized you could either shoot or not shoot." Which in my view, showed he recognized the power that the gun held, both physically, but also due to it controlled whether Meursault would be found guilty or innocent. The thought, alongside just the action of him getting the gun from Raymond then holding the gun and putting his fingerprints onto the grip making him culpable in his action, in my opinion, make him accountable in the eyes of the law and thus, makes him completely guilty.
The milestones you hit are intriguing. I myself was toying with the question of whether he was even guilty or not, but this breaks the problem down even further. I am one to view things in shades of grey, and I agree with you here--guilt has many aspects, and not all of them are viewed with equal importance in the court of law. Then, of course, is the question of whether the court of law should be viewed with importance.
ReplyDeleteI really like how your post considers Meursault's guilt not just over his shooting of the Arab on the beach, but in terms of all the events that come before it. Even though Meursault doesn't really seem to grasp the concept of causality, this post does a great job of illustrating the ways in which his crime is possibly a culmination of previous events in the novel. His biggest mistake in my opinion is getting so involved with Raymond in the first place, which sets up the rest of his problems later on.
ReplyDeleteI liked how you split Meursault's innocence into three pillars in the form of quantifying his rationale. I also found the moment he picks up and recognizes the power of the gun intriguing. I think it contributes to the broader message of how Meursault was aware of his general indifference throughout most of the novel but did not accept it until the very end. Nice post.
ReplyDeleteI also really like your idea of guilt as being a spectrum almost: in helping Raymond write a letter, Meursault becomes complicit in his project for revenge. But he is not actively involved in murdering anyone. Once he has begun engaging in this project, without any intentions to get himself back out of it, refusing his agency, he has doomed himself to a death surrounded by hated spectators. It is a path he goes down, starting with a simple failure to disagree with increasing wrongs, then leading to murder. (The problem with the justice system is that guilt becomes a yes-no question. The whole complicated situation cannot be adequately judged).
ReplyDeleteThe debate of the court is not about Meursault’s guilt so much about his nature: is he a normal,
I also agree that Meursault is disconnected to the crime as he writes the letter. Meursault’s “not having any reason not to please” Raymond highlights that he shouldn’t need a reason to not please someone as obviously unsavory as Raymond. Meursault should be able to tell just from Raymond’s outlook on life that he’s not good to have around. A lack of, or detachment from, real morals, leads Meursault down the path to murder, and then execution.