Analysis of the Trial (The Stranger, by Albert Camus)

As the trial begins, my first impression is that Meursault (defense) is very reliant on his lawyer. The first thing that is said by him is what he was instructed to say by his lawyer, that being “yes, Your Honor” (page 87), and I feel that this marginally sets the tone for his position as a defense. The Judge (prosecutor) asks Meursault about Maman and why he decided to send her to a nursing home. Meursault gives an uninteresting but realistic, reasonable and true response which prompts the judge to discard the topic (page 88). What this says about the Judge’s position to an extent is that information that can’t be used to prosecute Meursault is thereby useless information. This is but an inference and my reason for thinking so coincides with what we see in the iconic page 91, where we see the gentlemen of the jury take note of the fact that Meursault was not seen crying at his mother’s funeral, when he was simultaneously never seen not crying which the gentlemen of the jury had only a blank expression in response after it was stated. This could be seen as a bias against Meursault, especially given that Meursault not being seen crying, nor not crying, is evidence that shouldn’t be brought into play given that it would be somewhat contradictory to itself if one were to discern one side and not the other. This is because since both sides are true, neither holds any incontrovertible value as evidence that could be used in favor of or against Meursault due solely to the manner in which these sides juxtapose with each other, like light and dark, or good and evil. He who brought about this conversation was Thomas Pérez, a witness whose testimony would invoke thought and conversation. In a nutshell, thetestimony as stated previously was that he hadn’t seen Meursault cry at the funeral. Matter of fact, he hadn’t seen Monsieur at the funeral to begin with due to his inability to see caused by the shadow cast by his sorrow and the tears blocking his eyes. After all he was close to Monsieur’s mother who had died. This witness’ position on the matter is observably fair-minded. There is no side that he verbally vilifies nor glorifies. He just provides an honest testimony which was arguably taken out of proportion by the gentlemen of the jury.

Regarding the actual murder, Meursault claims to not have intended to kill the Arab whom he had killed, and the fact that he happened to be armed just “happened to be that way”. This doesn’t help in Meursault’s defense and instead seems to trigger the prosecutor. Not that the answer was wrong, but it wasn’t the answer the prosecutor was in pursuit of. Meursault was accused of smoking and drinking coffee rather than seeing Maman. His defense was that he had offered a cigarette to the caretaker and in turn the caretaker defended him by stating he was the one who had offered Meursault coffee. Again, on page 91, Meursault’s lawyer’s defense to Thomas’ statement was the fact that Meursault hadn't been seen not crying at his mom’s funeral after it was stated he wasn’t seen crying. Céleste, a defense of Meursault comments on how Meursault is a very calm composed and quiet person as well as the position him being in right now is a result of nothing but bad luck. The gentlemen of the jury ridiculed and made a mockery of Meursault to the crowd for going to the beach a day after his mother had died, but Raymond, the last witness responded that Meursault was innocent, and that the fact that he was at the beach was by chance and nothing else, same thing regarding Meursault not intervening when Raymond had beaten up his girlfriend.

Regarding the murder again but from a prosecutor’s perspective, no outstanding arguments are made and there's more of a focus on how he reacted following his mother death making him seem apathetic and inhuman. The trial would dwell on his actions succeeding his mother’s death, when he really should be on trial for murder. The prosecutor accuses Meursault of “burying his mother with crime in his heart”, whatever that means. On page 99, many reasons are provided of why Meursault is a bad person for how ignorant he was towards his own mother, this then turns into the judge deeming Meursault intelligent for his premeditated murder, but no reason is stated for this conclusion that is brought about apart from how he is a bad person.

I personally believe Meursault did not kill the Arab in self-defense. On page 99, there is a detailed recount of the sequence of events leading up to the Arab’s murder. Meursault had provoked Raymond’s adversaries at the beach. Raymond had been wounded. Meursault asked for his gun which he’d end up getting. Meursault went back alone, intending to use the gun. He shotthe Arab as he had planned. He waited and fired four additional times at point blank. This is in no way self-defense. He hunted down his victim and essentially executed him. Meursault’s life was not in immediate enough danger for him to use deadly force to begin with. I don’t see self-defense, I see malice. This excerpt from page 99 is all that is needed to deem Meursault guilty.