Murderers as Victims of Their Own Acts - Essay Example

Submitted: Murderers as Victims of Their Own Acts: Selective Works by Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre both explore the morality and motivations behind murder in several of their works, particularly in Camus’ “The Outsider” and “The Just Assassins” and Sartre’s “Dirty Hands”. Throughout these texts, the murderer protagonist commits the crime and must face the consequences of his actions. These actions inevitably lead the murderers to a state of victimization as each suffers drastically as a result of their own actions. As contemporaries, both Camus and Sartre both held a similar philosophy of existentialism, and this is reflected strongly in all of their literary works. Both reflected their thoughts on moral ambiguity and the societal treatment of murderers and terrorists in the works mentioned. Between the three protagonists, the reader is presented with different motivations and circumstances; some murders are done for political justice whereas in “The Outsider” the protagonist is devoid of motive, reason or logic for the crime he has committed. Despite this, among other differences, each protagonist comes to the same end. They all die as a result of their actions and do not live to see the fruition of their desires in any way. In Albert Camus’ novel “The Stranger”, the reader is witness to a very literal case of a murderer becoming a victim of his own act, via the protagonist/narrator. Meursault murders an Arab man, is almost immediately put on trial, and is ultimately condemned to death by beheading. In this extremely literal and superficial way, the murderer becomes a victim of socially ordered death, due to the fact that he has killed another human being and must be punished for the crime. Though Meursault does not appear to have any sort of motive or reasoning for the crime, he also ends up in a state of peacefulness on receiving news of the jury’s verdict. Of course, this acceptance and peace for the inevitability of his oncoming death will be brief, as he does not have much time left before his scheduled death. However, far beyond the physical manifestations of becoming a ‘victim’ of his own actions in this way, the character of Meursault also becomes a victim of his own actions on a much deeper and multi-faceted level. Meursault as a character is utterly remarkable, in that he is quite unremarkable in every possible way (Day 84). He appears to have no unusual or outrageous attributes, opinions, qualities or flaws when the reader is initially introduced to him. He does nothing special, holds no special job, is not living under any unusual circumstances, does not discuss any extreme or judgemental personal opinions and is far from being emotionally distinctive. Meursault leads an existence in which “days are added to days without rhyme or reason … [and his life] is an interminable and monotonous addition” (Camus). However, it is this lack of special traits and engaged interaction in society and life that makes the character, paradoxically, very remarkable and unusual. As the reader unveils the protagonists’ inner thoughts and plot development of the story, it becomes clear that this character is remarkably detached from society in every way. Furthermore, not only is he detached from society, he is detached from life itself including family and relationships. He displays an unsettling degree of amorality and total lack of judgement of other people’s actions, thoughts and behaviours. Indeed, his detachment goes even further as we realise that he is also detached from his own emotions and self-identity to the extent that he appears to be lacking in both. Living within this sphere of complete detachment, Meursault appears not to be particularly happy or sad. He seems not to be particularly troubled, worried, content or any manner of descriptive extremes. His character lingers in a limbo of neither here nor there, taking each day as it comes and living for the present moment without any considerations of consequence or morality. In this way, the character can be seen to have become a victim of his own actions when he is put on trial. Far from being free to lull in a void of ill-considered habitual living, Meursault is forced by society to analyse and explain himself, his behaviours, his thoughts, actions and opinions. He is asked to provide motives, reasons, logic and context to his crime, his lack of remorse and even more importantly to the court, his lack of emotional grief about the passing of his mother. He becomes extremely victimized not only for the crime he committed and his lack of either motivation or remorse, but for his emotional detachment from life and society. As Meurault does not believe that life has any meaning, logic or higher purpose beyond the physicality of living, he therefore feels no remorse, sympathy nor fear of any kind. This philosophy and treatment of life proves such a shocking and disturbing theory for the members of the jury, that he is ultimately condemned to death. As Meursault does not deny the murder, he is put on trial for the possibility of premeditation which is never proven with any empirical evidence. The evidence which the jury ends up taking as being proof of Meureaults premeditation, is in fact his total lack of feeling or logical reason. In this way, he is a victim of not only his crime, but of his thoughts and psychological being. Had he offered a reason or motive for his crime, he may have escaped death and received only a jail sentence. However, as a result of his honesty and frankness, however misguided, he is condemned both physically and socially, as his philosophy stands as a huge threat to societal norms (Day 88). While it could be argued that the character of Meursault only attains any semblance of happiness as a result of his actions, thereby he is ‘freed’ by his actions, this is not as straightforward as it may appear. Indeed, after Meursault accepts the inevitability of death and finds peace in the futility of life only after being condemned to death, this realisation is forced upon him by society. Rather than come to this conclusion naturally over a period of years and aging, he is compelled to find solace and resolution in the face of death as he has no choice. There is no evidence in the text that without this forced imprisonment, Meursault would not have come to this conclusion organically. In addition, throughout the story Meursault asserts the futility and absurdity of life, and his final acceptance reflects this running theory – it is not a new concept to the character. Meursault has not actually transformed as a character by the end of the story, or as a result of his own actions, he has merely come to accept his already existing thoughts on a more fundamental level, as he is faced with a sudden and impending fact of mortality. Therefore it could be argued that the finding of peace at the end of the text, does not negate the characters victimization as a result of his own actions, rather, the circumstances of the ending simply accelerate an inevitable acceptance within the character, of an already established viewpoint. In Camus’ play, “The Just Assassins”, he again explores the consequences of murder for those responsible, through an examination of a group of Russian Revolutionaries in the very early 20th century, who plot to assassinate a Duke, and do so, with a view to making a statement about the political and social state of the country at the time. Camus’ preoccupation with his philosophy of absurdity, in that life is spent attempting to be happy and achieving certain goals despite the fact that, according to Camus, these actions are ultimately futile as we inevitably die, and an afterlife does not exist, thus, he describes life as absurd. Though Camus did not believe in a ‘higher’ meaning, or afterlife, he did posit that mankind should still live moral lives and strongly believed in a fundamental goodness which mankind possessed (Freeman 80). Reflecting and alluding to these beliefs, we see moral issues, particularly murder and the consequences of such, running throughout his works, “The Outsider” and “The Just Assassins” in particular. Similar in some ways to the character of Meursault, the protagonist of “The Just Assassins”, Kaliayev, also ends up as a murderer who is punished by society for his actions. However, in stark contrast to Meursault, who not only does not plot the murder but cannot even articulate a reason for it nor feel a sense of remorse, Kaliayev spends much time and effort planning the assassination of the Duke with his group of like-minded comrades. Even more different, is the fact that Kaliayev spends much time contemplating right and wrong and debating the justification of the crime as he is plagued with a heavy conscience. This is evident throughout the play, for example, when he first attempts to assassinate the Duke, he does not go through with it as there were children in the way who could have gotten hurt. This highlights the morality of the character, who questions the righteousness of his intended actions. Kaliayev is also shown to be extremely different to Meurault and a relatively relatable character due to the fact that his motivation for assassinating the Duke is actually quite selfless and for the greater good of society, or so he and his friends believe. He asserts that by killing a political figure like the Duke, it will eventually serve to save the lives of thousands of men, women and children who are suffering as a result of the government policies and actions of the time. The fact that these desirable consequences will not actually affect him and that he will likely be punished by being sentenced to imprisonment or jail, does not deter Kaliayev from his desire to improve the conditions of his society, for the good of all those who live in it. In this way, Kaliayev, though actually a murderer, is shown to have quite high moral standards, however misguided, and a sense of bravery and martyrdom in the face of societal challenges and wrongdoing. Camus appears to be questioning the standards of morality through the story of the play and through the character of Kaliayev, “In Les Jus tes Camus is asking: What is the limit to the violence one can commit in the pursuit of just ends? To what extent is one justified in descending to the level of one's brutal and unscrupulous enemies if there is no other effective means of bringing about justice and democracy?” (Freeman 78). Kaliayev is also described as something of a poet, constantly declaring his love for life. Despite this, he is willing to sacrifice his life in the face of the tyranny their society is being subjected to. Though Kaliayev understands his inevitable destiny if he engages in the act of terrorism, and is willing to go through with it, it still remains a fact that he ends up a victim of his own actions. Like Meursault, Kaliayev ends up being sentenced to death. He will never witness or know for sure if his actions will give impetus to the changes he so desperately wants for his country. He ends up as much a victim of his own actions as the man he assassinates. His willingness to do so does not negate this victimization. Also interesting to note about the character of Kaliayev, is his distinction between the terms ‘murderer’ and ‘revolutionary’. He refuses to acknowledge that his killing of the Duke makes him a murderer, due to his honourable motivations. Even when confronted by the Duchess, the widowed wife of the Duke, he clings to the term ‘revolutionary’ and will not consider being deemed a murderer, even if it means he does not have to die, “"Let me prepare myself to die. If I did not die-- it's then I'd be a murderer” (Camus 111). He is offered a pardon on death if he admits to his murderous action as opposed to refusing it, but his determination and disgust at the possibility of being branded a murderer, makes him refuse the offer and accept death as his fate. Again, we see that the murderer is a victim of his own actions, as even getting a second chance, his refusal to be seen as a murderer results in his own death. We also see further evidence of his moral standards when he ensures that the possibility of his comrades thinking he had betrayed them does not happen, even if it helps him and may lesson his punishment. Through both “The Outsider” and “The Just Assassins”, Camus has given the reader two portrayals of muderers, who despite committing the exact same severe crime, do so for entirely different reasons. Whereas one lacks morality or reason of any kind, the other is guided by a moral compass and standards of right and wrong. However, despite the differences between the two, they both end up as victims of their own actions, as they do not get what they actually want in the end. Both are sentenced to death, and are forced to confront their morality and mortality by society as a result of their actions. Much like his French contemporary Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre also explored ideas of philosophical and moral significance, including the consequences of murder for the protagonist, in his play “Dirty Hands”. Extremely similar in plot and context to Camus’ “The Just Assassins”, “Dirty Hands” explores the consequences of terrorism and murder for a political cause through the character of Hugo. A young man with political ideals of Communism, Hugo is desperate to assert his manhood and worth as a young political cohort, despite his more privileged background. When he gains knowledge that party leader, Hoederer, may be compromising the political party Hugo so furtively believes in and follows, he believes he deserves to die for the good of the party, and sees the opportunity to assassinate him as a way of impressing and proving himself to the other important figures of the party. Much like Kaliayev, the motivation of murder here is purely political, at least at first. The character of Hugo, though asserting his political ideals, is also determined to prove himself and show that he is capable of having responsibilities, and being seen as a man instead of an inexperienced young adult. In this way, his motivation to assassinate Hoederer is infused with tones of selfishness and personal gain, albeit alongside political beliefs. Indeed, this is realised when, after warming to Hoederer and becoming influenced by his charm and convictions, he walks in on Hoederer in an intimate embrace with his wife, and kills him as a result of seeing this. Appearing initially to have become enraged to kill due to a jealousy relating to his wife, he later admits to one of the other party leaders that “I killed him because I opened the door. That's all I know", "Jealous? Perhaps. But not for Jessica” (Sartre 138). He admits to a jealousy which incensed the murder, thereby his moral convictions, though certainly more in existence than Meursault’s, are at the same time lesser then those of Kaliayev. Just as the murderer protagonists of the two other works become victims of their own actions and do not get what they want in the end, so too Hugo becomes a victim as a result of his actions, in several ways. He becomes imprisoned and is targeted for killing by members of the party, who send him poisonous food while in jail, and hunt him down after he escapes. He loses his wife after he is imprisoned, as she detaches herself from him and ends contact, even reverting back to the usage of her maiden name. In taking refuge with a trusted part member, He realises even the assassination of Hoederer may have been rendered futile due to secretive activities and deals occurring within the party which had not been aware of. As his murder of Hoederer was done with a view to impressing the other party members, if this was to be of no desirable consequence, he begins to understand he may have done it for nothing, and the personal consequences of his actions; being imprisoned, losing his wife, being targeted for murder, may all have been for nothing. Regarding motives for the murder of Hoederer, Hugo cannot truly articulate his actual motivation; whether it is jealousy and personal revenge, or political ideals, or both, as highlighted when he remarks to Olga after serving two years in prison “I went on alone and killed alone—and I no longer know why” (Sarte 136). However, much like Meursault by the end of “The Outsider”, Hugo has somewhat of a revelation when he realises that if he agreed with the party’s intentions he would not be living a truth and would this would fail to give his and Hoederers motivations and inclinations their proper regard. As stated by van den Hoven, Hugo “Then...decides that, even if he is confused, he should not acquiesce in the Party’s latest strategic twists and turns. Thus, he refuses to accommodate himself to the changed party line, which, ironically, now coincides with the views that the murdered Hoederer had held” (210). Unlike Kaliayev, the consequences of Hugo’s actions are complicated by secretive deals and activities he is unaware of, whereas Kaliayev is certain of the consequences and his actions go quite accordingly to plan. Exactly like the characters Meursault and Kaliayev, Hugo’s murderous action results in his death. Though his death is physically at his own hands, he is somewhat forced into this by the complications of the party members activities and Hugo’s determination to see through any positive consequences for his actions. However, as noted by van den Hoven, Hugo’s suicide is quixotic as the party will not regard this event in any way. The story ends here very abruptly; we do not see the consequences of the characters death in any way. The character of Hugo seems extremely misguided and blinded by his own insecurities, desires and beliefs, resulting in a futile attempt to redeem himself in some way by organising his own death. While at the beginning of the story, Hugo is a married, optimistic and ambitious man, he ends up without a wife, being hunted down by those he had trusted, and arranging his own death without any manifestation of the political ideals he strived for. Hugo ends up as a victim of his own actions in almost every way possible. As proponents of existentialism, both Camus and Sartre explore their theories and ideas on morality, society and justice throughout their works, namely, “The Outsider”, “The Just Assassins” and “Dirty Hands”. All three protagonists murder another human being, are imprisoned and judged by society and all three ultimately end up dead. Though each protagonists circumstances and motivations differ in some way, each ends up in very similar situations in which they are victims of their own actions. In “The Outsider”, Camus presents us with a very unusual and quite shocking protagonist in the character of Meursault, who is utterly without morals, judgements or any kind of belief system. Lacking in motivation or remorse for his crime, he is judged to be a type of monster by society, and condemned to death. Though he comes to accept his fate, and is comforted by its inevitability, this is forced upon him and there is no reason to believe that he would not have realised this on his own terms if given a chance. In “The Just Assassins”, again Camus presents us with a murderer protagonist but in this case, Kaliayev is a very moral individual who is motivated entirely by social justice, but again, he ends up dead and without the realisation of his political beliefs. In Sartre’s character Hugo, we are again met with a murderer protagonist who is motivated by political beliefs, though this appears to be compromised by personal desires and passions. Hugo ends up without wife, political allies or friends by the end of the story, and arranges for his own death with a view to redeeming himself in the eyes of the party he longed to impress, albeit in an entirely futile attempt. Each murderer ultimately becomes a victim as a direct result of his own actions and does not live to see the realisation of any of his initial desires or motivations. Works Cited Camus, Albert. Caligula and 3 Other Plays. The Just Assassins. New York: Vintage Books, 1985. Print. Camus, Albert. The Outsider. London: Penguin, 2000. Print. Day, Patrick. "A Comparative Study Of Crime And Punishment In Ousmane Sembene's Le Docker Noir And Albert Camus's L'etranger." Africa Today 52.3 (2006): 83-96. Academic Search Premier. Web. 12 Apr. 2012. Freeman, E. "Camus's Les Justes Modern Tragedy Or Old-Fashioned Melodrama?." Modern Language Quarterly 31.1 (1970): 78-91. Academic Search Premier. Web. 13 Apr. 2012. Sartre, Jean-Paul. No Exit, And Three Other Plays. Dirty hands. New York: Vintage International, 1985. Print. van den Hoven, Adrian. "Sartre's Conception Of Historiality And Temporality: The Quest For A Motive In Camus' The Stranger And Sartre's Dirty Hands." Sartre Studies International 11.1/2 (2005): 207-221. Academic Search Premier. Web. 13 Apr. 2012. Read More