In the Name of Who?

"In fact, I had no time to look, as the presiding judge had already started pronouncing a rigmarole to the effect that 'in the name of the French people' I was to be decapitated in some public place."

In the name of the French people, Meursault is to be put to death, having murdered an Arab. But, it does not seem to be this murder which is at the heart of the reasoning behind his execution. It merely serves as a preciptating event which brings Meursault to trial, along with his rather detached, uncaring mindset, which is what is really scrutinized throughout the trial.

How can I say that a penalty of death for the murder of the Arab, and only for the murder, was done in the name of the French people? Because to the French court, the Arab (and his family) are neither seen as Frenchmen, treated like Frenchmen, or given the respect Frenchmen would be given in a French court of law. In fact, as one panel presentation pointed out, the Arab is never mentioned after Chapter 6. Not only does the court forget about the Arab as a minor component to the proceedings, but so does Meursault, and even Camus.

We never see anyone related to the Arab at the trial, nor do we ever hear their side of the story. Instead, the trial focuses on Meursault's actions following the death of his mother, which the prosecutor finds him "morally guilty of. Seen as "heartless" and as a "criminal devoid of the least spark of human feeling", Meursault is put to death for not being a part, to any extent, of the then-contemporary society. Meursault operates completely isolated from that, and is therefore not only a part of it, but a threat to its functioning. His lack of compassion towards his mother's death indicates a potential disregard for human life, indicating that Meursault could potentially be a threat to murdering others. And while this may be a case in the eyes of the court, I saw Meursault as just being indifferent towards the passing of his mother, rather than as becoming happy as a result.

The flaws of the court system are shown quite clearly, even beyond this focus on a completely separate event than the one leading to him being tried. Meursault is accused of premeditated murder, of someone he had never met (or even heard of!) prior to the violent encounters of that day, someone who he killed as an adverse and ill-advised reaction to the glinting sunlight of the beach, possibly also suffering from heat exhaustion or another condition leading to him not being present in a complete mental state. To accuse Meursault of premeditated murder doesn't seem to make any sense at all in my eyes, even if one hasn't seen the story from Meursault's perspective. While there are details which would obviously be obscured or completely hidden if they weren't observed from Meursault's perspective, premeditated murder seems to be a rather large leap, once again as an excuse to put Meursault to death, for his danger to society, seen through the death of his mother. His mother's death could be seen as a moral patricide, being tried before the case of an actual patricide, potentially influencing the way that the case is looked at.

Meursault is not put to death for the murder of the Arab, nor in the name of the French people who he supposedly endangers, but is put to death for being seen as emotionless, uncaring, and as an overall threat to the society in which he lives, showcasing major faults in a court system, and in the death penalty, given to a man who had no intention of killing anyone, or causing societal or widespread harm.