Harper Lee's famous novel, To Kill A Mockingbird, examines issues of racism and justice during the Great Depression in Maycomb, Alabama, through the eyes of a six-year old girl, Scout Finch. The story revolves around the trial of a black man, Tom Robinson, who has been accused of raping the daughter of the town drunk, Bob Ewell, who is a notorious racist. Robinson is innocent, and Bob is simply trying to cover up the fact that he beat his daughter. However, Robinson is convicted and murdered as he attempts to escape from prison. Bob Ewell also has a vendetta against Atticus Finch, the father of Scout and the lawyer of Tom Robinson. On Halloween night, Bob Ewell attacks the unprotected Scout and her brother Jem. Boo Radley, the town recluse, arrives just in time to save the children and he kills Bob Ewell. Ultimately, the sheriff decides not to include Boo's involvement in Ewell's death in the police report. Justice was served, but not through judicial means. Lee portrays two ideas of justice in her novel - one that is committed to artificially designed concepts of order and the law of man, and another that is committed to natural retribution.
Atticus Finch Testifying on behalf of Tom Robinson
In a sense, there is a lot of Malcolm X's ideas in the novel. As the law fails to deliver justice, it is up to those who are aware of the injustice to address it by whatever means necessary. Sometimes hateful violence needs to be taken care of the old fashioned way with reciprocation. I am not advocating this concept on a macro scale, but when the lives of those around you are threatened by an identifiable entity and the law won't deliver protection, sometimes vigilante justice is necessary. Even Atticus Finch, the emblem of law and order, understands this concept. This is revealed in a scene in the novel in which Atticus shoots a rabid dog, telling his children it simply needed to be done.
Atticus and the Rabid dog
I actually agree with your post and with the idea that vigilante justice can be necessary when the legal system fails. However, I think that it's that last part that's most important; when the legal system fails. As you point out, implementing this kind of law on the macro scale would be no different than pure anarchy and would be disastrous. I've never read To Kill a Mockingbird myself, but it sounds like a very interesting book. The idea of the legal system failing not once but multiple times in this novel to carry out justice and provide safety is a scary thought. Our legal system today still isn't perfect but I certainly would rather have a constructed legal system than rely on vigilantism. Ultimately, it sounds to me, that the sheriff that allows Boo's involvement to go unpunished serves to convey this message; society should allow this kind of justice to occur when the legal system fails. Nice post, I'll be sure to read this book.
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point that the design of most laws are made when looking at the big picture of society and that under certain circumstances its completely reasonable to break the law using your own individual judgment. In many circumstances the law fails at including all the different variable situations that exceptions could justly be made. Boo Radley could have been charged with a crime even though he was doing all of society a favor by killing Bob Ewell. This can also apply to King's ideas of justice because he also believes that actions should be taken based on a moral bases when laws fail to give real justice. This also relates directly to the other matters that To Kill a Mockingbird addresses and its no surprises because the story took place in the same racially unjust time in society.
ReplyDeleteI think this is an important idea because it makes you think about what is justice and what is not. The law is supposed to be the standard of justice, so when parts of it are unjust for certain people that can certainly be alarming. But if you take the law into your own hands you are saying you know what is just and unjust. A lot of things in life have a gray area, meaning people disagree about what is just and what is unjust about it. It is important to balance what you believe is just (if the law is failing to do anything about it) and taking responsibility for putting that standard on everyone else by forcing your beliefs on them.
ReplyDeleteI really liked the way that you tried to link Malcolm X's ideas to "To Kill a Mockingbird," since it is such a valued American classic. If Malcolm X were to give his opinion on the story, though, I'm not sure if he would completely agree with it. I understand your point that these crimes should be addressed when necessary, and that Boo's involvement was not included in the crime because he was protecting the children. I don't deny that he did not do the right thing, but Malcom X did make a very strong point that he wanted equality under the law. He did value the "ballot" over the "bullet," so though maybe this was a situation where the "bullet" was the necessary option, I'm not so sure if he would necessarily advocate for it. This situation seems slightly controversial to me.
ReplyDeleteNicholas, this is a fascinating post containing great comparisons. I have read "To Kill a Mockingbird" multiple times and seen the movie several times as well--such a classic. I, too, agree with the idea that vigilantes can be beneficial to society in solving problems that the legal system fails to solve. But as Matthew comments, implementing a system that relies on vigilantes on a macro scale would not only be disastrous but also very dangerous. It would do more harm than good. Additionally, as Martha points out, everyone has a different set of morals and ethics, so people's views of what is just and unjust are going to differ. Therefore, vigilantes can be a good thing but only when absolutely necessary. It is interesting though how Boo Radley is seen as a hero in virtually every readers'/viewers' eyes. What makes Boo an exception, allowing him to break the law and get away with it? I'm sure a large amount of people who are in jail or prison believe that they had a justifiable reason or cause for their actions. So what makes it okay for certain people to break the law but others not? Again, everyone has a differing views, and I would argue that there is no "right" set of morals or ethics. Don't get me wrong, I too believe that Boo did the right thing and do not think he should be punished for his actions, but it's just an interesting phenomenon.
ReplyDeleteNicholas, I found your post very interesting to read. First, "To Kill a Mockingbird" is one of my favorite books of all time, so I was obviously pleased to see it mentioned in a blog. It was fascinating to read your comparisons between Malcolm X and the trial of Tom Robinson in "To Kill a Mockingbird." What you said was so right, in that the law in society cannot always give justice to the citizen; it is instead up to the citizen at times to ensure that justice is brought. This is a topic Malcolm X introduced in his speech, and a theme that is almost essential to the history of our country. Many, many times throughout history has justice not been brought to certain individuals, whether it be because of the law, or because of those executing the law, and it has been up to the individual citizen to bring about changes.
ReplyDeleteSo, it is the Malcolm X's and Atticus Finch's of the world who have recognized this fact, and thus tried to change society and bring about justice by themselves. This, of course, is a touchy subject, because it is entirely subjective as to when it is necessary to try to bring justice in a way the law is not, as well as to what extent should the individual believe it is his or her right to bring about justice, and disregard the law. Obviously, this can be a controversial subject, as is any case regarding justice. Overall, very nice post; it brought up key issues that must be discussed when arguing political theory.