Rhetorical Analysis

Words: 416
Pages: 2

In his closing argument, the prosecutor skillfully utilized scare tactics and ad hominem to persuade the jury that Meursault is guilty of murder and that his indifference would be detrimental to society. First, the prosecutor uses strong words such as “threatening” to make the jury feel afraid of Meursault. Prosecutors often use scare tactics to exaggerate the severity of the case and highlight the defendant’s alleged actions. The prosecutor states that Meursault is a threat “to swallow up society” and tries to manipulate the audience to characterize Meursault as a dangerous citizen in Algeria. Furthermore, Meursault is accused of having “the emptiness of a man’s heart.” The prosecutor tries to show the audience that Meursault is indifferent …show more content…
The prosecutor's scare tactics show that Meursault’s indifference will be detrimental to society. In addition, in the prosecutor’s closing argument, he states, “that [Meursault] didn’t have a soul and that nothing human, not one of the moral principles that govern men’s hearts, was within my reach”(Camus, 101). This line sets the mood and establishes how the prosecutor will try to prove Meursault guilty. The prosecutor uses ad hominem in this quote and throughout his argument to attack Meursault’s character. The prosecutor states that, “[Meursault] didn’t have a soul and that [he had] nothing human [about him]”(Camus, 101). The prosecutor further adds to this statement as he explains to the audience Meursault’s indifference to his mother’s death and his actions at her funeral. The prosecutor displays Meursault as a detached person. It is in human nature to reject those who differ from themselves. The prosecutor uses this to his advantage as he further displays Meursault as a renegade by emphasizing that Meursault did “not [have] one of the moral principles[...]” that humans