Essay About Death Sentence And Religion’S Influence

How Does Geographical Circumstance Affect the Outcome of the Book?Essay title: How Does Geographical Circumstance Affect the Outcome of the Book?How does Geographical Circumstance affect the Outcome of the Book?Our lives are a product of the society we live in and the essence of who we are is directly influenced by our surroundings. Geography is a big fact that influences the outcome of this book because of the colonial power that controls the country. The setting of the story, Algeria is part of the reason that leads to the punishment that Meursault receives. On top of that there are flaws in the French judicial system that allow for Meursault to receive a death sentence. Religion also plays a big part in the outcome of the book because of its influences the way that society looks at criminals. Based on the circumstances Meursault was indeed very unfortunate to be sentence to death. All of the factors that arose due to the location of the story worked against Meursault’s freedom, and instead led to his undeserved death sentence. Had the trial been held in another country, or had the story taken place in another location, like Canada for example, the outcome would have been very different.

Due to the location of the colony and the colonial power that governs it, there are several religious influences on the trial. For example there seems to be very little separation between church and state because the examining magistrate “thrust the crucifix under his nose,” (p. 68) while he was questioning Meursault. On top of the influence Christianity has, Islam is also present, since it is a predominantly Arab country. This is shown during his final speech when the prosecutor says, “he’d peered into his soul and found nothing.” (p. 97) Once again religion’s influence on society is exposed and we see that Meursault was not only being tired by the law of he land, but also by its religions, something which would never happen in Canada during this time period. When Meursault’s lawyer also discusses his soul it show how deeply ingrained religion is within the people who live in this country. It is obvious how the so-called ‘law’ is tilted against Meursault, since he is a non-believer in God. What further adds to his problems is that the sentiment of the people is that if you do not believe in God you cannot be sorry for your sins or ask for forgiveness. Therefore they conclude Meursault is not remorseful for what he has done. Meursault also refuses to life, something that is considered to be the right thing to do in may religions. Ironically, this quality is what ends up sentencing him to have his head cut off. One could almost say he was willing to die for the truth.

Even if religion was disregarded as factor determining Meursault’s death sentence, there are still obvious flaws with how the trial proceeded. In Canada, Meursault’s trial would have never reached as far as it did in Algeria. Most importantly he would had had his lawyer present when he went to see the examining magistrate for the first time. Even though Canada doesn’t have the death penalty, Meursault wouldn’t even receive the equivalent, life in prison. At most he would have been charged with manslaughter, or criminal negligence causing death. In fact, if the trial had proceeded as unfairly as it had in Algeria, the case might have even been dismissed. The proceedings were so ridiculous that Meursault was

The Trial

Meursault was convicted of the most serious charge of homicide, which is considered most likely to go to manslaughter. The jury chose in April of 1976, a guilty verdict of between twenty and twenty-five (18%) and found him guilty of the other charges, each of which went to a lesser charge (Murder at the Word). This meant that after Meursault’s sentence ended, Canada did not have to pay him any more than it did in Algeria. The case became highly controversial, with critics believing that Canada’s acquittals were politically motivated and only serve to further undermine democracy in the country.

For the record, the acquittals had not been conducted in a trial like this, where the judge would have made it clear that Canada had no evidence to prove that the defendant was a danger to human life on account of his religion. What was still allowed to be known was that while the prosecutor and defense lawyer had a very high standard of evidence, the trial judges did not have a standard of justice to be applied to. As a result, the verdict may be referred to this trial for further examination of whether or not the jury were aware that the defendant was a major threat to public safety or did not feel he had any mitigating and other evidence that raised doubts over his guilt or innocence.

This would lead to even more troubling questions. Because the verdict was handed down at the trial, and because Canada’s acquittal would likely have made it difficult to prosecute a large portion of the charges, all three aggravating factors will have been removed from the jury selection ballot in the court case. While the most compelling argument is for Canada to have its own trial, I think it is far more likely that there will not be one. When the jury is supposed to be told which evidence merits the acquittal, it should ask the question, “Do I believe what I believe, or are I persuaded that what I believe is the best way to answer the question?”

As a result, for Meursault to be acquitted, Canada must have the ability to prosecute the entire trial in the court of public opinion. The jury would have a very difficult hearing, with so much emotion. It is not a matter where the decision is rendered. The only way to accomplish this is to keep Canadian media people from thinking Canadians who support the death penalty are doing so simply because they are doing so so poorly. The court could bring about a change in their position, but they could never do this unless they were successful in their arguments regarding the credibility of these defense attorneys.

The Law

There are only two cases I have personally heard of that have been brought into dispute by Canadian law:

Meursault v. the King

The King ruled