People of Maycomb gathered here today, I stand here to implore you: evaluate this case not as a white or a negro, a doctor or a salesperson, a neighbour, a friend, nor a stranger, but as a simple human being. As a person who came into this world in the same way as Tom Robinson. As someone who has lived, and suffered, and felt. As a person who also has family, friends, and loved ones. I beg for you to lay down the conflicts which plague our society outside of this space, and to perceive the conflict of the courtroom as it is alone. To hear the facts and come to a judgement which is just, rational, and moral. So ladies and gentlemen, why are you seated here today, watching a case to which there is already a clear answer? We hold the evidence needed for an answer— I do not believe there is any more reason to argue for the innocence of Tom Robinson. “The state has not produced one iota of medical evidence,” against Tom Robinson: in fact, all of the evidence point to his innocence (TKAM 1:32:10 — 1:32:13). So gentlemen, why are we so eager to judge him guilty? Why are we so eager to take the life of a hardworking man, who has never before performed a wrongdoing? Is it merely due to the colour of his skin; the fact that he is a negro? Does this all fall down to “the evil assumption that all negroes lie, all negroes are basically immoral beings, all negro men are not to be trusted around our women” (TKAM 1:36:00 — 1:36:12)? Should we be punishing this young man for having sympathy for another human being? Should we be taking this man’s life for having the gall to aid another person in a time of perceived need? Ask yourself this, gentlemen. Ask yourself these questions today and check where your moralities stand. Are you ready to let this man lie for a sin he did not do; to die for the emotion of sympathy which we instil in the very hearts of our own children? Are you ready to watch a young man die for somebody who was too cowardly to own up for her actions, and now hides behind the very man she is prosecuting? What kind of society will you be representing when you go home tonight to your own children: one with sympathy and justice, or one that blindly follows the word of a liar? I do not ask of you a very difficult task. Gentlemen, today I merely implore you to do what you came here to do: to do justice. Do not fall to the implications and assumptions of the outside world, and instead, deliberate on the evidence you have in front of you and I beg of you. Do what you know to be right.
Works Cited
Mulligan, Robert, director. To Kill a Mockingbird. Universal Pictures, 1962. University of Rochester, digitalcampus.swankmp.net/rochester274683/Mobile/Play/#/play/48368.
This argument applies a certain degree of all three modes of appeal: pathos, lagos and ethos. You start off by building credibility by removing the differences of people and identifying them as simply human beings. Furthermore, you do firmly state that there is no substantial evidence that confirms Tom Robinson to be guilty, so there is a presence of the function of lagos. In my opinion, I believe you largely catered to the jury’s emotions, which I think was a clever way to sway the jury’s stance of the case especially when you introduced how their judgement will greatly impact how their children perceive them. I would choose that Tom Robinson is not guilty by this argument, for you question both one’s morals and image. I feel that bringing in the idea of family is a dominating factor, for one’s image to society and mainly their children are significant.