Gentleman, today I come before you as one human being talking to another. We here are all humans, classified and made in the image of the god we fear; even the defendant sitting in the chair behind me. Yes, even Tom Robinson. Today, a human life is in your hands. Although you may view this life as an inferior, black, human life due to the engrained societal bias engrained within you, it is none the less a human life. For this sole reason, I ask you to judge him as one, making your decision as you would for any other human life, black or white. You have been presented with eye witness accounts of the situation from three witnesses of the state and one account of the defendant. Upon cross examination, the statements from the witnesses of the state, excluding the Sheriff’s statement, one finds that they unquestionable contradict each other. The inconsistency among them calls their validity into question. Upon further cross examination, after being introduced to Tom Robinson’s statement, one can see that there is even more reason to question the truth of these statements. Because of this, I ask you to throw out the circumstantial hearsay brought before you today and to only focus on the facts of the case. Facts are unquestionable, one is not asked to believe that the sky is blue, nor is one asked to believe that water is wet because they are facts and need no faith. Therefore, you are not being asked to believe the facts of the court case, but to know them and make your judgement with them. These are the facts of the case. One, that Mayella Ewell was cruelly beaten upon her right side by an evil man who used primarily his left hand to do so. Two, that Tom Robinson stands before you today, entrusting upon you with his only good hand, his right hand, his life. In Tom Robinson’s own words, “I cant sir. I cant use my left hand at all i got it caught in a cotton gin when i was twqelve years old all my muscles were tore loose.” (TKM 1:19:40 – 1:20:13). Based upon the facts of the case one can only draw a single, reasonable, conclusion. That Tom Robinson did not and is physically unable to commit the crime he is charged with and is without a doubt, not guilty. I want to remind you why you are here today. Your purpose is to decide if Tom Robinson raped and beat Mayella Ewell, not if he committed the societal crime of feeling bad for a white woman, for this is not a crime against the law but a crime against societal norms. While you may take offense to this, the court does not; as agents of the court, your decision effecting Tom Robinson should not. Remember this, but also remember one other thing. You are not here to meet the societal expectations of what your decision should be or here to judge whether or not Tom Robinson is superior to Mayella or Bob Ewell. Your job is to decide if Tom Robinson raped and beat Mayella Ewell. You are here to make a judgement of whether or not an interaction took place, it is that simple. There is no personal judgement. No emotion. Simply facts. Put aside your passion and your engrained societal imposed biases towards the black man in front of you. Instead call upon the facts of the case which do not need questioning and cannot be altered by biases. Now go, proceed into that room knowing your purpose as men of justice, knowing that your decision will effect the life of a human being. After proceeding into that room, return with the one and only infallible verdict; Tom Robinson is not guilty of the brutal raping and beating that Mayella Ewell has suffered through. Now men of god and agents of the court, go, proceed into, and return out of that room having done what is not only right, but what is your duty.
Works Cited
To Kill A Mocking Bird. Robert Mulligan. Universal Pictures, 1962. Swank Motion Pictures. Web. 9 September 2017.
While reading your “speech” it was quit obvious that Logos was used through out it. You called for the facts to be the only thing taken into account. Listed out all of the facts presented in the trial; Tom’s unusable arm. that Mayella Ewell was beaten with a left arm, and the testimonies not matching up. And explained why it was necessary to only look at the facts.
If I put myself into the “skin” of one of the jurors I am unsure if this “speech” would win me over. It is all fine and dandy to say look at only the facts, but weather that happens is a different story. Remember Atticus did almost the same thing, he was just less direct in a sense. Though having said that this directness may have been what was needed, so I will say not guilty due to being called out.