To Kill a Mockingbird: Atticus Finch’s Closing Argument
Atticus Finch begins his closing statement with his claim “to begin with, this case should have never ever pertained to trial.” Here are the 2 reasons he offers to establish his argument. First, he asserts that the “State has not produced one iota of medical proof that the crime Tom Robinson is charged with ever took place. Next he states that the State is relying on the testimonies of 2 witnesses whose statements might undergo question based upon the “truthfulness” of their declarations. Finch invites the jury to look beyond what is actually mentioned and consider the indicated facilities. He shows there is “inconclusive evidence” that concludes Mayella Ewell was “beaten savagely by somebody who led, almost solely, with his left [hand] “
He then supports this by using clever and tactical double entendre “having actually taken the oath with the only excellent hand he possesses– his right. Finch uses innovative language to bring into concern the reliability of the “chief witness of the state” and suggests reasons regarding why she might “put a male’s life at stake,” offering “regret” as the inspiration for “ruining the proof of her criminal activity” Tom Robinson.
Appropriate Subjects Readers Also Choose
- Scout Finch Traits
The Defenses statements suggests the proof provided by the State are constructed on misleading arguments that seem persuasive in an effort to interest the mobs biases, which is worded as “wicked presumptions. Finch powers his argument by the expression “in the negative confidence that their statement would not be doubted” which the State was in span that the Court would “go along with them” on the [evil] assumption and generalization that all Negroes lie, are unethical, and are not to be relied on around white females. Finch, in closing, expresses the defendants “unmitigated Temerity” to also have pity on this white lady who has put Tom Robinson’s word against that of 2 white individuals word.
The Defenses argument essentially negates the circumstantial evidence and fallacies of Tom Robinson’s accusers. The Defense did an exceptional task of exposing the fallacies of the State’s evidence, the credibility of the witnesses, and the truthfulness of the facility. “The defendant is not guilty. But somebody in this courtroom is.” So to conclude, the Defense calls for the Court to come to a choice, to examine the evidence “without enthusiasm.” Tom Robinson is innocent which this case needs to never ever have actually made it to trial.