Bigger's Guilt In A Few Good Men

Confined. Bigger was confined by four white walls of oppression with no possibility of escape. Bigger, taught to fear the white man and avoid the white woman, knows nothing else. However, when confronted by his number one adversary, Mary, she treats him with kindness. Mary represents white society, the same society whose sole desire is to destroy Bigger. For the first time in his life, a white person acted as if Bigger was human, and ultimately Mary’s simple act of kindness killed her. Bigger was so unaccustomed to kindness, that he reacted like an animal. When put into a stressful situation the human body resorts to animalistic behavior and has two options: to fight the stressor, or to flee from it. But, since Bigger’s white box of oppression
confined him so tightly, his only option was fighting. Bigger killed because he had to. During the trial, the prosecutor, Buckley, shows that Bigger,monster, must be put to death for his horrendous actions. Buckley fails to realize that Bigger is simply a byproduct of a racist society. Society taught Bigger how to feel, taught Bigger that he was more monster than man, and Buckley simply perpetuates this. Max however, points out that Bigger was dead the minute he was born. Every opportunity Bigger had at escaping was taken from him before it was offered. While both speeches use pathos to try to persuade the jury, Buckley fails to grasp the root of the problem whereas Max bravely showcases where Bigger’s terrible crimes truly stem from. Throughout his speech, Buckley plays on existing stereotypes and societal views, portraying Bigger as the villain that the jury so desperately desires. Buckley allows the jury to place the blame on Bigger, thus avoiding any feelings of guilt for their wrongdoing. The court does not want to feel sympathy for Bigger. They want a scapegoat. Calling Bigger a “maddened ape” (376) Buckley rips away the meager humanity Bigger has left. Eager to blind the jury, Buckley denies Bigger’s humanity. No longer does the jury feel as if it is a man’s life at stake, but an animal's. Furthermore, Buckley showed the jury Bigger’s animalistic nature through the biblical allusion to the snake in the Garden of Eden. Stating that everyone should “crush with [their] heel the wooly head of [the] black lizard”(373), Buckley draws comparisons between Bigger and a snake--the physical embodiment of evil. When confronted with a great evil, it is humanity’s duty to ensure that said evil dies. Comparing Bigger to a snake creates a sense of urgency among the jury. Allowing a deadly viper to roam free increases the risk of being bitten. Buckley coerces the jury into believing it would be downright sinful to allow such a threat to live. Buckley makes Bigger’s guilt appear impossible to deny. His appeals create a call for action to put a monster to death. Buckley also appeals to the audience by commenting on the moral nature of laws. Showcasing that laws are created for the “protection of our society” (372), Buckley points out the reasons behind laws. He emphasizes that sparing Bigger’s life is a direct violation of the rules that protect the “millions of honest men and women” (372)--which the jury itself is a part of. Not only would letting Bigger live be a huge offense to the system of law, but also the innocent white citizens of the country. However, Buckley fails to realize that Bigger’s faults are not his own. Bigger is a creation of a flawed society, and the very laws meant to protect the whites and keep Bigger isolated are same ones that led to Mary’s death. Buckley invalidates his own argument by ignoring the issue’s roots. It was through no fault of his own that Bigger killed, but rather society’s fault. Instead of fixing the fault, the jury chose to ignore the crack running through the foundation of their society. Saving Bigger’s life came with a price too high for the jury. Saving Bigger’s life meant accepting that the jury was as guilty as Bigger was. Saving Bigger’s life was not an option for the “innocent” jury for it meant hanging--side by side--with Bigger on the scaffold. Saving Bigger’s life was a death sentence. On the other hand, Max realizes that society made Bigger. His argument attempts to create sympathy for Bigger, but more so prys open the eyes of the blind jury. The jury is blind by choice; blind to their actions, blind to the consequences, blind to the faults that they themselves created. A “sick social organism” (354), society refuses to acknowledge its role in Bigger’s crime. Max is the doctor who has the needed drugs: tolerance, empathy, and humanity, but the patient, society, rejects all help. Bigger’s crime began long before he was born,it began at the nation’s birth. Max addresses the glaring contradiction: how can the land of the free be held up on the backs of the oppressed? This country was formed by individuals who “shut their eyes to the humanity of other men” (359) because they believed they had no choice. But offered the choice, they shy away from it. Max forces the jury to admit that white society “know[s] the evidence, for [they] helped to create it” (363). While society may not have slammed the crumbling brick into Bessie’s skull or burned Mary’s ivory skin, it supplied the fire and the mortar which killed them both. Society gave Bigger the tools to kill and taught him fear. Max points out that everyone is guilty of Bigger’s crime; thus they have perpetuated the problem. Both Max and Buckley appeal to the emotions of the jury to convince them.
Specifically, both include guilt within their arguments. Max attempts to show the guilt of society-- that it is not solely Bigger’s crime, but society’s crime. Bigger was “excluded from, and unassimilated in [the white man’s] society” (367). He was created by a fractured society. Society deserves as much blame for the death of the two women as Bigger does. Buckley also applies guilt but in a different manner. Using guilt to display how Bigger is entirely responsible for his crime he portrays Bigger as a “cunning beast” (372), showing that his actions were thought out. Buckley bases his arguments on the idea that Bigger knew what he was doing. Thus he suggests that Bigger deserves full blame for his crime, as he was aware of his actions. Both Max and Buckley also play on the humanity of the audience to try and sway their opinions. Max attempts to highlight that Bigger has been stripped of all humanity and had been robbed of life before he even had the chance to live. However, Buckley, plays on the sympathies for the Dalton family and explains why a murder cannot go unpunished. This allows him to win the court case, but he did not have the superior argument. Max’s speech contained stronger support systems as well as a stronger appeal to
pathos.
Buckley won because the court was afraid. Afraid to admit its own guilt: afraid to acknowledge societal flaws; afraid of the unknown. Max’s speech forced the jury to think. Basing his arguments on facts rather than stereotypes; Max fought for equality. Humanity, struggling with problems, will shy away from the light if it means staying in the darkness for a while longer. Society loves its four walled white box and detests change. However, Max came along and, ripping the curtain off the window, exposed the true state of society and thus lost the case. But did he really lose? If even one person heard his speech and started fighting for change--was it really a loss? Max fought so that “[Mary’s] death [would] mean something” (362). Society must decide if it will repeat history’s mistakes again, or strive to be better. Will we chose ignorance, or will we choose light over darkness, and equality over division?