Perez, a friend of Meursault’s mother, is called as a witness. After he noting that he was too stricken with grief to see how Meursault reacted to the death, “The prosecutor asked him if he had at least seen [Meursault] cry” (Camus 91). However, the prosecutor’s question is utterly absurd as Perez has previously stated that, “My sadness made it impossible to see anything (my emphasis)…I wasn’t able to see monsieur” (Camus 91). While Meursault’s lawyer and the prosecutor attempt to explain Meursault’s sporadic and irrational nature based on logic and reasoning, these explanations put forth contain no basis in fact. They serve as attempts to refute the idea that things sometimes happen for no reason, and that events can take place intermittently without any meaning or logical explanation. Clearly, the entire trial is but a symbol of one of mankind’s many futile attempts to impose a sense of order and rationality on an otherwise, irrational world.
Despite Meursault’s lawyer’s tireless efforts, they gain little ground in helping him. The defense’s calling of witnesses are ineffective and in some cases, like Marie, actually aid in the prosecution: “Marie began to sob, saying it wasn’t like that, there was more to it, and that she was being made to say the opposite of what she was thinking” (Camus 94). The efforts of the witnesses for the defense are futile in the sense that they, similar to Meursault, can give little reasoning to his conduct. They can only attribute his actions to bad luck and chance, both of which provide no concrete facts to aid him as, “The prosecutor retorted that chance already had a lot of misdeeds on its conscience in this case” (Camus 95).To make matters worse, the defense witnesses are revealed as bad in moral fiber. Raymond, Meursault’s “pal”, was questioned on, “[h]ow he made his living, and when Raymond replied “warehouse guard,”…the prosecutor informed the jury that [Raymond] practiced the profession of a procurer,” therefore effectively preventing the defense from offering any redeeming testimonies on Meursault’s behalf.
As Meursault is unfairly tried, the jury is ignorant of the unfairness present in its proceedings. Fixated on the prosecutor’s allegation that Meursault is on trial for his emotional inaptness, they forget the crime of the murder of an Arab of which he was initially put on trial. “Normally, this would be far from viable in a court of law, but here it makes sense to the crowd” (Feuerlicht 5). Meursault, depicted as “[a] monster, a man without morals” (Camus 96), is condemned as disruptive and threatening to the social order due to his peculiar and seemingly emotionless psychology, that he must therefore be eradicated for his lack of morals.
As in The Stranger, Garcia Marquez utilizes the protagonist to bring about the notion that morals are but empty ideals of which humanity relies upon to impose order and rationality. In Chronicle of a Death Foretold, honor is an essential moral trait to keep intact. A person without honor would become an outcast in the community, consequently, any action employed to protect and/or maintain someone’s honor is never questioned in the novel. The safeguard of this moral trait is therefore directly responsible for Santiago Nasar’s demise as it is his morals and the morals of others that eventually condemn him.
Believed to have procured the virginity of Angela Vicario, the Vicario brothers set out to kill Santiago in order to restore the honor of their sister as an entire town stands by and watches. However, no evidence is ever revealed to prove of his liaison with Angela and that he was never seen with her also points to his innocence. Known as a seducer in the public’s eye, it is plausible though, that had he lived longer he would have seduced Divina Flor, therefore making Angela’s allegations quite plausible. Nevertheless, years later, the townspeople, who all knew of the murder beforehand and could have done something to prevent it, turned to the code for consolation, and convinced themselves that "affairs of honor are sacred monopolies, [and gave] access only to those who are part of the drama" (Garcia Marquez 114). The comment made by Prudencia Cotes, Pablo Vicario's fiancée, is also suggestive of the pressure the Vicario brothers were under in order to uphold their sister’s honor: "I knew what [Pablo and Pedro] were up to and I didn't only agree, I never would have married [Pablo] if he hadn't done what a man should do" (Garcia Marquez 72).
The inevitability of Nasar’s murder becomes the most overwhelming aspect of the narrator’s investigation. Numerous forces, some explicable, some inexplicable, seem to be at work in ensuring Santiago’s demise. The cult of machismo, seen in the rowdy drinking, the prevalence of weapons, the unruly and volatile conduct, even the repressed anger of women who are victimized by the culture in which they live, all combine to ensure the murder of Santiago based on his moral character as opposed to the actual crime in which 27 years later, it still remains a mystery if he was the “perpetrator” or not. In the end, “[O]ne man is dead, and hundreds have murdered him.” And indeed, everyone who knew of the twins' intentions and did nothing to stop them therefore shares responsibility for the crime.
While it is never known if Santiago was truly guilty or innocent of his crime, both he and Meursault can be viewed as sacrificial victims, who are unwillingly and unknowingly sacrificed to preserve and uphold the morals of the societal mass governed by morals. Camus and Garcia Marquez, through their use of the symbolic nature of the main characters, reveals that morals are but empty ideals of which humanity relies upon to impose order and rationality on an otherwise irrational universe.
