To Kill A Mockingbird Rhetorical Analysis

716 Words2 Pages

Imagine a trial where the evidence presents an obvious verdict, but the verdict ends up being based on racial discrimination. In the case of Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, a black man, by the name of Tom Robinson, is accused of raping a white woman, Mayella Ewell. Atticus, Tom’s lawyer, presents solid evidence like the physical inability for Tom to rape Mayella, the contradicting witness’ testimonies, and a reminder to the jury that in America, Tom has the right to a fair and equal trial despite his race. Atticus used all of these persuasive techniques and other rhetorical strategies to present an obvious answer to the case.
Atticus proves to the jury that there is no way that Tom Robinson could have raped Mayella Ewell. He tells them,” Now there is circumstantial evidence to indicate that Mayella Ewell was beaten savagely by someone who led, almost exclusively, with his left. And Tom Robinson now sits before you, having taken "The Oath" with the only good hand he possesses -- his right.” This proves that Tom Robinson would be physically incapable to commit such a crime because his left hand is immobile and he could not have punched Mayella’s right eye, the eye that was bruised. However, Mayella’s father, Bob Ewell, is a left-handed man that has a reputation for drinking too much and …show more content…

He says to the courtroom as whole, “Now, gentlemen, in this country our courts are the great levelers. In our courts, all men are created equal. I'm no idealist to believe firmly in the integrity of our courts and of our jury system. That's no ideal to me. That is a living, working reality!” Atticus hopes that if the men do not realize the justice of giving an equal trial, they will at least feel guilty for disobeying that promise that has been written in the sixth amendment of our very own

Open Document