To Kill A Mockingbird Argument Analysis

Authors incorporate arguments into their works that readers can respond to. In To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee, one of the arguments presented is that people will reject the truth to please society and others. This argument is demonstrated when Dill and Scout meet Dolphus Raymond, when the court finds Tom Robinson guilty, and when Heck Tate declares Mr. Ewell’s death as an accident rather than a murder. During the case, Jem orders Scout to take Dill and leave the courtroom because Dill was crying when he heard Mr. Gilmer’s cross-examination of Tom Robinson. Outside, they meet Dolphus Raymond who was always seen drunk. He approached Dill and Scout and offered Dill a drink to calm him down. Scout was cautious but was reassured when she learned that Dolphus Raymond drank soda, not an alcoholic beverage. He explains why he acts drunk in public. He is in a relationship with a black woman and, at that time, society frowned upon interracial relationships, especially in the south. He rejected the truth of his relationship to a black woman to please the societal standard of separation based on skin color. …show more content…
When she realized her credibility is starting to deteriorate, she called the jury “yellow stinkin’ cowards” (251). This was meant to coax the jury into finding Tom guilty by questioning a societal standard that the men should protect the woman. Eventually, the jury finds Tom Robinson guilty even though his testimony was strong and Mayella’s testimony was full of hesitance, stuttering, and changes to her story. This decision was unprecedented and even shocked Dill, Scout, and Jem. Although Tom was clearly not guilty, the jury still found him guilty to act in accordance with the societal standard that the men should protect the