“I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” Martin Luther King, Jr. Unfortunately, this was not the case in the trial of Tom Robinson. Atticus Finch uses many strong facts in his logos based argument; however, his Opponent Mr. Gilmer relies mostly on ethos and pathos to get the conviction. A person should not be convicted of a crime based solely on their skin color and circumstantial evidence, but regrettably for Tom Robinson, that was the case despite Atticus’s best efforts. Atticus Finch was a respected member of the community and had been a lawyer for many years at the time of Tom Robinson’s trial. This was his main use of ethos when speaking to the jury. Ethos is the
…show more content…
Gilmer is the prosecutor on the Tom Robinson case and uses that as his ethos when speaking to the jury. It strengthens his argument because the jurors want Tom Robinson to be guilty; therefore, they will believe anything he as the prosecutor has to say. Mr. Gilmer uses pathos when he calls Tom Robinson “Boy”(Lee 264) This strengthens his argument because it causes the jury to view him as childish and undermines any credibility he had. Mr. Gilmer does not rely much on facts for the logos part of his argument instead choosing very circumstantial evidence. He questions Tom Robinson if he is “Strong enough to choke the breath out of a woman and sling her to the floor?”(Lee 263) He questions him on this, despite the fact that even if he is strong enough to do so he could not have created the hand marks all the way around Mayella’s throat. Atticus Finch had the stronger argument because his defense of Tom Robinson is composed of facts whereas Mr. Gilmer’s argument was based mostly on what Tom could have done. Atticus also disproves that Tom Robinson could have done it. Tom was not physically capable of doing so due to his disability. In an unbiased courtroom, Tom Robinson would have been acquitted faster than the speed at which he tried to escape prison due to the absolute lack of facts on the prosecutor’s side. Facts are what a man should be convicted for and the only one to have actual evidence, in this case, was Atticus
Gilmer is the prosecutor on the Tom Robinson case and uses that as his ethos when speaking to the jury. It strengthens his argument because the jurors want Tom Robinson to be guilty; therefore, they will believe anything he as the prosecutor has to say. Mr. Gilmer uses pathos when he calls Tom Robinson “Boy”(Lee 264) This strengthens his argument because it causes the jury to view him as childish and undermines any credibility he had. Mr. Gilmer does not rely much on facts for the logos part of his argument instead choosing very circumstantial evidence. He questions Tom Robinson if he is “Strong enough to choke the breath out of a woman and sling her to the floor?”(Lee 263) He questions him on this, despite the fact that even if he is strong enough to do so he could not have created the hand marks all the way around Mayella’s throat. Atticus Finch had the stronger argument because his defense of Tom Robinson is composed of facts whereas Mr. Gilmer’s argument was based mostly on what Tom could have done. Atticus also disproves that Tom Robinson could have done it. Tom was not physically capable of doing so due to his disability. In an unbiased courtroom, Tom Robinson would have been acquitted faster than the speed at which he tried to escape prison due to the absolute lack of facts on the prosecutor’s side. Facts are what a man should be convicted for and the only one to have actual evidence, in this case, was Atticus