I think the OP is confusing cerebral and emotionally restrained with naive. Atticus very well knew the society he lived in, including the fact that a black person accused by a white person stood essentially no chance of winning (all white juries with an unspoken custom that they would always believe the white person and find the black guilty). He was an experienced lawyer in this society; do you really imagine he wasn't aware of the situation.
Another person commenting made a agood point: What would you have him do? Should he announce to the jury that he knows the will decide in lockstep against Tom Robinson so that he is not going to bother to defend his client. I think the better question is what is a basically moral person supposed to do in a society that, at least in some respects, is ruled by immoral laws and customs. He did his best lawyerly work, demonstrating beyond any doubt that Robinson could not have committed the crime. The Ewell's testimony was utter crap by any criteria. Atticus was correct that the case should never have come to trial. This is what he would have argued on appeal. It is not naive for a lawyer to think that he might be able to prevail on appeal by citing clear legal principles. Even though the Civil Rights Movement did take off in earnest until the mid-1950's, lawyers fighting racial injustice were winning cases well before that. A propos to To Kill a Mockingbird was the "Scottsboro Boys" trial where nine black teens were sentenced to death for rape in what were clearly kangaroo courts. On appeal these initial convictions were overturned.
But I suppose one more motive that we may ascribe to Atticus was that, despite knowing the society he lived in, he felt a moral imperative to call upon the jury to listen to sense, follow the law, and let their better natures rules their action. If one lives in a society governed by immoral customs, shouldn't one try, by all appropriate means and whenever the occasion arises, to work towards change?
reply
share