Chronicle Of A Death Foretold

Ladies and gentleman of the jury, the task is with you to decide where the blame for Santiago Nasar's murder lies. It seems as if the fault of his death was no one's, and yet at the same time, everyone's. It is clear, and there is little doubt, that the two men on trial today, Pedro and Pablo Vicario, committed the physical murder, however, can a society where his death was foretold among almost the entire town, and yet only one person acted, be left guilt free? Can two individuals be held responsible for the murder of what could have been an innocent man? They were two men simply doing their duty after all. It was the sister who incriminated Nasar, and an entire community that did nothing to prevent his murder. To find the truth not only must we look at the foundations of the society that watched this crime happen, but also question what truth itself is, and where we can trust it. To begin with, Angela Vicario's honesty must be put under scrutiny. The fact she did not hide the truth from her new husband suggests reliability, she claimed: "the more I thought about it, the more I realised that it was all something dirty that shouldn't be done to anyone". It implies she's open, pure in heart if not in body, and also hints at her courage. Nevertheless, if Angela Vicario was brave enough to face her husband, not as a virgin, perhaps she did not really want to be Bayardo San Roman's wife. Perhaps, she knew that he would return her, and she could remain with her secret lover. In her statement when asked who Santiago Nasar was, she replied without hesitation: "He was my perpetrator". That's a somewhat detached view of the man who took her virginity. No words of love, or hatred; not a single adjective for the man who allegedly "deflowered" her. Angela Vicario could have found Santiago's name at "first sight among the many, many other easily confused names from this world and the other", as if it was the perfect cover for a deeper secret perhaps; as though he was the easiest man to blame, in order to protect another. She could have "nailed it to the wall with her well-aimed dart, like a butterfly with no will, whose sentence has always been written". It is as though Santiago's fate was sealed in her mind a long time ago, as if she had planned perfectly whose name to feed to her family, even if it was a man as innocent, and pure as a butterfly. It could have been in the hope they would not have killed someone of a higher class than their own or simply that his life was insignificant to her. Her denunciation has no substance, and yet a man has died because of it. None of her close friends had even considered Santiago Nasar close to her, the name seems to have been plucked from the thin air, and no evidence has been presented to support the accusation. It has been said that "by his own merits, Santiago Nasar was merry and peaceful, and openhearted." Each word separated highlighting their integrity. Taking one look at this man's character screams his innocence. "From his father he learned at a very young age the manipulation of firearms, his love for horses, and the mastery of high flying birds of prey, but from him he also learned the good arts of valour and prudence". Santiago Nasar has been presented to you as a man so noble, pure and full of honour he seems like a knight. He does not appear as sleazy, or suspicious, and it has also been said by many that the "victim's very behaviour during his last hours was overwhelming proof of his innocence" and that "his reaction was not one of panic, as has so often been said, but was rather the bewilderment of innocence." A guilty man would have hidden away after the wedding, kept himself to himself and lay low. Santiago Nasar had no idea what he was being killed for, and no honour lies in killing an innocent man. And yet, it is murder in the defence of honour that Pedro and Pablo Vicario are pleading guilty to. Not one person stood in their way, they were called "Lowlifes, shitty animals that can't do anything that isn't something awful", but no one stopped them. Most thought "they were hard-looking but of a good sort". The brothers made their intentions as clear as they possibly could, telling everyone, maybe in the vain hope that someone would prevent them from acting, seemingly desperate to be excused from the grim obligation of killing the man who stole their sister's purity. These men have been declared innocent in the eyes of god, and they seem to remain innocent in the eyes of this community, but being reluctant to commit the crime suggests that they themselves did not believe that the value of honour is worth more than the value of life. These men were fulfilling their duty, and a society that expects their young men to kill blindly, is one that's morals must be put into question. The roles of each gender and class also have a part to play in the many causes of Santiago Nasar's death. The social hierarchy lulls people into a sense of security. It was said that the Vicario brothers were "not going to kill anyone, let alone someone rich", and that Santiago thought "his money made him untouchable", but honour appears to have over ruled class in this instance. Tradition left the brothers with no choice but to commit a crime they clearly did not want to commit, which can be seen in how they did not keep their intentions secret from anyone, and it is not right that this duty fell on their hands. Killing Santiago Nasar has not brought back Angela Vicario's virginity, nothing has changed. His death realistically was for nothing and only tradition states otherwise. Men are free to go to the brothels, and women of a low class are free to act as promiscuously as they like, and yet women like Angela Vicario have expectations of them. Sexual freedom does not apply to her and Santiago Nasar paid for that, whether or not he was in fact her perpetrator. We are living in a society built around gossip, superstition and out-dated gender roles. Repeatedly, the reason for not warning Santiago Nasar against Pedro and Pablo Vicario was that "no one even wondered whether Santiago Nasar had been warned, because it seemed impossible to all that he hadn't". Gossip spreads like wild fire through this town, and yet no one seems to hold themselves responsible for the death that their simple passivity caused. Where is the honour in spreading rumours with no intention of salvaging the horrific consequences they could result in? This trial will be talked of for years without a doubt but the chances of anyone speaking out against the outcome, no matter what it may be, are beyond slim. Within a small community there needs to be collective responsibility, but instead there is collective indifference. Never was there a death more foretold, but it was not prevented. The rumours spread, and were passed on, but no one then acted other than a note through the door. A note through the door was the most anyone did to save the life of a man they had lived amongst for years. From this we can draw that each individual hid among the masses and used de-individuation. Every new person to tell about Santiago Nasar's death was another person who could act; and so if anyone could act, no one will be the first. No one was going to rescue him from his fate, because they convinced themselves that someone else would; that someone else had a greater responsibility. Even now, the entire community are not on trial for a failure to act, and the guilt has been split so many ways that it must be barely felt, and so nothing will change. Life will carry on in just the same way as before, and is has created a society without boundaries. A society where anything could happen, so long as enough people heard about it before hand, no one would act against it. Protection of a crime no longer lies in secrets, but in passivity, where all guilt seems to be avoidable by simply thinning it out, passing it along, and sharing it with as many as possible so no one has to feel it. Furthermore, this trial has also reflected that superstition is yet another way to shift guilt; hiding behind ghosts and altering memories to convince one another that nothing could have been done, and that we mustn't blame ourselves. Subtle things, like Divina Flor claiming that Santiago Nasar "grabbed her by the wrist with a hand that felt frozen and stony, like the hand of a dead man", that Clotilde Armenta felt "the breath of the Holy Spirit". Deceiving their own minds with the idea that he was dead already, so they can believe that there was nothing they could have done. As the jury in this trial, it is your part to decide whether or not Pablo and Pedro Vicario are guilty of the murder of Santiago Nasar, but that is not the difficulty you are faced with. The evidence is clear, and the brothers have not denied it so your lawful obligation is simple. It is your moral obligation that takes precedence. Sexism and tradition allowed a man to be accused, passivity and honour allowed that man to lose his life, then gossip and rumours left no one to feel any remorse. It is not enough to hide among the masses in anonymity. Every single individual that knew Santiago Nasar was going to be murdered now holds the guilt of his death, and should face that. It is not enough to be passive.