Gabriel Octavio

Ms. Woelke

Pre-AP Language Arts

May 22, 2020

Analysis of TKAM’s “Great Levelers Speech”

In a fundamental sense, it is the goal of a judicial system to uphold and maintain the law

in the most objective and factual matter. These fundamentals, however, are put up to the test in

Harper Lee’s ​To Kill A Mockingbird​ and the case of Robinson v. Maycomb. In the case’s closing

arguments, the defense attorney, Atticus Finch, makes the argument that, in court, every man

should be able to have a fair chance of winning and, because of this level playing field, courts are

the “great levelers.” While, in a fundamental sense, Atticus is correct as courts are to withdraw

prejudices and focus only on factual evidence, courts are ultimately flawed from the human

aspect of subjectivity and can be swayed by prejudice. The use of objectivity and facts can be

seen in the defense’s cross examination of Mayella Ewell and Robert Ewell. In the closing

argument, Atticus states that the court cannot identify who exactly beat Mayella Ewell, but has

“circumstantial evidence to indicate that Mayella Ewell was beaten savagely by someone who

[used] almost exclusively his left [hand],” reinstating that Tom Robinson, who took oath to

swear the truth, sits “with the only good hand he possesses - his right hand” (Lee 208). In

essence, Atticus makes the argument that, with the evidence gathered through his cross

examinations, it should be objectively ruled out that the aggressor be Tom Robinson, as the

beatings on Mayella Ewell are on the left side of her head where Tom Robinson cannot hit

because he does not have a left hand. Fundamentally, it should be reasonable to support Atticus’s
argument as a member of the jury, as Atticus uses circumstantial evidence to reasonably infer

that it cannot be Tom Robinson who attacked Mayella Ewell. Because institutions such as the

judicial system, elements of objectivity and the use of facts are promoted and therefore can be

seen as ‘great levelers’. However, elements of subjectivity and prejudice also seep into the legal

process, as seen in Tom Robinson’s cross examination. During Tom Robinson’s cross

examination by the prosecution’s attorney, Horace Gilmer, paints a narrative that, despite not

being able to land the marks on Mayella Ewell, he is still “strong enough to choke the breath out

of a woman and sling her to the floor” and makes it seem as though he was “scared [he’d] have

to face up with what he did [: raping Mayella Ewell]” (Lee 200). While the prosecution brings

forth the fact that Robinson is a strong person, the prosecution also twists facts and creatives a

narrative out of them, framing him of being a liar and cowardice. The use of charged words like

‘choking the breath out of a woman’ paint vivid imagery for the jury out of a hypothetical that

could have never happened. Using such charged words and painting narratives with

hypotheticals ultimately bring the subjectivity of the judicial system and appealing to an

emotional and sensational part of logic, of which should not be included in the judicial process

and bringing out the prejudices of a jury made of individuals that can be subjected to bias,

therefore making a court not a ‘great leveler’. Ultimately, Atticus’s belief of maintaining courts

as the ‘great levelers’ is fundamentally correct, it is flawed by being subject to human aspects of

subjectivity and prejudice.