Confronting the Death of a Man
George Orwell and Martin Gansberg each wrote ¡°A Hanging¡± and ¡°38 Who Saw Murder Didn¡¯t Call the Police¡± using the topic of death. In their articles, they wrote about people¡¯s attitudes towards death to make a statement on their views towards life, and also towards society in general. Even though ¡°A Hanging¡± is based on the case of execution by hanging and ¡°38 Who Saw Murder¡± is based on the case of a murder, both authors are similar in that they are expressing their skepticism towards the people¡¯s attitudes in each case.
¡°A Hanging¡± is the story about George Orwell¡¯s participation in the execution of hanging. He illustrated the process of hanging a prisoner. At first, as did the other workers in the jail, he viewed the prisoner as a mere dead body, but when he saw the prisoner avoiding the puddle, his attitude changes. He figured out that the prisoner is a live man who is not different from any of the other people around him. However, many people treated the prisoner with indifference. The superintendent said, ¡°For God¡¯s sake hurry up, Francis, The man ought to have been dead by this time. Aren¡¯t you ready yet?¡± In his words, he expressed that he is irritated because the prisoner is not dead yet. His sole aim was hanging the prisoner and he ignored the ontology of the prisoner. He did not want to be troublesome by the prisoner who should have died. Finally, the prisoner was hanged to death without any trouble. Francis said that this was done with the utmost satisfactoriness. He said that there was a case in which the prisoner clung to the bars of his cage so that six wards came to dislodge him and told him, ¡°think of all the pain and trouble you are causing to us.¡± Francis cared only about his convenience in front of a man who was going to die. To him, expediency was more important than the life of the prisoner. The author and the others who listened to Francis laughed out loud even though they were not sure why they were laughing. Since their job was to hang the prisoners, they laughed in order to justify their doings. Even though the author knew that it was an unspeakable wrongness to cut a life short, he justified himself since he participated in hanging. Nevertheless he was not for capital punishment; he had to kill people with indifference since it was his job. The life of the prisoner is actually no different from other people. Prisoners can see, hear, feel and understand the same things other people can. However, the others ignored his life as a mere troublesomeness. When they drank beer after the job was done, they forgot about the prisoner and about the execution. However, the author skeptically expressed that it is wrong to treat a prisoner as a dead body when he is alive. It is ambiguous whether he is opposed to capital punishment or not, but his opinion of the jailers¡¯ attitude towards the prisoner was made certain by the author.
In ¡°38 Who Saw Murder Didn¡¯t Call the Police,¡± the murderer, named Moseley, killed Miss Genovese. Thirty-eight people watched the incidence, but none of them called the police or even tried to help her (except for the man who shouted at the murderer). The murder had three chances to kill Miss Genovese, and finally stabbed her fatally. The police got the call after Miss Genovese died and could not help her. It is notable that the 38 witnesses who did not help Miss Genovese were otherwise respectable, law-abiding citizens. One said that he was afraid. His safety was much more important than endangering himself to help the neighbor. A couple said that they were watching the incident but the light from their bedroom made it difficult to see the street that they put out the light. In this case, mere curiosity was more important than their neighbor¡¯s life. Another man said that he did not help Miss Genovese because he was tired. These witnesses are the same in that they did not consider the life of their neighbor important enough to save. They were egoists who could think only about themselves. They were affected by the rampant individualism of society and became egoists to consider death as nothing but a mere curious spectacle. They were interested and came out when the ambulance arrived since then, they did not have to endanger themselves. Their actions were certainly inhumane, watching the crime without responding to it until the man called the police. Mr. Mosely, the killer, claimed that he killed many other people. He also did not regret what he had done. The society might have made it possible for Mr. Mosely to become the killer he was by its trend of individualism. Martin Gansberg, the writer, is also surprised at this homicide and feels skepticism toward such neighbors and the society.
The two cases are certainly different since one is the about the death of a prisoner and another is about the death of a law abiding citizen. After hanging the prisoner, the jailers suffered mentally even though they treated him as a dead body. On the other hand, the 38 witnesses did not directly participate in killing Miss Genovese but they actually are the ones who killed her. If any of them had called the police, Miss Genovese might still be alive. They deserve blame for looking at the crime with indifference. Facing the death of another person, some might feel pity, skepticism or indifference. Both writers were skeptic about the people¡¯s reaction towards death. George Orwell was skeptic about the jailor¡¯s false treatment of the prisoner and Martin Gansberg was skeptic towards the people who did not take proper action like calling police. They both are skeptical towards society, which encourages capital punishment and the individualism.