On August 22, 1924, the two rich boys, Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb are tried for the murder of 14 year old Robert Franks. Clarence Darrow presents a tiresome 10 hour speech after the young men confess their guilt. Under these arduous circumstances, the test to persuade the Judge to release these kids from their death penalty all relies on Darrow’s powerful rhetorical appeal. Darrow uses captivating rhetorical appeal in attempt to denounce these young men from the death sentence, but, more importantly, to oppose civil punishment for the future. While Darrow is fighting to save the lives of these young men, he is simultaneously in the midst of another battle. Darrow also seeks to target the government on the subject of civil disobedience. …show more content…
The act of civil punishment started from the influence of European practices. The very first execution was in 1608. Following the first death, the death penalty became more frequent in the court. During the colonial period, Beccaria (an Italian criminologist during the Age of Enlightenment) started influencing ideas of preventing and abolishing the death penalty. Leading up the the Civil War, the death penalty was diminished. During the Progressive period, some states started to eliminate the death penalty: “six states completely outlawed the death penalty and three limited it to the rarely committed crimes of treason and first-degree murder of a law enforcement official” (FindLaw). World War 1 had caused six of these states to return to capital punishment. With the increase of death rates, people started to become more and more against the idea of the death penalty. From the “1920s to the 1940s, there was a revival in the use of the death penalty” (FindLaw). During this time frame, the death penalty increased greatly. The Leopold and Loeb case occurred during this time where civil punishment was brought back. Deaths continued to increase all the way to the 1930s; being the year of highest death averages (167 per year). After the death rates became so high, many people revolted against the death penalty. The increase of deaths from civil punishment is what motivated Clarence Darrow to support Leopold and Loeb and …show more content…
In arguing for the kids’ lives, Darrow claims that the diseased mind that controls these kids directly relates to the society that these kids are in. Darrow is limited as to how he can persuade the judge. Leopold and Loeb have already confessed that it was them that committed the crime. Now, Darrow is limited to connecting to his audience emotionally in order to prove that these men should be given a chance and be released from civil punishment. Darrow starts talking about the World War 1 and how a once civilized world became a world where the goal of one man was to kill another. He refers to the war being four years long and in those four years, humanity and morality were lost. Darrow states, “How long, your Honor, will it take for the world to get back the humane emotions that were slowly growing before the war? How long will it take the calloused hearts of men before the scars of hatred and cruelty shall be removed” (American Rhetoric 1). Clarence Darrow claims that the crime that these men committed was a result of the society during the time period after World War 1. He connects to his audience emotionally by explaining that the whole world has been influenced by the war and that with the war, came the loss of people’s humanity. Darrow argues that it was not the fault of Leopold or Loeb, but the fault of the war which has left “scars of
The most notable part of the trial was Darrow’s closing argument that lasted for over half a day long. With his argument, he intended to simply save his clients from the death penalty since he knew that his clients would be found guilty. He gave his speech on August 22, 1924 and it claimed that society would be to blame if these boys were sentenced to death. He alleviated some of the blame from the boys by saying that they killed Bobby Frank because “somewhere in the infinite processes that go to the making of the boy or the man something slipped” (5). Moreover, Darrow blamed the educational system for Leopold being exposed to Nietzsche so early in life.
This would put the decision of whether or not Leopold and Loeb got the death penalty or not up to the judge. The defense argued that Leopold and Loeb should not get the death penalty due to them being mentally ill and they argued that Leopold was a schizophrenic. The prosecution on the other hand argued that they should be given the death penalty because it was the law, Illinois State Attorney said: “The Death Penalty had been ordained by the legislature, which was elected by the people of Illinois” (McLynn 145). Darrow ended his argument by saying that the death penalty should not be given to Leopold and Loeb because it did not stop them in the first place. Leopold and Loeb were sentenced to life in prison for the kidnapping and murder of Bobby
An individual’s ability to think and develop curiosity is one of the greatest gifts granted to human beings. Allowing one to express his thoughts, however, is up to interpretation. The Scopes Trial in 1925 is a prime example of a man being shamed for voicing his opinion. In Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee’s Inherit the Wind, they redesigned the Scopes trial into a drama, and Drummond, the defense attorney, claimed that a man was not only on trial, but the right to freely think was also being convicted.
Blumberg writes, "Several of the accused had close ties to one another and a long-standing grudge against the Putnams" (Blumberg, 1). This quote highlights the personal vendettas that drove the accusations and underscores how easily societal norms can be weaponized against individuals through manipulation and coercion. The trials resulted in significant harm to the accused and their families due to unchecked hostility. Harrison Bergeron portrays how poor leadership can lead to a loss of individuality and personal choice.
In the court hearing Bryan brought up a case were Darrow was the defense attorney for two young wealthy educated young men from Chicago Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, who murdered fourteen year-old Bobby Frank. Darrow was able to convince the jury in that case not to convict both Leopold and Loeb to the death penalty due to outside influences such as evolution and the influence of Nietzsche’s inelastic ideas that they read while in college. The case of Leopold and Loeb was seen by critics in the nation as “the moral wasteland created by families with too much money, young men with too much education and not enough simple morality grounded in religion” Parrish
Throughout their lifetime, a person’s actions not only illustrate their character, but more importantly dictate what sort of legacy they will leave behind. John Milton Chivington’s true legacy is still a debatable controversy because of his contradictory actions during his lifetime. Known to be a powerful minister and war hero, yet simultaneously considered to be the cold-blooded and murderous leader of the Sand Creek Massacre, it is difficult to pinpoint the true disposition of his legacy. Originally one of strength, bravery and persistence, Chivington’s legacy was sadly tainted by the gruesome murder of innocent men, women and children in the Sand Creek Massacre. Although he was a powerful minister and military leader, the weight of his
Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb stand guilty of the motiveless and random murder of fourteen year-old Bobby Franks in August of 1924. Intellectual and wealthy, the criminals stand to gain nothing from the senseless slaughter, yet commit the act nonetheless. Neither boy denies the killing, as their defense attorney Clarence Darrow pleads guilty on their behalf. Yet despite guilt, the trial continues, as Darrow fights the proposal of capital punishment for the two boys. Throughout his entire career, not one of Darrow’s clients ever receives the death penalty (Safire 370).
Lennie, a lighthearted and compassionate character, was suddenly killed by George, the person he considered his best friend. Now, we must ask ourselves; did George do the right thing? Lennie, killing Curley’s wife, would’ve spent the remainder of his life in misery, but was it morally correct of George to take his life? He would’ve had no break from the sights of a prison cell and the cold dark concrete walls, but was it considered manslaughter to kill a person of significance in your life? He would’ve had no rest from the constant illness of guilt that controlled not only his brain but, his life, but was it lawfully justified in a court setting?
Darrow declares that his friends, proposing that the people he then would see in the nearing future, did indeed disagree of his actions, therefore blankly stating his assertion and trust in his self and his work regardless of those’ spurn in which whom was closest to him. Darrow then goes on to point out his personal stance on crime, portraying his reasons for addressing this particular body of people. Darrow states; “I talk to you on the question of crime” (1.1), which directs his statements, previous and approaching, toward the crowd, asserting and administering attention and clarity to those he is addressing. “I really do not in the least believe in crime.”. (1.2-3) Darrow, by expressing this conjecture without hesitation psychologically gives some reassurance, and I could only imagine curiosity, to the inmates.
Over the years the death penalty has been used way more than it should, especially with African Americans. Not only were they treated unfairly in court but they were often killed by mobs of white men for ridiculous crimes. In the past juries were not unbiased.
Truman Capote violated all of the ethical principles; beneficence, respect for human dignity, and justice that were implemented with the Belmont Report. Although the Belmont report was not in practice in the 1950’s, the establishment of the Nuremberg code in 1949 could have served as a guideline for Truman Capote in collecting research data regarding the murders of the Clutter family. In conducting his qualitative research, Truman Capote disregarded several ethical principles that we follow today. This started with his initial questioning of Laura Kinney, how he gained access to Alvin Dewey, and was especially evident in his interactions with Perry Smith and Richard Hickock. For the purposes of this discussion, I will focus on the ethical implications
In In Cold Blood, the issue over the death penalty is prominent. Did Perry and Dick deserve to die? Should the severity of one’s crime determine one’s fate? Although Truman Capote writes the novel in a straightforward, “from a distance” way, he conveys, through his characters, theme, and plot development, that the death penalty is an issue that should be looked at from all sides and that the legal system itself is the real issue at hand, and that the death penalty is used as a means to suppress the distress and indignation of the citizens surrounding the case, instead of suppressing the victim himself.
The death penalty should continue to be legal because it is inexpensive. The death penalty makes for a good way for people to get the justice they deserve. In Texas the death penalty being legal makes sure that the people that commit heinous crimes pay. Texas does not suffer from political doubt, and certain cases are a no other answer that the death penalty. It cost the Texas Department of Criminal Justice $83 to execute a prisoner by lethal injection alone.
This quote from the book really shows how bizarrely the Imperial Japanese government had treated the lives of the average soldier. Giving these examples of comparing the average American soldier to the average Japanese soldier displays how well “Tears in the Darkness” was created. Most stories usually focus on one side of the war; however, what Michael and Elisabeth Norman had done, was display the lives and struggles of both sides of the conflict. They had excellently shown that stories aren’t
A Perfect Crime, A Perfect Defense On May 21, 1924 Bobby Franks is abducted, and stabbed in the head several times with a chisel. It is the result of seven months of planning a “perfect crime” by nineteen year old Nathan Leopold and eighteen year old Richard Loeb (Leopold and Loeb). These young men were represented in court by Mr. Clarence Darrow, a distinguished attorney known for only losing one out of over a hundred death penalty cases (Clarence Darrow). Fittingly, Leopold and Loeb were facing capital punishment.