The Devil's Advocate by

pippinsjustin96 — 2024-12-06 18:36:09 UTC

pippinsjustin96 — 2024-12-06 18:36:24 UTC

pippinsjustin96 — 2024-12-06 18:38:05 UTC

pippinsjustin96 — 2024-12-06 18:41:44 UTC

pippinsjustin96 — 2024-12-06 19:05:52 UTC

pippinsjustin96 — 2024-12-06 19:06:48 UTC

pippinsjustin96 — 2024-12-06 19:16:26 UTC

In 1924, a pair of rich geniuses stood trial for the heinous murder of a 14 year old boy. A killing to satisfy their twisted delusions. Do men as vile as Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb deserve anything less than to be hung by the neck until dead? That was the question that Clarence Darrow had to confront when he stood before the judge, and plead guilty on the boys’ behalf. Over the course of 8 hours, Darrow would save these men’s lives. But how? How could a long-winded speech save such monsters? That is what I will be dissecting today. Leopold and Loeb were prodigies studying at the University of Chicago. They would form a close relationship in 1920, brewing a cocktail that would shock the world. Richard Loeb had always had a knack for crime. He’d stolen from friends, family, and local stores since he was a child. Nathan Leopold was another prodigy, studying 15 languages and being fluent in 5. He was also a nationally recognized ornithologist with a love for puzzles and crime novels. Richard’s cunning and Nathan’s love for the dramatic and philosophical, would result in a crime spree that would rapidly escalate. From cheating at cards to breaking into people’s homes, the boys were seemingly invincible. Having been lauded as special since they were toddlers, how could they not be anything but superior? In the words of Nathan Leopold "A superman ... is, on account of certain superior qualities inherent in him, exempted from the ordinary laws which govern men. He is not liable for anything he may do." After just 3 years of collaboration, they would kidnap and murder 14 year old Bobby Franks.

References

pippinsjustin96 — 2024-12-06 19:20:13 UTC

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20240131-leopold-and-loeb-the-grisly-crime-of-the-century-that-fascinated-hitchcock-and-others

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/monkeytrial-leopold-and-loeb-trial/

https://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/clarence-darrow-plea-for-leopold-and-loeb-22-23-and-25-august-1924-speech-text/

pippinsjustin96 — 2024-12-06 19:30:14 UTC

Clarence Darrow, a renowned lawyer who staunchly opposed capital punishment, would be the one to take the case and defend these men. Paid the equivalent of a million dollars today, Darrow’s work was certainly cut out for him. Most would’ve gone with an insanity plea. But that would require a jury, and Darrow wasn’t willing to take that risk. Instead, he pled guilty, and took the risk to try and persuade Judge Caverly to spare Leopold and Loeb. His masterful performance did the impossible, and not only spared the boys, but got our society to begin talking about crime, punishment, and rehabilitation. We can see his appeal to pathos in the very opening of the transcript. “Your honor, our anxiety over this case has not been due to the facts that are connected with this most unfortunate affair, but to the almost unheard-of publicity; to the fact that newspapers all over this country have been giving it space such as they have almost never given a case before. The fact that day after day the people of Chicago have been regaled with stories of all sorts about it, until almost every person has formed an opinion.” He’s making himself relatable to the judge by venting about the stress of this case.

pippinsjustin96 — 2024-12-06 19:36:33 UTC

“I have heard in the last six weeks nothing but the cry for blood. I have heard raised from the office of the state’s attorney nothing but the breath of hate.I have heard precedents quoted which would be a disgrace to a savage race. I have seen a court urged almost to the point of threats to hang two boys, in the face of science, in the face of philosophy, in the face of humanity, in the face of experience, in the face of all the better and more humane thought of the age.” Clarence pushes hard against the popular consensus that Leopold and Loeb must be hanged, encouraging humanity over hate. By pushing the argument of reasoning over impulse, it places a sense of responsibility on the judge and the reader to be better than the monsters who stand on trial. Darrow then goes on to criticize the rope itself. “Well, I can imagine something worse than that. So long as this terrible tool is to be used for a plaything, without thought or consideration, in seeking to inflame the mob with the thought that a boy must be hanged, or civilization will be hanged, we ought to get rid of it and get rid of it altogether, for the protection of human life.”

pippinsjustin96 — 2024-12-06 19:37:34 UTC

In conclusion, Clarence Darrow was able to combine pathos and ethos in order to effectively spare Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb of the death penalty. He made himself and his clients relatable by avoiding hateful adjectives or using inflammatory language. He pushed for reasoning and philosophy over tradition and emotions. With every passage in this 8 hour masterpiece, Darrow keeps his composure and calls everyone involved to action. By opening our minds, we can rise above the barbaric practices of our past and instead move forward. It's our responsibility to recognize our failings as a society. We are all a product of our environment, we all have programming instilled in us from nature and nurture. But we are able to rise above this and move past our preconceived notions and implicit biases. Darrow’s work radically changed how society views capital punishment and is still studied to this day as an example of revolutionary philosophies that change how we think. Hopefully, when the day comes that all we do now is seen as barbaric, we’ll be a little more like Clarence Darrow.