Clarence Darrow's Brilliant Speech: Saving Nathan Leopold & Richard Loeb - Essay Sample

Clarence Darrow's enthusiastic and brilliant speech in support of Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb got one of the most well-known addresses in defense. Darrow spoke for 12 hours in the endeavors to demonstrate that the homicide, submitted by two youngsters, was not their insufficiency. The central argument, developed by Darrow, was built against a death sentence, which was assumed discipline for the wrongdoing, submitted by Leopold and Loeb.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The center of Darrow's contention was philosophically right. As indicated by Darrow's claim, the human character defines human actions. Human nature is shaped by their hereditary as well as the environment. Darrow's thoughts and contentions go to the ideas of determinism. "Darrow's plea for the young Chicago killers offers the clearest insight into fundamental questions animating public life in that era. His defense of Leonard and Loeb brought together Darrow's firmly held beliefs about criminal culpability, the role of biological and environmental factors in determining human behavior, and the right of an individual to resist institutional decrees" (Singh, 2015 p2).

Darrow acknowledged his clients' guilt but claimed that its acts were motivated by powers outside their control. Darrow believes that regardless of the young men are horrible criminals; their executions will not tackle societal problems. He guarantees that society needs young men to be executed in the light that people love witnessing open beheadings. Darrow contends that the individuals who ought to be considered answerable for the murder are the parents of Leopold and Loeb since they dismissed their children. According to Clarence, Leopold and Loeb were envious of the kid they executed because he had expensive items which they could not manage to possess. Darrow contends that the young men ought not to be assassinated; he asserts the two experience the ill effects of psychological sicknesses that make them unfit to differentiate between a fact and fiction and did not have legitimate adult supervision. They are not liable for the crime.

As Singh notes, "The notion that two young people with every advantage would stamp out the life of another as an adventure did not sit well with the American public. Such disregard for human life couldn't be normal; surely they had to be mentally ill" (2015 p4). Individuals have no power over their lives, in keeping with determinism. Darrow utilizes the contention that hereditary and environment predetermine all peoples' ideas, actions, and behavioral habits to demonstrate the guiltlessness of the two boys. Darrow opposes the concept of free will and blames external causes and contends that punishing individuals for their decisions and moral choices are futile because of deliberate acts and decisions. As indicated by Darrow's contentions, Leonard and Loeb had no power over their actions and should, therefore, not be found guilty and sentenced to death.

In the eyes of many, then, Darrow's clients were already guilty not just of murder but of arrogance and perversion (Singh, 2015 p6). Arguments that contradict Darrow's view incorporate self-shaping behavior, which expresses that all individuals are answerable for their acts, aims, and moral decisions. These contentions demonstrate that there is free will. Free will is the capacity to pick between various potential game-plans unobstructed.

It is firmly connected to the ideas of moral obligation, gratitude, remorse, sin, and other assumptions that only refer to voluntarily chosen acts. Individual defenders prevent free will from securing determinism. Adversaries of determinism likewise acknowledge that determinism fundamentally disproves any free will, including decisions.

Considering all knowledge on free will and determinism, I acknowledge that deciding factors and choices impact human behaviors. Individuals unquestionably have free will, which can be utilized to settle on life decisions. Summarizing all the contentions discussed above, I accept that Leopold and Loeb ought to be confessed for the crime they have submitted. Determinism's claims make any liability for any acts unlikely, as all actions are decided.

The human decision and human conduct cannot be decided entirely in the event of free will. For this situation, the two students could choose a different way of doing things. Moreover, society includes universal principles and laws that are expressed in most schools of religion and philosophy. These ethical principles and guidelines can be utilized by individuals to decide if their practices adhere to moral standards and norms. Leopold and Loeb knew moral rules and norms. They additionally could settle on an ethical decision and give the thought of killing an innocent individual. However, they did not do it. Admitting them not liable makes a perilous criminal point of reference. Until quite possibly the people's acts are controlled by free will, they will learn about the penalty for carrying out a criminal offense. For the situation, if Leopold and Loeb are admitted not guilty, other possible offenders may take choices to carry out crimes.

It is hard to sustain the thought that lawbreakers do not morally warrant punishment. Those who might restrict these contentions will express that it is difficult to demonstrate that acts of various individuals can be resolved as autonomous decisions, however not as foreordained ones. No one can state without a doubt if the conduct is adapted by hereditary qualities, genetic, or the environment. Darrow's claim was criticized and dreaded, but it won.

Work Cited

Singh, Rohini S. "CLARENCE DARROW," PLEA FOR LEOPOLD AND LOEB." (2015).