Truman Capote wrote In Cold Blood as non-fiction. Although not fictional, the novel is structured deliberately to establish several themes and issues. One such issue is the morality and efficiency of capital punishment. Capital punishment is ineffective, due to the time and money spent on it and the fact that it isn’t much of a deterrent from murder. The death penalty is not an adequate consequence for crime.
Death is permanent, which creates a large issue out of capital punishment. Taking a life is wrong, hence the severe punishment instated. However, the penalty is the same as the crime. Two wrongs don’t make a right. A poor example is set by killing in response to killing, and the crime is perpetuated. In In Cold Blood, a murderer about to be executed says, “I don't believe in capital punishment, morally or legally. Maybe I had something to contribute, something - ”(Capote, 340). Although parole is out of the question, prisoners can still contribute to society in some ways. Those who receive the death penalty may not even be guilty. A life sentence without parole ensures that someone will not commit any more crimes, but does not involve another needless death. …show more content…
Since most defendants can’t afford to pay for a lawyer, they are appointed lawyers who are incapable of properly defending the accused, or unwilling to do so. Subpar defense was certainly of paramount importance in the case of In Cold Blood. Some people in In Cold Blood believed the trial was unfair, “for no real defense had been prepared or offered by them, and this lack of effort, it was implied, had been deliberate - an act of collusion between the defense and the prosecution.”(Capote, 326). While it was clear that Dick and Perry were tried biasedly and with a very lacking defense, the outcome of the case remained the same. Often, a good lawyer is the only thing necessary to avoid the death sentence, regardless of
Death is permanent, which creates a large issue out of capital punishment. Taking a life is wrong, hence the severe punishment instated. However, the penalty is the same as the crime. Two wrongs don’t make a right. A poor example is set by killing in response to killing, and the crime is perpetuated. In In Cold Blood, a murderer about to be executed says, “I don't believe in capital punishment, morally or legally. Maybe I had something to contribute, something - ”(Capote, 340). Although parole is out of the question, prisoners can still contribute to society in some ways. Those who receive the death penalty may not even be guilty. A life sentence without parole ensures that someone will not commit any more crimes, but does not involve another needless death. …show more content…
Since most defendants can’t afford to pay for a lawyer, they are appointed lawyers who are incapable of properly defending the accused, or unwilling to do so. Subpar defense was certainly of paramount importance in the case of In Cold Blood. Some people in In Cold Blood believed the trial was unfair, “for no real defense had been prepared or offered by them, and this lack of effort, it was implied, had been deliberate - an act of collusion between the defense and the prosecution.”(Capote, 326). While it was clear that Dick and Perry were tried biasedly and with a very lacking defense, the outcome of the case remained the same. Often, a good lawyer is the only thing necessary to avoid the death sentence, regardless of