Analysis Of Clarence Darrow's Speech

On September 24, 1924, Clarence Darrow Delivered a speech before Judge John Coverly. In this speech Darrow implies that two boys, Nathan Leopold, age 19 and Richard Loeb, age 18 should not get the death penalty for the murder of Bobby Franks. Darrow cleverly argues his point that the boys were taught that human was cheap due to war and inhumane emotions and also argues against inhuman methods and punishments of the American justice system. Though the boys are indeed guilty of the crime they committed, Darrow believes that their lives can still be saved. He weakens his argument by rambling and has made it into a chaotic mess of a speech,using insufficient and irrelevant examples. Examples such as the Civil War, what relevance does this …show more content…
When we can learn by reason and judgment and understanding and faith that all life is worth saving, and that mercy is the highest attribute of man”. I am in agreement with this statement, I believe that all life in some form or another is worth saving, however; where do we draw the line for forgiveness? Darrow believes if these two are saved, and if someone else was in their same position because of a lesser or even a more serious crime than the one Leopold and Loeb committed, we will be more merciful. I also agree with this statement, because as I stated before, I believe there are lives that are worth saving, if we think without hatred or cruelty in our hearts maybe we can make a change in the world. However, we should draw the line with Leopold and Loeb; these two were fully aware of their actions and must face the consequences of their actions. Why should we even consider showing Leopold and Loeb the same mercy that they didn’t give Bobby Franks? Leopold and Loeb lured innocent Bobby Franks into a rental car, beat him senseless, strangled him, poured acid on his face and genitals, and dumped his body in some culvert. Tell me how people’s judgment could not be clouded by hatred and cruelty by the actions that Leopold and Loeb, performed? These two knew exactly what they were doing. I am not speaking with …show more content…
Neither Leopold and Loeb, the two so called “boys”. had any regard for human life. How could these two “boys” who had their whole lives ahead of them commit an act as terrible as this? Darrow does mention and discusses important topics such as the civil war and indicates that because of the war, it causes violence and crime to increase in America. These are the events that supposedly taught Leopold and Loeb how not to value human life, but this argument becomes invalid because, both were incredibly intelligent, so there’s no way that any of them would be influenced by a war that they were too young to experience. More arguments in the speech that Darrow includes, is his plea of mercy for Leopold and Loeb “with judgment, understanding and faith all life is worth saving, and that mercy is the highest attribute of man” however; Leopold and Loeb are not worthy of this mercy. Both deserve the worst punishment possible for taking the life of Young and Innocent Bobby Franks. Again I ask why should we show them mercy? Mercy that Leopold and Loeb did not give Bobby