Mitigating Circumstances? - The case of Loeb and Leopold
In 1924 two Chicago teenagers, Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, hit the headlines in what was to be considered the 'crime of the century'. The crime was extremely high profile for a number of reasons. Leopold and Loeb belonged to Chicago's elite, it shocked the public that two young boys from such a wealthy background could commit such a heinous crime.
Leopold, who was aged 20 when the crime was committed, was considered a child prodigy. Reportedly he spoke his first words at the age of 4 months and had an IQ of over 200 (note: tests not comparable to modern IQ tests). Loeb, who was aged 19 when the crime was committed, was also an extremely intelligent character having skipped several grades in school. Though not in the same calibre as Leopold (intellectually) the two bonded upon their superior intellect and social status having met at college.
It is acknowledged that Leopold was an avid reader of the German Philosopher Nietzsche and in particular his (Nietzsche's) idea of ubermensch or 'overman'/'superman'. Leopold and Loeb's interpretation of ubermensch (note: not unique to them) has been used by other to propagate the idea that "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." (Leopold writing to Loeb). And of course Leopold and Loeb belonged to this category of ubermensch. As such the boys thoroughly planned the 'perfect crime', a crime which was to get the whole of Chicago talking, a crime to which for which they would never be caught (because...it's perfect).
In short, on the day in question Leopold and Loeb kidnapped and murdered a 14 year old boy and disposed of his body. After the murder, the boys contacted the boys family in hope of a ransom. In short, their hopes of a perfect crime were extremely short lived. When the father of the missing boy failed to show up to the drop point (to drop the ransom), the boys knew their plan had failed. The authorities found Franks' body in a place frequented by avid bird watched Leopold and a few days later they found the unique hinges of a pair of glasses. The hinges were unique in the fact that there had only ever been 3 pairs sold and one of those pairs was to Nathan Leopold. Once taken in for questioning Leopold and Loeb's stories were (almost) identical and for a while they were believed. However, it quickly emerged from witness accounts that the car Leopold and Loeb claimed they used the day of the murder, as an alibi, had been safely kept in the family garage for the entire day. Along with the hinges of the glasses, their story quickly deteriorated and Loeb confessed. If found guilty under the law (which seemed a given) they would be hung.
The boys were quickly represented by one of America's most brilliant lawyers - Clarence Darrow. Darrow, who was strongly opposed to the death penalty, wanted to serve the families wish to get the boys life imprisonment as opposed to death.
In a 12 hour speech, Darrow eventually won the case. Find a portion of Darrow's speech below and in the sources.
“Why did they kill little Bobby Franks? Not for money, not for spite; not for hate. They killed him as they might kill a spider or a fly, for the experience. They killed him because they were made that way. Because somewhere in the infinite processes that go to the making up of the boy or the man something slipped, and those unfortunate lads sit here hated, despised, outcasts, with the community shouting for their blood. Mr. Savage [the prosecutor----Ed.], with the immaturity of youth and inexperience, says that if we hang them there will be no more killing. This world has been one long slaughterhouse from the beginning until today, and killing goes on and on and on, and will forever…
“Kill them. Will that prevent other senseless boys or other vicious men or vicious women from killing? No!
…I know that every step in the progress of humanity has been met and opposed by prosecutors, and many times by courts. I know that when poaching and petty larceny was punishable by death in England, juries refused to convict. They were too humane to obey the law; and judges refused to sentence. I know that when the delusion of witchcraft was spreading over Europe, claiming its victims by the millions, many a judge so shaped his cases that no crime of witchcraft could be punished in his court. I know that these trials were stopped in America because juries would no longer convict…
“Do I need to argue to Your Honor that cruelty only breeds cruelty? That hatred only causes hatred; that if there is any way to soften this human heart which is hard enough at its best, if there is any way to kill evil and hatred and all that goes with it, it is not through evil and hatred and cruelty; it is through charity, and love, and understanding? I am not pleading so much for these boys as I am for the infinite number of others to follow, those who perhaps cannot be as well defended as these have been, those who may go down in the storm, and the tempest, without aid. It is of them I am thinking, and for them I am begging of this court not to turn backward toward the barbarous and cruel past…
Sources and further reading:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/loeb/darrow_4.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_and_Loeb
http://history1900s.about.com/od/1920s/qt/Leopold-Loeb.htm
http://www.biography.com/people/nathan-leopold-227820#relationship-with-richard-loeb
http://www.biography.com/people/richard-loeb-227821#involvement-with-leopold
http://philosophynow.org/issues/93/Nietzsches_Ubermensch_A_Hero_of_Our_Time
http://www.crimearchives.net/1924_leopold_loeb/html/bios.html
http://ethicsalarms.com/2011/09/22/ethics-quote-of-the-month-clarence-darrows-closing-argument-in-the-trial-of-nathan-leopold-and-richard-loeb-1924/
Leopold, who was aged 20 when the crime was committed, was considered a child prodigy. Reportedly he spoke his first words at the age of 4 months and had an IQ of over 200 (note: tests not comparable to modern IQ tests). Loeb, who was aged 19 when the crime was committed, was also an extremely intelligent character having skipped several grades in school. Though not in the same calibre as Leopold (intellectually) the two bonded upon their superior intellect and social status having met at college.
It is acknowledged that Leopold was an avid reader of the German Philosopher Nietzsche and in particular his (Nietzsche's) idea of ubermensch or 'overman'/'superman'. Leopold and Loeb's interpretation of ubermensch (note: not unique to them) has been used by other to propagate the idea that "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." (Leopold writing to Loeb). And of course Leopold and Loeb belonged to this category of ubermensch. As such the boys thoroughly planned the 'perfect crime', a crime which was to get the whole of Chicago talking, a crime to which for which they would never be caught (because...it's perfect).
In short, on the day in question Leopold and Loeb kidnapped and murdered a 14 year old boy and disposed of his body. After the murder, the boys contacted the boys family in hope of a ransom. In short, their hopes of a perfect crime were extremely short lived. When the father of the missing boy failed to show up to the drop point (to drop the ransom), the boys knew their plan had failed. The authorities found Franks' body in a place frequented by avid bird watched Leopold and a few days later they found the unique hinges of a pair of glasses. The hinges were unique in the fact that there had only ever been 3 pairs sold and one of those pairs was to Nathan Leopold. Once taken in for questioning Leopold and Loeb's stories were (almost) identical and for a while they were believed. However, it quickly emerged from witness accounts that the car Leopold and Loeb claimed they used the day of the murder, as an alibi, had been safely kept in the family garage for the entire day. Along with the hinges of the glasses, their story quickly deteriorated and Loeb confessed. If found guilty under the law (which seemed a given) they would be hung.
The boys were quickly represented by one of America's most brilliant lawyers - Clarence Darrow. Darrow, who was strongly opposed to the death penalty, wanted to serve the families wish to get the boys life imprisonment as opposed to death.
In a 12 hour speech, Darrow eventually won the case. Find a portion of Darrow's speech below and in the sources.
“Why did they kill little Bobby Franks? Not for money, not for spite; not for hate. They killed him as they might kill a spider or a fly, for the experience. They killed him because they were made that way. Because somewhere in the infinite processes that go to the making up of the boy or the man something slipped, and those unfortunate lads sit here hated, despised, outcasts, with the community shouting for their blood. Mr. Savage [the prosecutor----Ed.], with the immaturity of youth and inexperience, says that if we hang them there will be no more killing. This world has been one long slaughterhouse from the beginning until today, and killing goes on and on and on, and will forever…
“Kill them. Will that prevent other senseless boys or other vicious men or vicious women from killing? No!
…I know that every step in the progress of humanity has been met and opposed by prosecutors, and many times by courts. I know that when poaching and petty larceny was punishable by death in England, juries refused to convict. They were too humane to obey the law; and judges refused to sentence. I know that when the delusion of witchcraft was spreading over Europe, claiming its victims by the millions, many a judge so shaped his cases that no crime of witchcraft could be punished in his court. I know that these trials were stopped in America because juries would no longer convict…
“Do I need to argue to Your Honor that cruelty only breeds cruelty? That hatred only causes hatred; that if there is any way to soften this human heart which is hard enough at its best, if there is any way to kill evil and hatred and all that goes with it, it is not through evil and hatred and cruelty; it is through charity, and love, and understanding? I am not pleading so much for these boys as I am for the infinite number of others to follow, those who perhaps cannot be as well defended as these have been, those who may go down in the storm, and the tempest, without aid. It is of them I am thinking, and for them I am begging of this court not to turn backward toward the barbarous and cruel past…
Sources and further reading:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/loeb/darrow_4.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_and_Loeb
http://history1900s.about.com/od/1920s/qt/Leopold-Loeb.htm
http://www.biography.com/people/nathan-leopold-227820#relationship-with-richard-loeb
http://www.biography.com/people/richard-loeb-227821#involvement-with-leopold
http://philosophynow.org/issues/93/Nietzsches_Ubermensch_A_Hero_of_Our_Time
http://www.crimearchives.net/1924_leopold_loeb/html/bios.html
http://ethicsalarms.com/2011/09/22/ethics-quote-of-the-month-clarence-darrows-closing-argument-in-the-trial-of-nathan-leopold-and-richard-loeb-1924/
What Causes Crime and What makes a Criminal?
Texas has averaged 21 executions a year, all by lethal injection, since 2007.
The state has performed more than one-third of modern executions in the United States.
The state has performed more than one-third of modern executions in the United States.