Reference no: EM133484083

Paper Assignment:

The Case of Leopold and LoebAt the website

you will find the closing arguments from Clarence Darrow, the famous lawyer who was a defense attorney fortwo defendants, Nathan Leopold, Jr., and Richard Loeb. They had confessed to kidnapping andmurdering young Bobby Franks. There was no question as to their guilt, and the prosecution sawthis as a perfect opportunity to go for the death penalty. Surprisingly, the defendants plead guiltyat the start of the trial. Throughout his defense, Darrow never tried to establish the boys'innocence. His entire effort was to keep his clients from getting hanged. The manner in which hewent about this makes the trial philosophically interesting.

Darrow's strategy was to try to convince the court that neither Leopold nor Loeb were fullyresponsible for the act they admittedly committed. The issue was not one of legal technicality, butrather a moral one. Darrow argued that, since neither defendant was fully responsible for whatthey had done, a punishment as final and punitive as hanging was inappropriate. Darrow'sbackground assumption was that hanging is appropriate only in cases where the convictedcriminal is clearly fully responsible for his actions. (Note: Darrow does not argue that thedefendants are insane, merely that they are not fully responsible.)

Your assignment is to re-enact certain parts of this famous trial, applying what you have learnedabout free will, determinism and responsibility. This will have three parts. As I have indicated,there were two defendants in this case, Leopold and Loeb. However, for simplicity's sake, you willwrite this assignment as though Loeb were the only defendant.

(i) The first part of the re-enactment will be for you to give the testimony of an expert witness forthe defense. The expert is a philosopher who specializes in the issue of free will/determinism/moral responsibility. This expert must testify that Loeb is not fully responsible for the killing ofBobby Franks. To do this, the expert must provide a set of conditions under which one is morallyresponsible, defend these conditions, and demonstrate that Loeb did not meet these conditions.This argument will require certain facts about Loeb's life which are given in Darrow's closingstatement, excerpts of which are provided on the web page listed above.

(ii) The second part of the paper will be for you to give Robert E. Crowe's (the prosecutor for thecase) closing statement. In it, you must argue that your expert has offered an untenable definitionof responsibility. You must criticize the account of responsibility presented in part (i), and arguethat, as a result, Loeb is in fact fully responsible for what he did. Therefore, he should hang.Crowe's statement may also refer to circumstances of Loeb's life provided on the web page.

(iii) Finally, you must give the sentence of the judge (remember they admitted guilt from thebeginning). Again for simplicity's sake, restrict yourself to only two possible sentences: hanging ornot-hanging. You must also give the reasoning behind the judge's decision