The Case of Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb - Assignment Example

Introduction How far can we be made responsible for our actions? Can our environment and the circumstances of our upbringing be blamed for the things we do? People are given the gift of freewill. But we also know that our culture, education and the values taught to us greatly influence how we make our decisions. In that aspect, can we say that our will is totally free? Or is our will always bound be the influences of everything that surrounds us hence we are never free? The Case of Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb were young men born of wealthy families. They both had very high intellect and were obsessed with the teachings of Friedrich Nietzsche. They believed that the superior class of men or supermen is above the law and conventional moral standards. To prove the superman theory, they murdered a fourteen year-old boy named Bobby Franks. Also, they committed the murder of Franks to prove that they were intelligent enough to outsmart the police and create the perfect crime. However, because of the negligence of leaving behind Leopold’s glasses near the dead body, the police was able to prove that they were the perpetrator of the crime. Ultimately, they had been convicted for the crime that they committed. The Closing Argument in the Defense of Leopold and Loeb The defense counsel of Leopold and Loeb presented a closing argument justifying the murder committed against Franks. The main argument of the closing speech is that Leopold and Loeb’s act of murdering Franks was a necessary consequence of their background, their upbringing and the principles of Nietzsche. According to the defense counsel, all these factors drove them to killing another person. The combinations of said factors afforded no other result other than the horrific crime committed. As such, Leopold and Loeb could not be held responsible for their actions. Therefore, they should not be punished for killing Franks. To support this argument the lawyer presented the three points. First, Loeb’s and Leopold’s upbringing served as a breeding ground for a twisted sense of morality. Loeb was raised by a governess who pushed him too hard on his studies. It was because of the strictness of the governess that Loeb was swayed into rebellion. And the form of rebellion that he took is to read detective stories that were forbidden to him. Loeb’s fascination lead to him to observe that in all these stories, the detective always wins. The detective always figures out the puzzle to the crime. Because of this, he became challenged. He became captivated and obsessed to formulating the perfect crime – one that may not be solved by the brightest detective. Leopold on the other hand was an intellectual. Because of this, he was accelerated in school. On the downside, he failed to develop this emotional part of his being. He was so smart that he took a liking to Philosophy, particularly the teachings of Nietzsche. And Nietzsche believed that an intelligent man is above the law and morality. The second thing that the lawyer pointed out is that with the fascination in detective stories, it is but understandable that a highly intellectual person would be challenged to formulate an undetectable crime. They would prove that the detectives do not always win. From the lawyer’s point of view, because of this challenge, it was natural that they create the perfect crime. Hence, Loeb cannot be faulted for his creation. The strictness of his governess and the challenge brought by detective stories was to be blamed for his action. The third point that the lawyer raised for Loeb and Leopold’s defense is the teaching of Nietzsche. Nietzsche was strong in his teachings that the intelligent man is not bound by the ordinary rules in morality. Than in fact, the superman is the law by himself. Leopold firmly believe this. And because of which, what else can be the result but a series of acts defying the law and morals? The last defense that the lawyer raised was that of insanity. He claimed that who in their right mind would exchange wealth and comfortable living to a miserable life in prison. Surely, only an insane would do that. Hume’s Perspective Hume believed that a person should only be held responsible for the actions that reflect his character. Further, he stated that we should not judge the action itself but instead, we should judge the motives behind it. It is the motive and the character that determines good and evil. Also Hume said that we are responsible for our character even if we acquired it voluntarily or involuntarily. Hence, even if it is our environment and education that built our character, we can still be held responsible for the actions arising from that character. Applying Hume’s principle of responsibility to the case of Loeb and Leopold, it can be derived that Loeb and Leopold should not be judged by the mere fact that they killed Frank. Their motives and character that enabled them to act that way must be determined and they should be judged based on that. Loeb and Leopold motive in killing Frank was clearly because they wanted to create a perfect crime. And their character that enabled them to perform the act is their belief that they are above the law and moral order. Clearly, there is something wrong with that thinking. Both motive and character are evidently evil. Hence, using Hume’s principle, they should be held responsible for the crime. Kant’s Perspective Kant believes that all humans are inherently bound by one moral obligation. As such, there is a need or a duty to abide by the moral law. He calls this principle ‘categorical imperative’. Also, we can use the concept of means and ends in following the categorical imperative. This means that even if the means that we undergo to reach a certain end are good and yet the end is evil, it is still in violation of the moral law. And inversely, if our end is good but the means in which we pursue it is evil, we are still not excused. Loeb and Leopold act of killing another creates an end which is evil. And their motive to merely create a perfect crime was not good either. Hence they have violated their moral obligation to do good and they should be punished for their actions. Ayer’s Perspective Ayer believed that causes such as natural law or environment do not affect our free will. They may only constrain it but because we have determination we are still considered free. For him, it is only when an action is forced or compelled is there no freewill. And in those cases, we are not supposed to be responsible for our actions. In the case of Loeb and Leopold, the lawyer may have presented their environment, upbringing and education as a strong force that influence their act of murder. However, these factors merely influenced them. It did not compel them to do the act itself. Loeb and Leopold always had a choice. They could choose to do it, or not to do it. Because of availability of choice, they cannot be considered as to have been compelled in their actions. Therefore, they must take responsibility. My Take on the Matter I completely disagree with all the points presented by the lawyer’s closing argument. I do not agree that taking in all the circumstances together, this would show that Loeb and Leopold lacked free-will when they killed Frank and as such should not be held responsible for it. First of all, although I agree that Loeb and Leopold’s upbringing was not conducive to raise a healthy emotional well-being in a person, I do not think that it is completely to blame for the man they have become. We cannot always blame the environment for our wrong doings. Due to poverty, a poor man may become a thief but can he claim that he has no choice but to steal? No. We still punish him. In the same way, we cannot excuse a murderer just because he had a bad childhood. This is because our environment, our upbringing and our education does force our actions. It does not take put the knife in our hands. It does not take our hand to stab it in another. Though the environment greatly influences our being, ultimately, our action is our choice and we must take responsibility. In this regard I agree with Hume. Loeb and Leopold must still be held responsible for the character that they have even if they had no hand in their upbringing. Secondly, the lawyer suggests in this case, we blame the detective stories for the murder of Frank. It is what challenged Loeb to formulate the crime. I certainly cannot agree to that. Detective stories are just stories. It is up to us to take it in or not. I also share the same belief when it comes to Nietzsche’s theory of the superman. It is one thing to believe it, it is another to prove it. We cannot say that the challenge of a perfect crime or the theory of the superman compelled Loeb and Leopold to commit the crime. This is so because the whole time, they always had a choice not to go thru with it. They were aware of the law they just chose to break it, believing that they are above it. The fact that Loeb and Leopold committed murder because of a challenge to create a perfect crime and to prove the theory of a superman, does not justify the act. On the contrary, it even adds malice to the act. It makes it more evil. And lastly, I do not agree with the plea of insanity. We cannot say that a person is insane merely because they don’t share the same priority as we do: a comfortable life with wealth. Loeb and Leopold were willing to forego that for a greater principle. There is nothing insane in doing that. Loeb and Leopold had clear motives. They had a purpose. Their purpose might be something that we condemn but they had a purpose nonetheless. They had a clear intention to do it, and they went thru with it. They knew the consequences and yet they pushed thru. All of these points clearly in favor of their sanity. And because of this I don’t think they should escape responsibility. Conclusion Despite the forces surrounding us, shaping our thoughts, educating us, we always have two choices at the very least: to act or not to act. Our freedom of choice may be limited but there is exists freedom nonetheless. Hence, all of us must be responsible for our own actions. References: Benetar, David. Life, Death, and Meaning: Key Philosophical Readings on the Big Questions. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2004. Pereboom, Derk. Free Will. Hackett Publishing Company. 1997 Read More