Clarence Darrow: Determinism & Responsibility

Leopold and Loeb trial of 1924, 

attorney Clarence Darrow

In this posting I will address how the debate over free will, determinism, and responsibility was the focus of one of the most watched criminal trials in history. In the above photo is a picture of Clarence Darrow seated in the forefront, famous attorney of the early twentieth century, along with his two teenage clients who were charged with murder. The speech that Darrow gave at the close of the trial was designed not to prove their innocence of doing the crime, but their not being so guilty as to deserve the death penalty, and he does this by arguing from the deterministic standpoint, which is the basis of nearly all modern sociological and psychological science. He argued that the boys were not guilty because they could not help doing what they did due to sociological and other factors. This is an example where "the rubber meets the road" so far as theories about responsibility and free will go. I majored in Sociology for one reason. My adviser (who had both a juris doctorate and a phd.) advised this when I asked him "what would be a good major for me as a pre-law student, and wanting to go to law school?"). I see why. Lawyers argue about free will and responsibility all the time. Those who represent the criminal will often plead for leniency, if not innocence, because of some sociological, psychological, or economic reason. The prosecutors, however, will always retort by saying "others have experienced the same circumstances and yet did not commit the crimes of the accused. Thus, it was their choice and are therefore guilty." 

Here is a write up for this trial (see here emphasis mine).

In the Leopold and Loeb trial of 1924, attorney Clarence Darrow achieved what many thought impossible. He saved the lives of two cold-blooded child-killers with the power of a speech.

Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb were teenagers living in a wealthy Chicago suburb when they were arrested for murder. Loeb had recently graduated, at 17 years old, from the University of Michigan, and planned to begin law school in the fall. He was obsessed with the idea of the perfect crime. His neighbor, a brilliant young man, Nathan Leopold, was a law student and a believer in Frederick Nietzsche's concept of the "superman" — the idea that it is possible to rise above good and evil.

The two boys seemed an odd match. "Dickie" Loeb charmed everyone with his good looks and cool manner. Awkward-looking Nathan Leopold tended to hide in his friend's shadow. But the two young men formed a powerful bond. Nathan was in love with Richard and would do anything he wanted for sexual favors. He later wrote, "Loeb's friendship was necessary to me — terribly necessary." His motive for the murder, he said, "was to please Dick."

Inspired by this odd mix of nihilistic philosophy, detective fiction, and misguided love, Leopold and Loeb hatched a plan to commit the "perfect crime." It was not so much the idea of murder that attracted them, but the idea of getting away with murder.

On May 21, 1924, Leopold and Loeb lured a young neighbor boy, 14-year-old Bobby Frank, into their car. They killed him with a chisel, and stuffed his body in a culvert. The next morning the Frank family received a special delivery letter — a ransom note demanding $10,000 in unmarked bills for the return of the boy.

Before Mr. Frank could pay the ransom, police discovered the child's body. There was nothing linking the criminals to the crime except for a single pair of glasses. Police traced the glasses to a Chicago optometrist who had prescribed them for Nathan Leopold. If he hadn't lost his glasses, Leopold and his friend Loeb might have indeed gotten away with murder.

Leopold's and Loeb's parents hired the best, and most expensive, criminal attorney they could find — Clarence Darrow. Darrow knew his clients would be convicted. His goal, as always, was to save them from the death penalty.

Americans read every detail of the Leopold and Loeb trial with fascination and repulsion. By 1924, automobiles like Ford's popular Model T were increasing criminal mobility; rising fears about crime would ultimately cause citizens to support a national police force. Chicago's WGN radio considered broadcasting the trial live, but decided it wasn't appropriate "entertainment" to send to families in their living rooms.

The trial reached its climax with Clarence Darrow's closing argument, delivered over twelve hours in a sweltering courtroom. Darrow admitted the guilt of his clients but argued that forces beyond their control influenced their actions. Law professor Phillip Johnson describes Darrow's argument this way: "Nature made them do it, evolution made them do it, Nietzsche made them do it. So they should not be sentenced to death for it." Darrow convinced the judge to spare his clients. Leopold and Loeb received life in prison.

The following year, Clarence Darrow played a leading role in another "trial of the century." He defended John Scopes for teaching evolution in violation of a Tennessee law. WGN radio did send their microphones to Dayton, Tennessee. It seemed a much better idea to cover a trial over ideas than to broadcast a sensational murder.

In 1936 Richard Loeb was killed in a prison fight with another inmate. In 1958, after thirty-four years behind bars, Nathan Leopold was released from prison. He died in 1971.

Said one author on Clarence Darrow's famous defense of two teenagers accused of murder (here emphasis mine):

"When teenagers Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb went to trial after killing an acquaintance "for the thrill of it," their lawyer, Clarence Darrow, delivered a twelve hour summation over three days to save his clients from the hangman's noose. Darrow used three strategies of transformation to invert prevailing concepts of justice and crime. Through such reversals, he deflected criminal culpability from his clients to their upbringing, the prosecutors, and the legal system itself."

In another write up, "Crime and Criminals: Address to the Prisoners in the Chicago Jail" (1902) (see here) we have these words of Darrow to the criminals in Jail (emphasis mine).

"If I looked at jails and crimes and prisoners in the way the ordinary person does, I should not speak on this subject to you. The reason I talk to you on the question of crime, its cause and cure, is because I really do not in the least believe in crime. There is no such thing as a crime as the word is generally understood. I do not believe there is any sort of distinction between the real moral condition of the people in and out of jail. One is just as good as the other. The people here can no more help being here than the people outside can avoid being outside. I do not believe that people are in jail because they deserve to be. They are in jail simply because they cannot avoid it on account of circumstances which are entirely beyond their control and for which they are in no way responsible."

This philosophy regarding crime and punishment was a minor view of a few in 1924, but now 99 years later, it is the philosophy of the Liberals today and is behind the idea of being sympathetic to lawbreakers, as seen in the "no bail" policy of many municipalities, and of allowing felons to go back to the streets after arrest, and of giving mere slaps on the wrist for many crimes (in California, it is no crime to steal anything less than roughly a thousand dollars, and thus we now have mobs robbing stores). But, more on all this shortly.

Darrow also said:

"I suppose a great many people on the outside would say I was doing you harm if they should hear what I say to you this afternoon, but you cannot be hurt a great deal anyway, so it will not matter. Good people outside would say that I was really teaching you things that were calculated to injure society, but it’s worth while now and then to hear something different from what you ordinarily get from preachers and the like. These will tell you that you should be good and then you will get rich and be happy. Of course we know that people do not get rich by being good, and that is the reason why so many of you people try to get rich some other way, only you do not understand how to do it quite as well as the fellow outside."

Believe it or not, I was taught this very thing in some of my Sociology classes in a conservative university founded by Baptists and supported by a large endowment from a Presbyterian. I took a class in "Deviant Behavior." It had a black liberal professor and we only had about 6-8 students. Deviants or criminals are only such because a powerful group decided to call a certain behavior deviant or criminal. This is typical of Marxists, who see that many labels and definitions are created by the power elite and forced on the poor working class. Is adultery deviant behavior? It was once illegal, as was homosexuality. If we define "deviant" or "criminal" as that which is against how the majority has defined them, then adultery and homosexuality are no longer deviant or criminal because the majority no longer judges or defines them so. We are more and more calling law abiding citizens the deviants, and those who do not support drag shows in churches and schools, including grammar schools. Paul called them "despisers of those who are good." (II Tim. 3: 3) The moral (godly or righteous) are becoming a small minority and are being made the criminal!   

Darrow also said:

"There are people who think that everything in this world is an accident. But really there is no such thing as an accident. A great many folks admit that many of the people in jail ought not to be there, and many who are outside ought to be in. I think none of them ought to be here. There ought to be no jails, and if it were not for the fact that the people on the outside are so grasping and heartless in their dealings with the people on the inside, there would be no such institution as jails."

This is where Determinism presents dangers if not properly taught and handled. It leads people to say that no one can be blamed for anything. No one is responsible. But, that is why I subscribe to "free will" to some extent and am a Compatibilist. There are causes to the choices we make. That is why in our striving to make the right choices we must understand what influences are operating upon our wills. Further, we are responsible for what we choose and do, even though the reasons or causes of our choosing and doing are not known and cannot be shown to be of such a nature as to take away liability or responsibility. The two young teenagers defended by Darrow were guilty of a heinous murder. They chose to do the crime. Yes, there were causes or reasons behind their choice, but not such as could excuse or justify them. It may however often lead to a smaller sentence and leniency.