That's crazy talk
Pleading insanity. Or should that be bleeding insanity?
Act I, Scene i
Act I, Scene iii
[Oh do STFU. –ed.]
Act I, Scene i
Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb wanted to commit the perfect murder, to which end they murdered their cousin, Bobby, whose body was left in a storm drain. They tried to confuse the issue by sending off a ransom note which led the police straight to them.
At their trial, their attorney, Clarence Darrow, described the trip to dispose of the body which was fraught with the likelihood of discovery along every step of the way. Darrow was trying to show that the boys were less responsible for their crime on the grounds of insanity.
If I’d been a member of the jury, I might’ve suspected that they were stupid in the way they went about disposing of their victim’s body, but exceptionally lucky not to have been detected sooner. I might’ve regarded their behaviour as irrational, but I don’t believe that someone has to be mad to be irrational (although it may help).
I would argue, on the other hand, that adolescents (which the accused were) seem to have a logic all of their own at times which might be described as evidence of irrationality. There have been some occasions when I’ve taken mobile phone off kids in my classes only to have them tell me the offending item belongs to someone else, the implication being that I can’t confiscate it from the user because they appear to believe they shouldn’t be held responsible for it because otherwise, I guess, they’d then be getting someone else into trouble. Such matters don’t concern me because they’re not meant to be playing on mobile phones in class whether they own it or not. From an adult perspective, adolescent rationality may not make much sense.
And if we’re going to plead insanity, then idiocy must be a form of insanity.
According to the book, Darrow was arguing from a deterministic perspective in that mental states are a function of physical behaviour and that our behaviour is a response to environmental stimulus. But others would argue that there was nothing unusual in what the boys did and that it’s a consequence of humans evolving as hunters. Others have posited similar arguments, although reality seems to disagree. Although chimpanzees behave in a similar way, like us, they also co-operate. Besides, if we were killer apes, there’d be no such thing as society, whereas it’s clear that humans are social animals. And murderous killers.
Act I, Scene iiAt their trial, their attorney, Clarence Darrow, described the trip to dispose of the body which was fraught with the likelihood of discovery along every step of the way. Darrow was trying to show that the boys were less responsible for their crime on the grounds of insanity.
If I’d been a member of the jury, I might’ve suspected that they were stupid in the way they went about disposing of their victim’s body, but exceptionally lucky not to have been detected sooner. I might’ve regarded their behaviour as irrational, but I don’t believe that someone has to be mad to be irrational (although it may help).
I would argue, on the other hand, that adolescents (which the accused were) seem to have a logic all of their own at times which might be described as evidence of irrationality. There have been some occasions when I’ve taken mobile phone off kids in my classes only to have them tell me the offending item belongs to someone else, the implication being that I can’t confiscate it from the user because they appear to believe they shouldn’t be held responsible for it because otherwise, I guess, they’d then be getting someone else into trouble. Such matters don’t concern me because they’re not meant to be playing on mobile phones in class whether they own it or not. From an adult perspective, adolescent rationality may not make much sense.
And if we’re going to plead insanity, then idiocy must be a form of insanity.
According to the book, Darrow was arguing from a deterministic perspective in that mental states are a function of physical behaviour and that our behaviour is a response to environmental stimulus. But others would argue that there was nothing unusual in what the boys did and that it’s a consequence of humans evolving as hunters. Others have posited similar arguments, although reality seems to disagree. Although chimpanzees behave in a similar way, like us, they also co-operate. Besides, if we were killer apes, there’d be no such thing as society, whereas it’s clear that humans are social animals. And murderous killers.
Darrow continues with his crazy defence (although I might note that this is the same reasoning which had dissidents committed in the Soviet Union; I’ve caught myself making the same sort of remark, that someone must be mad to think in such and such a way; whereas what they regard as rational and what I regard as rational don’t necessarily coincide). The attorney asks the jury to think back to when they were children and how they dealt with their emotions and feelings.
And how exactly would that excuse the accused? Diminished responsibility might be a questionable defence for teenagers because we’re judging them from an adult perspective. If you were to put this dilemma to a teenage audience, and could get honest answers out of them (rather than the answers they’d think you wanted to hear), then I’d aver a lot of them would acquit Leopold and Loeb on the basis of some quite dubious, unadult reasoning. But also as I said above, my rationality and someone else’s don’t completely coincide, but that doesn’t make the other person insane. If the accused were guilty, then they needed to be locked up somewhere. I suppose that you could say it doesn’t matter whether Darrow is trying to convince the jury that they were a couple of pimples short of a teenager, they needed to be locked up – at the very least.
And how exactly would that excuse the accused? Diminished responsibility might be a questionable defence for teenagers because we’re judging them from an adult perspective. If you were to put this dilemma to a teenage audience, and could get honest answers out of them (rather than the answers they’d think you wanted to hear), then I’d aver a lot of them would acquit Leopold and Loeb on the basis of some quite dubious, unadult reasoning. But also as I said above, my rationality and someone else’s don’t completely coincide, but that doesn’t make the other person insane. If the accused were guilty, then they needed to be locked up somewhere. I suppose that you could say it doesn’t matter whether Darrow is trying to convince the jury that they were a couple of pimples short of a teenager, they needed to be locked up – at the very least.
Act I, Scene iii
In the final part of Act I, Darrow tries using the argument that the boys couldn’t really have been responsible because their environment was not of their making.
Being sceptical, I’m not much inclined to be swayed by this sort of argument either because it tries to shift the blame away from the perpetrator or, as before, diminish their responsibility for their actions.
Being sceptical, I’m not much inclined to be swayed by this sort of argument either because it tries to shift the blame away from the perpetrator or, as before, diminish their responsibility for their actions.
Act II will start by blaming Nietzsche. Not only that, but it’s the 92nd dilemma as well, and there are only 101 in the book. What shall we do next? More philosophical questions? Or shall we…
[Oh do STFU. –ed.]
Comments