Response to Clarence Darrow
In responding to Clarence Darrow's arguments in the Henry Sweet case and in the Leopold and Loeb case, there are some considerations that would have to be addressed in the same manner in both cases. The cases however, differ in many ways that would result in very different responses to the cases. An advocate opposing Darrow would face two factors described above. First, simply opposing Darrow creates some necessary response by the advocate, covered by those arguments that remain constant in the two cases. Second, individual aspects of each case dictate specific response by an advocate, which is covered by those arguments that differ in each case. Opposing Darrow would be a daunting task for any attorney, but winning a case against him would not be impossible if the advocate minds both his opponent and his argument.In responding to Darrow generally, there are a number of things that an advocate would have to keep in mind. The advocate would have to be aware of his own presence in the courtroom and how that plays against Darrow's, factors in the case would likely play into this as well. The advocate should show respect for Darrow. He should further point out the aspects of Darrow's argumen
The advocate in this case should not be confrontational with Darrow. The advocate should respect Darrow, but not appear to bend to him. They want to raise there position by showing respect and not making personal attacks, but not lower it by appearing too deferential. The prosecution might confront Darrow's argument that we can't judge how long Sweet should have waited before firing. The prosecution might put forward that he should have waited until he was in actual danger, acknowledging that he was probably afraid and that may would be afraid in his position. The prosecution could then submit that we cannot allow everyone to act as a vigilante every time that they are afraid. If every person fired a gun when they were afraid, there would be a lot of unnecessary murders. It is hard to ask for the death penalty, but here was must. It is not okay for any person to kill another for no other reason but sport. This may be the worst and most dangerous kind of killing. We cannot allow for the proliferation of this behavior. To not enforce the death penalty in this case is a mandate for leniency in the punishment of those who hill their fellow man for sport.
Some common words found in the essay are:
Leopold Loeb, Henry Sweet, Responding Darrow's, Response Darrow, Darrow Darrow's, Darrow Undertaking, Loeb Sweet, Finally Sweet, death penalty, Opposing Darrow, leopold loeb, emotional appeal, henry sweet, darrow's arguments, opposing darrow, responding darrow, advocate respect darrow, response darrow, respect darrow, makes crime, Clarence Darrow's, darrow responding darrow, attorneys emotional appeal, death penalty prosecution, advocate opposing darrow,
Approximate Word count = 2503
Approximate Pages = 10 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
