What Is The Moral Of In Cold Blood Essay
Throughout the links of time, there have been various opinions about how the world strategizes the works of execution. The act of execution is known to be inhumane, whether it is justified as right or wrong. There are many cases of crime that have taken on the option of capital punishment. One case in particular is the Clutter family case which is deeply stretched and analyzed in Truman Capote’s book In Cold Blood. The novel is known as a masterpiece concealed with agonizing horror and cruelty that has crept upon a rustic community. The importance of this disastrous incident comes with how societal views affect the lives of individuals. The brutality of crime, sympathy concerning victims, anger towards perpetrators, and opinions upon verdict
…show more content…
is the burst of factors that are faced when a crime is taken place. Especially in a small town such as Holcomb, Kansas. However, there have been other cases that are almost identical to the crimes of Dick and Perry because capital punishment begins to play part into question. Blaming insanity, the McNaughton Rule accounts for whether or not the defendant is guilty of the crime, which is usually the stalling technique defendants use take capital punishment out of the question. For example, during the Clutter Case, it had been concerned that Perry Smith was insane, although he did receive capital punishment.
In Cold Blood portrays the story of a small town family living the American Dream living in Holcomb, Kansas. Unlike other crimes that are usually held in large cities that would be known to have a high crime rate, Holcomb is barely even notified on a map. This is what makes the brutality of the murders stand out even more, casting a dark cloud over the once serene town. Robbing the tranquility of Holcomb, one by one, Dick and Perry killed the Clutters. As they are prosecuted, instead of hateful remarks being hurled at them complete silence fell from seeing the haunting faces of Dick and Perry. However, what Dick and Perry did not know that the death penalty was awaiting for them as they entered into the courtroom, which is where blaming insanity comes into play.
A few basic parts to the McNaughton Rule: There is a presumption, that the defendant is sane, and that they are responsible for their criminal acts. At the time of the crime, the defendant must have been suffering from a “disease of the mind.” The M'Naghten standard was the predominant test used in the United States from the mid-1800's until approximately 1962, which is around the time Dick and Perry were on trial for the murders of the Clutters. It signaled the beginning of a long process of attempting to integrate the growing body of the psychiatric field with legal principles to define appropriate standards of insanity to use in defense. The test reached its high point in 1851 when it was adopted in the federal court system and a majority of the state courts. In 1982, when Hinckley was tried, only 16 states still used the M'Naghten test; a majority, like the District of Columbia, had adopted some version of the Model Penal Code. Under the M'Naghten test of insanity, also called the "right-wrong test," a person was not criminally responsible if at the time of the crime, he did not know the nature of the act or that it was wrong. The jury was required to answer two questions: (1) did the defendant know what he was doing when he committed the crime?; or (2) did the defendant understand that his actions were wrong? This test allowed a prosecutor to prove sanity easily by simply showing a defendant understood the moral consequences of an action; mental illness did not matter. Up until a few decades into the 19th Century, medical testimony was rare at an insanity trial. Often the only evidence of the defendant's mental state was a statement by the defense counsel. If a physician were available, the doctor simply gave a generic list of behaviors generally present in a mentally ill individual; the physician did not examine the defendant. At the time, the medical profession knew little about mental disease and believed insanity to be incurable. The prevailing treatment of the day involved leeches to remove "tainted" blood from the insane. In a larger sense, the book seems to grapple with the question of whether the same moral standards are applicable to all people, regardless of their upbringing and their life circumstances; or whether Perry and Dick are in some measure redeemed (at least morally, if not legally) by the fact of their mental illness, and the fact that their own lives have been so lacking.
Perry and Dick’s criminal tendencies are revealed to have underlying medical causes (Perry suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, and Dick has brain damage from a concussion); the difficulty of the murder trial becomes, to what extent are they still accountable for their actions? In 1953, a group of distinguished legal and medical professionals known as the American Law Institute ("ALI") began studying the issue of criminal responsibility. The ALI drafted the Model Penal Code test in 1962 and attempted to solve problems of earlier insanity tests. It was designed to implement some psychiatric advances and to avoid the causation problems present in the Durham test. The ALI Test was viewed as broader more expansive test of insanity as compared to the outdated M'Naghten test. Compared to M'Naghten, it lowered the insanity standard from an absolute knowledge of right from wrong to a substantial incapacity to appreciate the difference between right and wrong; thereby recognizing degrees of incapacity. ALI also broadened the insanity test to include a volitional or "irresistible impulse" component. The test focused …show more content…
on the "defendant's understanding of his conduct" and also on the "defendant's ability to control his actions." Basically, it was a combination of the M'Naghten and Irresistible Impulse tests, only rewritten with different language. By the early 1970's, every federal circuit court except the First and D.C. Circuit had abandoned M'Naghten (whether alone or with the Irresistible Impulse test) and adopted ALI. The ALI Test was seen as a breakthrough and by 1962, it was the law in a majority of states and, until October 1984, the law in a majority of federal courts. Since Hinckley's trial took place in a federal court adopting ALI, it was the test at issue in the his trial. Under the ALI test in federal court, the burden was on the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not insane, once enough evidence was presented to raise the issue. In another case, Petitioner Rodney Crenshaw pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity to the charge of first degree murder of his wife, Karen Crenshaw. A jury found him guilty. Petitioner appealed his conviction, assigning error to a number of the trial court's rulings. Although, in this case the death penalty was not part of the trial. However a large sentence was to be made. "Wrong" was interpreted to mean legally wrong, rather than morally wrong, in the case of Windle 1952 2QB 826; 1952 2 All ER 1 246, where the defendant killed his wife with an overdose of aspirin; he telephoned the police and said, "I suppose they will hang me for this." It was held that this was sufficient to show that although the defendant was suffering from a mental illness, he was aware that his act was wrong, and the defense was not allowed. Under this interpretation, there may be cases where the mentally ill know that their conduct is legally prohibited, but it is arguable that their mental condition prevents them making the connection between an act being legally prohibited and the societal requirement to conform their conduct to the requirements of the criminal law.
As an example of a contrasting interpretation in which defendant lacking knowledge that the act was morally wrong meets the M'Naghten standards, there are the instructions the judge is required to provide to the jury in cases in New York State when the defendant has raised an insanity plea as a defense:
... with respect to the term "wrong", a person lacks substantial capacity to know or appreciate that conduct is wrong if that person, as a result of mental disease or defect, lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate either that the conduct was against the law or that it was against commonly held moral principles, or both.[12][13]
There is other support in the authorities for this interpretation of the standards enunciated in the findings presented to the House of Lords regarding M'Naghten's case:
If it be accepted, as can hardly be denied, that the answers of the judges to the questions asked by the House of Lords in 1843 are to be read in the light of the then existing case-law and not as novel pronouncements of a legislative character, then the [Australian] High Court's analysis in Stapleton's Case is compelling.
Their exhaustive examination of the extensive case-law concerning the defense of insanity prior to and at the time of the trial of M'Naughten establishes convincingly that it was morality and not legality which lay as a concept behind the judges' use of "wrong" in the M'Naghten
rules.[14]
With the publication of In Cold Blood, Truman Capote debuted a new literary genre: the non- fiction novel. The non-fiction novel presents real events through the use of literary techniques generally associated with fiction narratives. In the case of In Cold Blood, Capote used news- paper accounts, investigative reports, letters, and interviews to piece together the story of the Clutter murders and the subsequent hunt for and eventual execution of Richard Hickock and Perry Smith. Capote traveled to the Holcomb area just months after the murders, and he spent six years collecting information, interviewing residents, and observing the work of the Kansas Bureau of Investigations under the leadership of Al Dewey. Yet, like a novel, the story is presented in vivid sentences and filled with evocative descriptions, poignant word choice, and lyrical images. In conclusion, Capote used factual information. However, he was story telling the murders, making many, especially the townspeople of Holcomb, believe it was nothing but a sleaze magazine.
is the burst of factors that are faced when a crime is taken place. Especially in a small town such as Holcomb, Kansas. However, there have been other cases that are almost identical to the crimes of Dick and Perry because capital punishment begins to play part into question. Blaming insanity, the McNaughton Rule accounts for whether or not the defendant is guilty of the crime, which is usually the stalling technique defendants use take capital punishment out of the question. For example, during the Clutter Case, it had been concerned that Perry Smith was insane, although he did receive capital punishment.
In Cold Blood portrays the story of a small town family living the American Dream living in Holcomb, Kansas. Unlike other crimes that are usually held in large cities that would be known to have a high crime rate, Holcomb is barely even notified on a map. This is what makes the brutality of the murders stand out even more, casting a dark cloud over the once serene town. Robbing the tranquility of Holcomb, one by one, Dick and Perry killed the Clutters. As they are prosecuted, instead of hateful remarks being hurled at them complete silence fell from seeing the haunting faces of Dick and Perry. However, what Dick and Perry did not know that the death penalty was awaiting for them as they entered into the courtroom, which is where blaming insanity comes into play.
A few basic parts to the McNaughton Rule: There is a presumption, that the defendant is sane, and that they are responsible for their criminal acts. At the time of the crime, the defendant must have been suffering from a “disease of the mind.” The M'Naghten standard was the predominant test used in the United States from the mid-1800's until approximately 1962, which is around the time Dick and Perry were on trial for the murders of the Clutters. It signaled the beginning of a long process of attempting to integrate the growing body of the psychiatric field with legal principles to define appropriate standards of insanity to use in defense. The test reached its high point in 1851 when it was adopted in the federal court system and a majority of the state courts. In 1982, when Hinckley was tried, only 16 states still used the M'Naghten test; a majority, like the District of Columbia, had adopted some version of the Model Penal Code. Under the M'Naghten test of insanity, also called the "right-wrong test," a person was not criminally responsible if at the time of the crime, he did not know the nature of the act or that it was wrong. The jury was required to answer two questions: (1) did the defendant know what he was doing when he committed the crime?; or (2) did the defendant understand that his actions were wrong? This test allowed a prosecutor to prove sanity easily by simply showing a defendant understood the moral consequences of an action; mental illness did not matter. Up until a few decades into the 19th Century, medical testimony was rare at an insanity trial. Often the only evidence of the defendant's mental state was a statement by the defense counsel. If a physician were available, the doctor simply gave a generic list of behaviors generally present in a mentally ill individual; the physician did not examine the defendant. At the time, the medical profession knew little about mental disease and believed insanity to be incurable. The prevailing treatment of the day involved leeches to remove "tainted" blood from the insane. In a larger sense, the book seems to grapple with the question of whether the same moral standards are applicable to all people, regardless of their upbringing and their life circumstances; or whether Perry and Dick are in some measure redeemed (at least morally, if not legally) by the fact of their mental illness, and the fact that their own lives have been so lacking.
Perry and Dick’s criminal tendencies are revealed to have underlying medical causes (Perry suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, and Dick has brain damage from a concussion); the difficulty of the murder trial becomes, to what extent are they still accountable for their actions? In 1953, a group of distinguished legal and medical professionals known as the American Law Institute ("ALI") began studying the issue of criminal responsibility. The ALI drafted the Model Penal Code test in 1962 and attempted to solve problems of earlier insanity tests. It was designed to implement some psychiatric advances and to avoid the causation problems present in the Durham test. The ALI Test was viewed as broader more expansive test of insanity as compared to the outdated M'Naghten test. Compared to M'Naghten, it lowered the insanity standard from an absolute knowledge of right from wrong to a substantial incapacity to appreciate the difference between right and wrong; thereby recognizing degrees of incapacity. ALI also broadened the insanity test to include a volitional or "irresistible impulse" component. The test focused …show more content…
on the "defendant's understanding of his conduct" and also on the "defendant's ability to control his actions." Basically, it was a combination of the M'Naghten and Irresistible Impulse tests, only rewritten with different language. By the early 1970's, every federal circuit court except the First and D.C. Circuit had abandoned M'Naghten (whether alone or with the Irresistible Impulse test) and adopted ALI. The ALI Test was seen as a breakthrough and by 1962, it was the law in a majority of states and, until October 1984, the law in a majority of federal courts. Since Hinckley's trial took place in a federal court adopting ALI, it was the test at issue in the his trial. Under the ALI test in federal court, the burden was on the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not insane, once enough evidence was presented to raise the issue. In another case, Petitioner Rodney Crenshaw pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity to the charge of first degree murder of his wife, Karen Crenshaw. A jury found him guilty. Petitioner appealed his conviction, assigning error to a number of the trial court's rulings. Although, in this case the death penalty was not part of the trial. However a large sentence was to be made. "Wrong" was interpreted to mean legally wrong, rather than morally wrong, in the case of Windle 1952 2QB 826; 1952 2 All ER 1 246, where the defendant killed his wife with an overdose of aspirin; he telephoned the police and said, "I suppose they will hang me for this." It was held that this was sufficient to show that although the defendant was suffering from a mental illness, he was aware that his act was wrong, and the defense was not allowed. Under this interpretation, there may be cases where the mentally ill know that their conduct is legally prohibited, but it is arguable that their mental condition prevents them making the connection between an act being legally prohibited and the societal requirement to conform their conduct to the requirements of the criminal law.
As an example of a contrasting interpretation in which defendant lacking knowledge that the act was morally wrong meets the M'Naghten standards, there are the instructions the judge is required to provide to the jury in cases in New York State when the defendant has raised an insanity plea as a defense:
... with respect to the term "wrong", a person lacks substantial capacity to know or appreciate that conduct is wrong if that person, as a result of mental disease or defect, lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate either that the conduct was against the law or that it was against commonly held moral principles, or both.[12][13]
There is other support in the authorities for this interpretation of the standards enunciated in the findings presented to the House of Lords regarding M'Naghten's case:
If it be accepted, as can hardly be denied, that the answers of the judges to the questions asked by the House of Lords in 1843 are to be read in the light of the then existing case-law and not as novel pronouncements of a legislative character, then the [Australian] High Court's analysis in Stapleton's Case is compelling.
Their exhaustive examination of the extensive case-law concerning the defense of insanity prior to and at the time of the trial of M'Naughten establishes convincingly that it was morality and not legality which lay as a concept behind the judges' use of "wrong" in the M'Naghten
rules.[14]
With the publication of In Cold Blood, Truman Capote debuted a new literary genre: the non- fiction novel. The non-fiction novel presents real events through the use of literary techniques generally associated with fiction narratives. In the case of In Cold Blood, Capote used news- paper accounts, investigative reports, letters, and interviews to piece together the story of the Clutter murders and the subsequent hunt for and eventual execution of Richard Hickock and Perry Smith. Capote traveled to the Holcomb area just months after the murders, and he spent six years collecting information, interviewing residents, and observing the work of the Kansas Bureau of Investigations under the leadership of Al Dewey. Yet, like a novel, the story is presented in vivid sentences and filled with evocative descriptions, poignant word choice, and lyrical images. In conclusion, Capote used factual information. However, he was story telling the murders, making many, especially the townspeople of Holcomb, believe it was nothing but a sleaze magazine.