What Is The Difference Between Leopold And Loeb Not Free?

In Chicago in the year 1924, there occurred a kidnapping and murder of 14-year-old Robert Franks. The perpetrators of this act of murder were two 19 and 20-year-old, wealthy, and intellectually gifted young men, who were known as Nathan Freudenthal Leopold Jr and Richard Albert Loeb, collectively referred to as Leopold and Loeb (Staff 2009). Leopold and Loeb were ultimately taken into trial to face justice for their actions. Leopold and Loeb’s lawyer Clarence Darrow convinced Leopold and Loeb to plead guilty for the crimes of kidnapping and murder. Darrow pleaded with the judge that punishing Leopold and Loeb with the death penalty was the immoral conviction to be made. This was because Darrow stated that our genetics and environment are not

of our choosing and that these two factors combined are the sole cause of all our actions.

Darrow explained to the judge that Leopold and Lobe did not act freely because they had no decision in the environment they were born into nor the genetics they were born with; hence they were destined to carry out this act (Sommers 2004). Darrow’s plea succeeded and Leopold and Loeb avoided the death penalty. Was Darrow correct that Leopold and Loeb’s actions were not free? Are all human decisions strictly a result of the environment they were born into and the genetics they were given, hence not free? In this paper, I will be refuting Darrow’s proposition that the Leopold and Loeb actions were not free.

Premise one in my argument is based on the philosophical view which is referred to as soft-determinism. In the following paragraph, I will attempt to adequately explain what is soft-determinism. Soft determinism is one of several opposing philosophical views to what is referred to as hard determinism. Hard determinists devoutly subscribe to the philosophical view of determinism. Determinism is the view

that every event is caused by a previous sequence of causal events. Hard determinists further state that free will and determinism are logically incompatible, hence for both free will and determinism to exist would be a paradox (Conne and Sider, 118). The argument for hard determinism goes as follows. (1) If free will exists, then the causes of our actions must in some cases be within our control. (2) The causes of our actions are our genetics and our environment, for which we have no control over. (3) Therefore, free will does not exist (Findler 1). Soft determinism rejects premise one of the hard determinist’s argument and claims that free will and determinism are logically compatible, hence can co-exist. The soft determinist agrees with the hard determinist in regards to our actions being determined. Where the two philosophical views disagree is that the soft determinist believes those determined actions are free. Within determinism, the soft determinist distinguishes between internal and external causes. From the soft determinist’s perspective, internal causes are free actions which are caused by one's beliefs and desires and external causes are actions which are inhibited or manipulated. These beliefs and desires are caused by one’s genetics and environment. Therefore, free will according to the soft determinist is freely acting in accordance with one's beliefs and desires absent of manipulation and/or mental illness (Findler 5).
Let us now examine my support for premise two of my argument. If we examine the two causes for Leopold and Loeb’s actions, which Darrow stated are their environment and genetics, there are numerous parallels for both their lives. Both Leopold and Loeb were highly intelligent, displayed homo-erotic tendencies, infatuated with crime and Friedrich Nietzsche's literature, came from affluent families, were raised in the same vicinity, and attended and graduated from the same university (Staff 2009). By Leopold and Loeb immersing themselves in crime based literature and indoctrinating themselves into believing they were Nietzsche's concept of superman; they constructed an artificial perception of themselves (Staff 2009). Nietzsche was a German philosopher who constructed the concept of superman. Superman were divine human beings, superior in all facets of human intellect, gifted with seemingly limitless capabilities, whose perceived divine status and superior intellect caused them not to be restricted by the laws and rules that the average populace is obligated to succumb to (Baatz 2009). Given Leopold and Loeb’s extremely high intelligence and elevated societal status, those two traits reaffirmed their false belief that they were superman. This artificial perceived belief of themselves was primarily a result of environmental causes with some secondary genetic causes as well. This belief Leopold and Loeb constructed for themselves had them convinced that they were not obligated to succumb to the laws and rules that regulate society, hence causing their decision to commit murder. The environmental factors that were just stated amplified Leopold and Loeb’s inherent predisposition to commit murder. Therefore, Leopold and Loeb’s beliefs and desires were a result of various environmental and genetic factors that were absent of their control, but their decision to commit murder was not externally manipulated nor were they mentally ill hence they acted freely.

Here are the supporting claims for the objection. The objection will focus on premise two as it could be potentially perceived as false. One’s beliefs and desires are unwillingly determined by external manipulation within one's environment. As was previously stated in the objection, the external manipulation that occurs is multifarious in terms of the number of variables that can determine one's beliefs and desires. Leopold and Loeb’s decision to commit murder would evidently seem to be manipulated by the literature they read and their perverse relationship with one another. Leopold and Loeb’s infatuation with crime was amplified by the literature they read. What was originally an intriguing piece of literature for Leopold and Loeb had gradually turned into a template for them to physically manifest their beliefs and desires. Also, seemingly both Leopold and Loeb’s similar personalities cultivated their friendship and caused them to believe their perverse thoughts to be the normal standard. Additionally, by Leopold and Loeb constructing an artificial egotistical self-perceived belief of themselves being superman, that belief eradicated any ethical principles they previously might have contained. Through heightened external manipulation, which was absent of Leopold and Loeb’s control, it would then seem evident that Leopold nor Loeb decided to obtain their predetermined intrinsic beliefs and desires, nor did they willingly choose to have their beliefs and desires be manipulated. As a result of their predetermined intrinsic beliefs and desires being unwillingly manipulated, they were inevitably destined to murder. Hence the decision to murder would then seem to be a decision for which they were absent of any free will.
Premise one of the objection is false for the following considerations.

It is true that our behaviour is the result of certain external forces. What is not true is that our behaviour is manipulated to such an extent where our actions are not regarded as free. Murder is an act which is universally acknowledged as a reprehensible act. If external forces do truly subjugate and manipulate our intrinsic beliefs and desires, no one would not commit murder. This is because for one to commit the act of murder they would have to eliminate the external societal forces which prevent one from committing this act. If it is then possible for one to eliminate an external force which does not align with one’s beliefs and desires, then external forces are evidently an influence on one’s actions not the sole explanation for their actions, nor a manipulation. The inherent predisposition for Leopold and Loeb to commit murder was indeed amplified by certain external forces which aligned with their beliefs and desires. Leopold and Loeb’s decision to murder was externally influenced to a certain degree but they both allowed the external forces to freely propagate within their minds and the ultimate decision to commit murder was a result of their free

will.
In summary, Darrow pleaded with the judge that Leopold and Loeb committing murder was not a free act. An argument against Darrow’s position was then presented which was based on soft-determinism. The crux of the argument was that Leopold and Loeb’s actions were caused by their beliefs and desires, which were a result of their environment and genetics. According to the argument, Leopold and Loeb’s actions were not manipulated nor were they mentally ill, and since it was their beliefs and desires that caused them to commit murder, their actions were free. An objection was then presented that Leopold and Loeb’s actions were caused by uncontrollable external manipulation, therefore their actions were not free. This objection was dismissed on the basis of premise one of that objection being false. The premise was false because external forces are not the sole cause of one’s actions nor a manipulation, they are purely an influence on one’s actions if only the external forces align with one’s preexisting beliefs and desires. Therefore, acts which are influenced by external forces do not indicate an absence of free will. To conclude, our genetics and our environment for which we have no control over are the causes of our actions. However, an action that is free from all external manipulation which aligns with our beliefs and desires is the manifestation of our free will.