Free Will and Personal Responsibility - Case Study Example

To prove the superman theory, they murdered a fourteen year-old boy named Bobby Franks. Also, they committed the murder of Franks to prove that they were intelligent enough to outsmart the police and create the perfect crime. However, because of the negligence of leaving behind Leopold's glasses near the dead body, the police was able to prove that they were the perpetrator of the crime. Ultimately, they had been convicted for the crime that they committed. The defense counsel of Leopold and Loeb presented a closing argument justifying the murder committed against Franks.

The main argument of the closing speech is that Leopold and Loeb's act of murdering Franks was a necessary consequence of their background, their upbringing and the principles of Nietzsche. According to the defense counsel, all these factors drove them to killing another person. The combinations of said factors afforded no other result other than the horrific crime committed. As such, Leopold and Loeb could not be held responsible for their actions. Therefore, they should not be punished for killing Franks.

To support this argument the lawyer presented the three points. First, Loeb's and Leopold's upbringing served as a breeding ground for a twisted sense of morality. Loeb was raised by a governess who pushed him too hard on his studies. It was because of the strictness of the governess that Loeb was swayed into rebellion. And the form of rebellion that he took is to read detective stories that were forbidden to him. Loeb's fascination lead to him to observe that in all these stories, the detective always wins.

The detective always figures out the puzzle to the crime. Because of this, he became challenged. He became captivated and obsessed to formulating the perfect crime - one that may not be solved by the brightest detective. Leopold on the other hand was an intellectual. Because of this, he was accelerated in school. On the downside, he failed to develop this emotional part of his being. He was so smart that he took a liking to Philosophy, particularly the teachings of Nietzsche. And Nietzsche believed that an intelligent man is above the law and morality.

The second thing that the lawyer pointed out is that with the fascination in detective stories, it is but understandable that a highly intellectual person would be challenged to formulate an undetectable crime. They would prove that the detectives do not always win. From the lawyer's point of view, because of this challenge, it was natural that they create the perfect crime. Hence, Loeb cannot be faulted for his creation. The strictness of his governess and the challenge brought by detective stories was to be blamed for his action.

The third point that the lawyer raised for Loeb and Leopold's defense is the teaching of Nietzsche. Nietzsche was strong in his teachings that the intelligent man is not bound by the ordinary rules in morality. Than in fact, the superman is the law by himself. Leopold firmly believe this. And because of which, what else can be the result but a series of acts defying the law and morals The last defense that the lawyer raised was that of insanity. He claimed that who in their right mind would exchange