Free Mercy For Leopold And Loeb Essay Example

‘Mercy for Leopold and Loeb’ is a speech that is delivered by the lawyer representing Leopold and Loeb, two boys that have committed murder and are destined to be hanged. The lawyer wants the judge to have mercy on them and deliver them instead of sentencing them to death. He argues that although the two boys deserve to be hanged, freeing them would be the better option and would have a better impact on them, their families and the community at large.
The lawyer claims that the actions done by the boys were as a result of the war that had been going on and its effects. He argues that crimes of violence have been increasing due to the war. He says that because of the war, people learnt that human life is cheap. He points out that since the boys have been brought up in this kind of environment, it has influenced the actions that they have committed. Had they been raised up in a different kind of environment, this would probably not have happened . Thus, the judge needs to put this into consideration when giving judgment.
The lawyer uses Pathos mode of persuasion to persuade the audience. He does this by stirring their emotions with the hope of getting empathy from it . He does this by first speaking passionately about the war and how our morals as a society have gone down. Then he argues about how his clients deserve death and how he empathizes with them because they have no choice. He then talks about how the murder would be a great loss to their families and community. Finally, he explains why the judge should have mercy on the two. He uses two poem excerpts that appeal to the hearts of the people. The opposing side is also mentioned. He says he is sorry for the bereavement of Mr. and Mrs. Frank. He also mentions thousands of people who would have been happy if the two were hanged.
The method of argumentation employed is Rogerian. This is where the speaker focuses on finding common ground between two perspectives and offers a compromise as a solution . Despite the fact that the speaker agrees that what the boys did was wrong, and they deserve to be hanged, he also gives credible explanations for their actions and offers mercy as a compromise. He does not oppose what the prosecution is saying, but he argues that considering both sides of the debate, a compromise that is suitable for both parties can be reached.

Works Cited

Darrow, Clarence. AmericanRhetoric.com. 24 September 2010. Web. 11 February 2015.