Answer:
1. His contention is that the two young men ought not be condemned to death and that the "Wild and luxurious stories were uninhibitedly distributed as though they were truth." Should not be utilized against the young men, because of their status of riches. He contends that at no other time has a minor been condemned to death in the territory of Illinois and that the media craze around the case ought not be utilized in their conviction.
2."And I think I am protected in saying, in spite of the fact that I have not analyzed every one of the records and wouldn't, I be able to think I am sheltered in saying that never has there been such a case in the territory of Illinois."
"Why need a judge to be encouraged by each contention, moderate and radical, to hang two young men notwithstanding every point of reference in Illinois and even with the advancement of the last 50—at any rate twenty-five—years?"
He utilizes convincing language to diminish the effect of the body of evidence against the young men, by calling into question the legitimate framework and the mankind of the judge just as the recorded cases in the province of Illinois.
I think the answer could be C
Its either A or c Its in between those two
