Question

In 1924, Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb were convicted of killing a fourteen-year-old neighbor boy. Leopold and Loeb were in their late teens, came from wealthy families, and attended college. They wanted to commit the “perfect crime.” Attorney Clarence Darrow, a lifetime opponent of the death penalty, was their defense attorney.
excerpt from Clarence Darrow’s closing argument in Illinois v. Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, August 22–25, 1924

If these two boys die on the scaffold which I can never even yet bring myself to imagine, if they do die on the scaffold the details of this will be spread over the world. Every newspaper in the United States will carry a full account. Every newspaper of Chicago will be filled with the gruesome details. It will enter every home and every family.

Will it make men better or make men worse?…Would it harden the heart of man or would it soften it? How many men would be colder and crueler for it?…

Do I need to argue to your honor that cruelty only makes cruelty; that hatred only causes hatred; that if there is any way…to soften this human heart, which is hard enough at its best, if there is any way to kill evil and hatred and all that goes with it, it is not through evil and hatred and cruelty; it is through charity and love and understanding?

How does the use of rhetorical questions in this excerpt advance the speaker's purpose of persuading the judge to give a lighter sentence?


The rhetorical questions imply that a harsher sentence would only serve to make people crueler.

The rhetorical questions force the judge to listen more carefully to the argument and thus to agree with the speaker.

The rhetorical questions demonstrate that the speaker is offering theories, not stating facts.

The rhetorical questions remind the judge that the vast majority of people in the community share the speaker's view.

Answer 1

Answer:  The rhetorical questions imply that a harsher sentence would only serve to make people crueler.

Explanation: Took the test

Answer 2

Answer:

Cruelty only makes cruelty. The implication is that a harsher sentence would only make people more cruel.

Explanation:

By showing mercy, hopefully, they will learn mercy towards others. By all means, I do not personally agree with this. A person should be held accountable for what they do/did. You have to determine if you think the death penalty is going to solve the problem. Killing someone does not rehabilitate them. Keeping in jail for life can offer them a chance at possibly having a change of heart - even though they are a lifer.