Clarence Darrow, counsel for Leopold and Loeb, once said 'Justice has nothing to do with what goes on in a courtroom; Justice is what comes out of a courtroom". This week you have read about justifications and excuses. You have also read the article and seen video regarding Leopold and Lob and the Affluenze and PMS defense.

1. In your own words describe the Leopold and Lob case, in light of thie week's reading,
2. Why did Darrow chose to plead guilty and argue diminished capacity at sentencing instead of pleading not guilty by insanity and trying the case?
3. Did Darrow make the right decision? Did the judge make the right decision? Why or why not for both decisions?
4. Now that you have learned about the modern defense of "Affluenza" do you think this defense could have been attempted in Leopold and Lob? If you were the judge and Darrow argued Affluenza as to both boys, what would you rule?
5. Do you think cases like Leopold and Lob opened the door to modern defenses such as Affluenza and the PMS defense?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

The Leopold and Loeb case which occurred in the 1920s involved Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb two wealthy young men from Chicago who murdered a 14yea... View the full answer