This is half my grade need fast
excerpt from clarence darrow’s closing argument
in illinois v. nathan leopold and richard loeb, august 22–25, 1924
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.
it was announced that millions of dollars were to be spent on this case. wild and extravagant stories were freely published as if they were fact. here was to be an effort to save the lives of two boys, that should not have required an effort even, but to save their lives by the use of money, in fabulous amounts, such as these families never had nor could have.
we announced to the public that no excessive use of money would be made in this case, neither for lawyers, for psychiatrists or in any other way. we have faithfully kept that promise which we made to the public. the psychiatrists, as has been shown by evidence in this case, are receiving a per diem, and only a per diem, which is the same as is paid by the state.
the attorneys of their own motion, at their own request, have agreed to take such amount as the officers of the chicago bar association may think is proper in this case. if we fail in this defense it will not be for lack of money. it will be on account of money. money has been the most serious handicap that we have met. there are times when poverty is fortunate, and this is one of those times.
defense handicapped by wealth
i insist, your honor, that had this been the case of two boys of this age unconnected with families that are supposed to have great wealth that there is not a state’s attorney in illinois who would not at once consented to a plea of guilty and a punishment in the penitentiary for life. not one. no lawyer could have justified it. no prosecution could have justified it.
we could have come into this court without evidence, without argument, with nothing, and this court would have given to us what every judge in the city of chicago has given to every boy in the city of chicago since the first capital case was tried. and we would have no contest.
we are here with the lives of two boys imperiled, with the public interest aroused. for what? because, unfortunately, their parents have money. nothing else.
i told your honor in the beginning that never had there been such a case in chicago, where on a plea of guilty a boy under 21 had been sentenced to death. i will raise that age and say never has there been a case where a human being under the age of 28 or 30 has been sentenced to death. and i think i am safe in saying, although i have not examined all the records and could not, but i think i am safe in saying that never has there been such a case in the state of illinois.
and yet this court is urged, aye, threatened, that he must hang two boys contrary to the precedents, contrary to the acts of every judge who ever held court in this state.
why? tell me what public necessity there is for this. why need the state’s attorney ask for something that was never asked before? why need a judge be urged by every argument, moderate and immoderate, to hang two boys in the face of every precedent in illinois and in the face of progress of the last 50—at least twenty-five—years?
what is darrow’s argument in the excerpt? how well does darrow support his argument? use evidence from the text to support your response. your response should be one or two complete paragraphs.

type your answer here.
(score for question 2: of 5 points)
2. how does darrow use rhetoric to advance his purpose in the excerpt of his closing argument in illinois v. nathan leopold and richard loeb? provide two or more examples of rhetoric darrow uses and the intended effect of the rhetoric. use evidence from the passage to support your response. your response should be one or two complete paragraphs.

type your answer here.
(score for question 3: of 5 points)