Leverett1

Taylor Leverett

Weaver

LNG 406

11 February 2011

The Execution of Dick and Perry: Justified or Not?

The past existence of criminals should not be an excuse for people to sympathize

with their inhumane manners. There are many criminals in our society whose actions are

deemed unpardonable. Dick and Perry both had decent lives when they were younger but

it is these “first few years of life that are critical for building emotional responses to life.

If a child fails to receive a warm, responsive contact with another person during those

years, the disadvantages may never be fully overcome” (Taylor). However, we cannot

blame their past for their premeditated murdering of the Clutter family because we would

not be doing justice to the true victims of the crime, The Clutters. Furthermore, both of

these criminals came from different but similar backgrounds that may have influence

their future behaviors but did not set in stone their behaviors as an adult.

Richard Eugene Hickock was the son of a Kansas native that grew up in a decent

family and working environment but it is this simply aspect in life that leads him to living

a life crime and indecency. As a child, Richard was a model athlete who wants to pursue

and continue in college. However, his family is incapable of affording college which

leads him to be “resentful” toward his lifestyle the way it is (Capote 166). Dick began a

life of petty crimes such as writing bad checks and stealing from others. His attitude

toward life seems evident in that he does not care for the feelings of others or his victims

in his crime. At the murder trial, he felt no remorse for killing the Clutter family by
 Leverett2

stating “it’s easy to kill—a lot easier then passing a bad check” (291). This aspect in

Dick’s character may have been a product of his unfortunate ness as a teenager but, it

does not rectify his actions in murdering an innocent family. It goes to show that even the

most decent looking people can bare a cold-blooded murderer as a son. Dana Ewells, of

Fresno, California, shares comparing differences with Dick. Ewells came from a wealthy

family, knew many socialites in his city, and had every door of opportunity open for him;

however, his want for money and control led his desire of greed which ultimately leads

him to slaughtering his family for it all. The fact that both Ewells and Hickock were

strongly led by their desire for control in life shows their incompetence to survival in the

real world but, we must not judge their past as a means of evidence in favor of their

innocence. Ultimately, Dick’s life could have been worst than he thought as an adult,

such as Perry Smith who suffered an unfortunate up bringing.

Perry Smith started a life of trouble at an early age to compensate for the absence

of his father as a young boy. Although studies have shown that adults who are deprived

of a childhood are prone to erratic behavior in their fully developed years, a criminal’s

adult years and their adolescent years cannot be viewed on the same level (Beckman 3).

Perry’s mother was not able to take care of him and his other siblings but you cannot use

that as an excuse to act out on your feelings because you felt neglected as a young child

in life. If we compared Perry to his sister, it would be a complete opposite. The fact that

Perry’s sister became a decent law-abiding citizen in her adult life demonstrates that even

with a troubled past you still can overcome. His father states that “freedom means

everything to him” (129) but in fact it did not because even though Perry has
 Leverett3

premonitions of being caught after murdering the Clutter family, he and Dick still commit

the crime despite of that fact.

Dick and Perry suffered psychological mishaps in their childhood which led them

to a life of criminal behavior; however, the aspect of their acquired character should not

be considered in such a case as this. When it comes down to the core, they premeditated

this heinous crime to murder an innocent family for the benefit of their self righteousness

and sick desire for control over their lives. When this control was not received, they

retrieve to murder as a sense of power over the helpless. This controlling nature compares

to Jim Warren, the founder of the Peoples Temple, who killed more than nine hundred

people by adding a powerful sedative in a Kool-Aid drink. He professed that God has

sent him as a messenger to warn the world of their behaviors when in truth; Warren

wanted to feel a sense of power and control over the lives of his congregation. Dick and

Perry have no remorse for their actions. When asked whether he feels remorse, Perry

states “Am I sorry? If that’s what you mean—I’m not. I don’t feel anything about it. I

wish I did…” (291). When viewing the trial, “guilt, depression, and remorse were

strikingly absent. …Such individuals can be considered to be murder- prone in the sense

of either carrying a surcharge of aggressive energy or having an unstable ego…” (301)

which further underlines the aspect of disregarding their past as a recluse to commit

murder.

Looking back into a murderer’s past helps to contribute to their conviction

because many are able to see the psychological disturbance that occurred in their younger

life but, it cannot be evidence that supports their innocence. Referring back to their past

as is almost an excuse for committing the crime they did. We must remember the
 Leverett4

culpability of Dick and Perry to premeditate murder. They knew what they were doing

and did not care for the victims. They want a sense of power and control over their life

that they have never had. They’ve also never had to feel remorse for their actions. Dick

confesses to “have beaten a colored man to death…” (55). this shows his inhumanity to

taking someone else’s life. Dick and Perry cannot handle their lives the way it is.

Everyone has a time in their life where bad times are at a peak, but ultimately it is up to

the individual whether they can withstand the tribulation to reaching that ultimate goal in

life and the future.

The idea of capital punishment may strike some “cruel and unusual punishment”

but “what was cruel and unusual punishment when the Constitution was written is

different from today…We don’t put people in stockades now” (Harper). The

government’s central them is to “protect the rights of the innocent” and guarantee “the

pursuit of happiness” for all; however, some people take that right away from others

through committing gruesome acts such as murder. A murderer’s past cannot be brought

into thought when discussing their deserving of the capital punishment because it will

always be an excuse utilized by the convicts to rectify their actions in committing

murder. Ultimately, the true victims in this crime are the ones without a voice to be heard

—The Clutters— they are a prime example of why the law of capital punishment was

created to begin with. Essentially, “the rights of the innocent trump the rights of the

guilty” (Harper 682). However, if considered, would it be injustice to keep naturally

inclined murderers free to roam in society?