Clarence Darrow: Irresponsible Or Disadvantaged Background?

971 Words4 Pages
Prompt #6 The problem being addressed is the trial lawyer Clarence Darrow defends men or women who have committed a crime by saying he or she was causally determined to commit such crimes because he or she was from a disadvantaged background, therefore he or she does not have moral responsibility for said crime; but does this apply to people from an advantaged background? Darrow explains that because the person who has committed a crime is from a disadvantaged background, he or she has gone through numerous life experiences such as lack of education, broken homes, perhaps extreme poverty or even neglect or abuse. Although a person from an advantaged background does not have all these experiences, Darrow's reasoning is plausible even for someone who is from an advantaged background. When Darrow defends…show more content…
The person from an advantaged background, according to my example of a person from a disadvantaged background, would have had a formal education; this does not disprove my statement. Despite his higher education, he is still causally determined to commit such crimes. The way that he was raised still plays a factor in his action, education or not. He gets what he wants growing up so he will assume he gets what he wants as an adult. So Darrow's argument has the same reliability whether it is defending someone for an advantaged or disadvantaged background according to my two statements: (1) If a person is from a disadvantaged background, then he or she is not morally responsible for his or her actions. (2) If a person is from an advantaged background, then he or she is not responsible for his or her actions. The first statement bears heavily on the acceptability of hard determinism because all events leading up to the crime are factors in the causal chain. For

More about Clarence Darrow: Irresponsible Or Disadvantaged Background?

Open Document