Going to Cuba
7 years ago
Thursday, January 31, 2013
In Cold Blood: Right to Trial
Sometimes we jump to conclusions based on what we believe to be true. Or, sometimes our emotions get the best of us and we don't much care what others have to say since we already have our minds made up. Did Dick Hickock and Perry Smith receive a fair trial? Why or why not? Was it right for Dick Hickock and Perry Smith to receive the same sentence? Why or why not? Is it possible for a jury or judge to be completely unbiased? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Joel
ReplyDeleteI think Dic and Perry received a fair trial because it was an atrocious crime they commited.i dont believe they should have received the same sentence because they didnt have the same mindsets. Well the job of juries is to be unbiased but in crimes like the Clutter family its really hard to be unbiased.
Platypus Rex
DeleteI disagree with you. Dick and Perry may have not received a fair trial because most of the jurors were part of the Holcomb community. Most of Holcomb loved the Clutters and the community was shocked and scared because of what happened. The jurors should have been people that knew almost nothing about the family, people that had no opinion on the case and with no emotional attachment to the situation.
In regard to the mindset, I don't think they should have been judged differently. They are responsible for their actions and even if Perry regretted what he did, he still killed people.
chicaMJ:
DeleteBefore entering the Clutter house they did have the same mindsets,, they were both willing to kill all the family and it was Dick who said he would not leave any witness, maybe he didn't physically kill them but he was the one with the idea and he did not do anything to stop Perry. I believe that a person who does not try to prevent a crime and could do it is maybe not equally guilty but it is very guilty.
Joel
DeletePlatypus rex: so you believe a killing of a whole family should be unbiased? Where are your values? N the mindsets part, they both had the same mindset, they are equally guilty pf their actions
Blu: platypus Rex is right. The trial wasn't fair. The member of the jury should have been completely unbiased from the start. They both are as guilty. I do believe that to make the punishments more fair, they should have been checked by a physiologist because I think Perry is the kind of person who would have done anything to have company. We notice that when he decided to lie about killing King to impress Dick.
DeleteDaddy t
Deletejoel i definetly dissagree with you if you read my comment on capote way of writing, he makes you look both sides of the story, i mean why would you immideitly have a decison, its like to kill a mocking bird, everyone judged immidietly based on bias decions that JIm was the killer, but was he??? you cant make a decion just because you feel like it hears good or based on your beliefs, but a fair trial should be based upon facts and anaalyzation
A jury will always be biased one way or another that is the way that lawyers select it, the system is truly not faor and considering the confession that it was inly perry who killed the clutters the sentences should differ do to this. I belive the trail was unfair, dick and perry did not have every resource available to them, either way they were guilty of various crimes, its hard fir a jury to feel compassion for killers
ReplyDeleteCooper
DeleteEL "EC"
ReplyDeletePeople conclude about situations based on our emotions. We, as a reader, felt that the murder was bad and cruel. Automatically, I judged the murderers based on what they did, not because on why they did it. Dick and Perry did receive a fair trial and it was right for them to receive the same sentence. I don't care what was the motive in why they did it. They just did it and its not right. Also, it is possible if a jury is unbiased, he or she goes with the law.
I disagree, the jury always goes with the law, they dont go with it, they enforce it, they go with one side and stick to it based on evidence, given they are good judges. I agree that people conclude about situations based on emotion, but it is partly false, some people conclude things by what they see or hear as well.
Delete-Tribunito
El "EC"
DeleteA Jury will sometimes will also stick to their emotions. Also, hearing and seeing come together with your emotions. What you hear and think will soon affect you emotions, so yes, emotions DO affect a persons opinion.
KyrieS.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything that Joel stated in his comment except with the part of their sentence being the same. They both took part in the same atrocious act and therefor had to receive the same punishment, it does not matter who did what or what their mindsets were. If you would have given them separate trials maybe something not as harsh it would give the public a wrong idea
Emmit:
DeleteI disagree with you, some people deserve a greater sentence because they are far greater threats to society.
lovepizza94
ReplyDeleteI do believe that their trial was fair. They commited such an atrociuous act against a good and honest family that they really did deserve what they got. Also, it is fair for both of them to receive the same trial, even though they didn´t do the same things, but they were both partners in crime. The judges have the duty to have an unbiased way of thinking when they are in trials, but I believe that was really hard with the Clutter family case, as it was something so horrible.
Dudzy
DeleteI agree that the trial was fair but I don't feel that the fact that their crime was atrocious or not has anything to do with the way they got treated. I believe what truly needs to be debated is wether or not the death penalty is appropriate
Sugar 2195: I believe we jump to conclusions based on our emotions and feeling towards the characters of the story. Sometimes we get attached to the only view presented (Capote's view of the Clutter Family being killed) and we get attach to it. Then our mind and feeling dont accept the other view (Perry's and Dick's childhood and background story.) I believe the actions they did was wrong, but I believed that the judges and the people really needed to see their background story and psychological thoughts. But I really think that it was fair that both received the same punish because both had to do with the planning and the murder.
ReplyDeleteCoffeelover22
ReplyDeleteI believe that Dick and Perry received a fair trial because they committed a terrible crime against an innocent family. Dick and Perry had to receive the same sentence. Even though they did not do the same thing they both planned the crime and neither of them backed out before it happened. Since they were both partners and were willing to do the crime together they should be punished the same way.
I believe that it is impossible that judges are completely unbiased because the Clutter family was a honest and innocent family that should have not been killed. The judges will favor the punishment of the murderers because the Clutters deserve justice.
forever alone
ReplyDeleteDick and Perry both received a fair trial since they both committed the same crime. No one knew anything about them so they had to been treated equally at the beginning.
It was fair for both of them to receive the same sentence because they committed the same trial. Although a case could be made for Perry since he had a very disturbed childhood. It could be said that it's because of his past that Perry chose to do all of those things. Nevertheless, I still think he would've had been sentenced the same as Dick.
The jury could have been completed unbiased because they are aware of both Perry and Dick's life. So they could have felt sympathy towards Perry and not Dick. Nevertheless, they are murderers and that would make it harder for the jury to be unbiased.
Nikolay
ReplyDeleteFor all of those who are saying that Dick and Perry received a fair trial, you are wrong. In what world is the trial in the city where they were murdered fair? All of them already knew what they wanted, and they wanted DEATH. Even though I do believe that the sentence was more than just because they themselves agreed to their crime, they were not represented correctly. Even though the evidence was irrefutable, the mental illness that Perry presented should have been taken into account.
In the matter of whether or not they should have received the same sentence, it is evident that the answer is that they should have. Why? Because they were accomplices. Accomplices, because of the law, are treated equally.
I believe it is fair that Dick and Perry received the same sentence, both commited the same crime, and there is no reason why each should pay for it differently. The trial was also fair, people testified and they even had psychologists to provide information about the two men's attitudes. No jury can be completely unbiased, there will always be some sort of inclination to one side of the story, it is part of human nature to cling fully or partially to one side, and if a jury manages to be unbiased, she would always have her own beliefs and opinions contrary or for one side.
ReplyDelete- Tribunito
WesliSnais
ReplyDeleteMost of the jurors were from the Holcomb community and as Capote introduced us to the Clutter family, the Holcomb community appreciated their charity. The jurors were biased in the trial and did not give Dick and Perry a fair trial. However, I believe that the sentenced should be the same for both, Dick and Perry because both of them killed. It is possible but very unlikely in this case for a jury to be unbiased.
girlABC:
ReplyDeleteJurors are suppose to be bias but with an act so savage as the one that happened to the Clutter family it's hard not to have some feeling towards it. Both Perry and Dick knew their objective that night and they both were prepared to accomplish it. If Perry hadn't pulled the trigger Dick would've, this makes them both guilty. As to if it was fair? It was(if you believe in death penalty). Perry and Dick both had a tough life but that's no excuse to become a murder.
El Bis Stek
ReplyDeleteI don't believe the trial was fair. Perry had one person who testified as to what kind of person he was, but everyone else who testified testified against Perry on account of the crime. The ratio of for to against testifiers was unfair to Perry, and the court is more likely to place value more heavily on facts than opinion, making that single testimony weaker than the others.
Dick and Perry got an unfair trial because even their own lawyer felt disgusted to have to defend the two. He felt it was forced upon him, and obviously assumed that Dick and Perry had done it. He was biased, and that could have tampered with the results.
It was an unfair trial because they could of told Well's what to said so that it was perfected in the way that they wanted it to be to get Perry and Dick in trouble.