Michael Decker
Mrs. Robinson
AP English
To the surprise of anyone who knows me, I am all for capital punishment. Perry did deserve to be put to death. He committed the crime and admitted it was him who did all 4 acts. Regardless of his perception at the time, he knew that killing was wrong. He did it anyway. What was human in him had long-ago died. The only thing that died was the outer shell that only harbored an evil and vicious killing machine in it. I do not understand why people who assume that if someone is more oriented to kill then they are without fault when they do. Everyone has something intrinsic to them that may or may not be desired. It should not be treated aside from us. It is part of what we call ourselves. Regardless of whether he was a child and all that changed him, he was still Perry. His environment may have changed him but then that was him, was it not? If we were punishing another Perry then why had he never manifested himself? Murder was okay for this Perry and this is the Perry we were killing, was it not? Being more inclined to kill does not excuse the killing. He went there knowing he was going to kill. He knew it was wrong and that was why he had second thoughts about it. He went ahead with it. He was “proving a point” to Dick. Then let us “prove a point” to the world and extinguish those who kill. Dick on the other hand, did not deserve to die. Capital punishment is only meant for those who committed murder, which he did not. Perry admitted to all 4 murders. Why Dick was put to death is beyond me. He was only an accomplice to the crime. That is what his punishment should have been based on. He drove Perry there and pretty much got Perry to do the murder. He gave the plan. He was the mastermind. He wanted them dead. But he never killed. He was not a “[explicative] killer”. Yes, people do deserve the death penalty. I do like the way Green put it. Even if you come from a religious point (which is not where I am coming from but it at least proves it both ways). The Bible, on which our law is largely based, does call “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. Jesus kept the laws as is. The summation done by Green was the work of pure genius. My view comes more from a less noble perspective. I believe that if the law is in place and you violate the law, knowing the punishment, then you should receive that punishment. Also, if you do claim that some people are more inclined to killing than others, then why keep those with killing in their genes to propagate and create more killers?
The Biology Guru (I beat you Nick) 
kirsti25 Said:
on August 2, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Perhaps the death penalty was unneccessary, but I agree with your view that you should recieve the punishment due for violating the law. How much strength can we put in our laws if they are not properly enforced. It is the duty of a judge to enforce the law. If someone were to disagree with Dick and Perry recieving the death penalty, it is the law that should be changed, not the courts decision. For the jury was clearly following the law, as the punishment for first-degree murder was death. Wouldn’t be wrong to disobey the law because of sympathy felt for the killers?
Kirsti
michaeldeckerthebiologyguru Said:
on August 3, 2007 at 9:24 pm
My points exactly. A decision of this caliber should be based on logic, reason, and analysis. It should not be weighed on how much sympathy you feel. In the terms of the law, it applies to all people equally. In terms of sympathy, then it is unfair and thus any judgement based on sympathy is unjust. For instance, if an extremely racist jury put a black man to death but felt sympathy for a white man when both did equatable crimes of the same caliber then would the law have been carried out justly? Of course not.
luvaddict2 Said:
on September 5, 2007 at 10:09 pm
((Sorry if this is the second post I made, the first one did something funny, so I’m posting it again. By the way, this is Hilary.))
Michael, I completely agree with you in almost every aspect. I am all for capital punishment also. I believe that Perry did deserve the death penalty for killing the family, and it bothered me that Capote was trying to depict Perry as an abused child who did not know any better. I was watching “Capote” and in it Capote actually fell in love with Perry, which was odd. Although, it did explain why he portrayed Perry in that way.
In contrast to your post, I think Dick did deserve the death penalty even though he did not physically kill the Clutters. If Dick had not schemed the whole plan it would have never happened, therefore, I think he did deserve to be put to death.
Kyle Said:
on September 22, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Hey, I am doing a paper on the same thing, but I believe the opposite.
I realize that this was written in 2007 but i wanted to give you my 2 cents.
It would be merely a technicality to keep Dick from the Death Sentence. Although not physically involved, Dick still played an important role in the Clutter Killings (obviously). He did not pull the trigger but he not only wanted the Clutters dead but caused the situation to begin with. Perry did not want to go through with the robbery and Dick persisted on, telling him that he would go in without him if he had to. not to mention that Dick’s plan the entire time was to leave No witnesses with their hair on the walls. I don’t know how you could think that Dick deserves anything less than Perry who only tied them up and shot them!