To Die or Not to Die
Should a man be punished for a crime he had involvement in, but did not technically commit? This question has been asked for decades over the Clutter Murders of 1959. Richard “Dick” Hickock was the man to convince Perry Smith to travel with him to Holcomb, Kansas to pay a visit to Herb Clutter and family. Although Hickock was the one to plan the entire visit, which included robbing and murdering the family, he never physically laid a finger on the trigger of the shotgun or knife that killed Herb Clutter and his innocent wife and children. Hickock deserved the fate of the death penalty due to his manipulation of Perry and his involvement in the crime.
Hickock had more than an intention to murder the entire Clutter family
…show more content…
The question at hand is why he suddenly made the conscious decision to no longer be associated with the crime. Immediately following their capture, the two criminals were interrogated and investigated by the officers involved in the Kansas Bureau of Investigation. As soon as Hickock comes to the realization that the police have evidence to be used against the two for conviction, Hickock disowns the crime by stating how his accomplice was the man to have been the true murderer, and he simply “couldn’t stop him” (230). Hickock’s father constantly claims that after his son’s accident in 1950, Richard just “. . . didn’t act like the same boy” (293). The intent of this claim was to support that Hickock was involved in the murder due to his inability to distinguish right from wrong, but this claim was quickly dismissed after a psychological evaluation. During the trial, Hickock is described as “impulsive in action” and “alert” by Dr. Jones,the doctor who evaluated Hickock (294-5). Hickock was not mentally ill, nor had he ever experienced a life with a lack of support. His father and mother arrived to every trial, tried to repay his debts, and never left him behind. They provided support in the times he needed it most, and Hickcock claims “[he needed] help” from Dr. Jones during his evaluation (279). This displays him as a man with a lack of respect. He is not able to fully …show more content…
While on Death Row, Hickock planned to escape and leave Perry for dead. On page 263, Hickock describes how he would escape by creating a “shiv” and live in hiding “alone”. Dick did not care that he had ruined the lives of Perry, the remaining family members of the Clutter family, or the whole town of Holcomb. He created so much distrust and sadness among a whole community as they had lost the well-respected Clutter family. Hickock also was willing to fully allow Smith to be viewed as a cold-blooded killer who had no help in the murders. Hickock is humorous over the entire crime as well. On the night prior to his hanging, Hickock is told that the night must be “the longest night of [his] life” by a guard, but Hickock’s response is that it is his “shortest” (338). The night before one faces death is generally a sorrowful moment as one reflects his wrongdoings. Hickock displays no emotion or acknowledgement that he is in the wrong. Instead, he chooses to be humorous and entitled on the night of his death. Hickock further continues his selfish behavior on the day of the hanging. When Hickock reaches the top of the altar he is to be hanged on, Hickock is asked if he has any last words before death. Hickcock stated, “‘I just want to say I hold no hard feelings. You people are sending me to a better world than this ever was’” (339).
Hickock is ultimately the one character that is displayed to have the more evil nature, though. For example, Smith and Hickock both have thoughts of committing additional murders after the initial murder of the Clutters. Nevertheless, Hickock is the only one who actually acts upon these thoughts; while driving, he goes out of his way to hit and kill stray dogs. Moreover, Smith is depicted as a man with mental illness. Capote writes, “His present personality structure is very nearly that of a paranoid schizophrenic reaction.” Though this does not exclude him from punishment for his crimes, it can provide a better understanding of the workings of Smith’s mind. Another time in which Smith is criminalized is when he is shown to have no remorse for killing the Clutters. However, at the end of the book, right before his execution, Smith apologizes for his actions. Of course, his apology does not justify his actions, but it does show that he feels guilt and possibly regret. Though the evil nature of both Smith and Hickock are acknowledged by Capote, he clearly aimed to stress the corruption of Hickock more than that of
Huck has been raised in a high-class society where rules and morals are taught and enforced. He lives a very strict and proper life where honesty and adequacy is imposed. Huck being young minded and immature, often goes against these standards set for him, but are still very much a part of his decision-making ability and conscience. When faced to make a decision, Hucks head constantly runs through the morals he was taught. One of the major decisions Huck is faced with is keeping his word to Jim and accepting that Jim is a runaway. The society part of Hucks head automatically looks down upon it. Because Huck is shocked and surprised that Jim is a runaway and he is in his presence, reveals Hucks prejudice attitude that society has imposed on him. Huck is worried about what people will think of him and how society would react if they heard that Huck helped save a runaway slave. The unspoken rules th...
Huck finds out that all of the bad things he did are coming back to haunt him. In chapter 31 when Jim gets sold for forty dollars, Huck realizes that “here was the plain hand of Providence slapping me in the face and letting me know my wickedness was being watched all the time whilst from up there in heaven.'; It also scared Huck because all this karma, what comes around goes around, was happening to him.
Huck witnesses the depravity of human nature when experiences the feud between the Grangerfords and the Shepherdsons. After Huck and Jim get split up on the Mississippi River, Huck spends some time living on the Grangerford’s estate. He befriends a Grangerford named Buck, and the two of them spend a lot of time together. Buck explains that the Grangerfords and Shepherdsons have been feuding for years, although no one quite remember why. Huck does not understand the point of a feud. Buck goes on and explains, “A feud is this way: A man has a quarrel with another man, and kills him; then that other man's brother kills him; then the other brothers, on both sides, goes for one another; then the cousins chip in -- and by and by everybody's killed off, and there ain't no more feud. But it's kind of slow, and takes a long time” (Twain 107). Huck cannot comprehend the point of a feud, especially since in this case Buck cannot pinpoint the cause of the feud. Later, Buck died from gunshots from the guns of the Shepherdsons. Huck is devastat...
Many people look at this crime as terrible, horrendous, and evenCapote explores the human side of two cold-blooded killers, Perry Smith, and Dick Hickock.
The question at hand is why he suddenly made the conscious decision to no longer be associated with the crime. Immediately following their capture, the two criminals were interrogated and investigated by the officers involved in the Kansas Bureau of Investigation. As soon as Hickock comes to the realization that the police have evidence to be used against the two for conviction, Hickock disowns the crime by stating how his accomplice was the man to have been the true murderer, and he simply “couldn’t stop him” (230). Hickock’s father constantly claimes that after his son’s accident in 1950, Richard just “. . . didn’t act like the same boy” (293). The intent of this claim was to support that Hickock was involved in the murder due to his inability to distinguish right from wrong, but this claim was quickly dismissed after a psychological evaluation. During the trial, Hickock is described as “impulsive in action” and “alert” by Dr. Jones,the doctor who evaluated Hickock (294-5). Hickock was not mentally ill, nor had he ever experienced a life with a lack of support. His father and mother arrived to every trial, tried to repay his debts, and never left him behind. They provided support in the times he needed it most, and Hickcock claims “[he needed] help” from Dr. Jones during his evaluation (279). This displays him as a man with a lack of respect and remorse. He is not able to fully take responsibility for his
Furthermore, the killers dynamically different personalities and morals caused cynicism between Perry Smith and Dick Hickock, yet the pairing surprisingly does not separate nor kill each other during their escape from the police. Also, Perry admits that he believed that Dick was a revolting human being and honestly was not fond of Dick due to his pedophilic tendencies and his cowardly actions. On the other hand, Dick was not planning on keeping Perry around, however, Perry’s bravery kept the pair going since Dick was much less bold, thus he knew without Perry, he would not had been able to escape the police for as long as they did. Therefore, while unfolding the mystery thought out the book, Capote tended to use rhetorical questions that not
The details that Smith gave the detectives were more than likely biased towards him being more innocent of the acts than Hickock and manipulates the reader into feeling a level of sympathy for a man convicted of at least two murders. Smith’s report also shows him to allegedly be moral and compassionate, while describing Hickock as cold, calculated and animalistic.
Tragedy struck Holcomb, Kansas on November 15th, 1959, with the lost of four members of the Clutter family, who were well known in their town. “Of all the people in the world, the Clutters were the least likely to be murdered,” (Capote 85) was what one townsperson said about the widely known family. Their lives were taken by two men named, Richard (Dick) Hickock and Perry Smith. After months of fleeing, Dick and Perry were captured. Over the next couple of years they were through numerous hearings and questioning over the murder they committed. Then the day came where some believed that vengeance was served. Hickock and Smith were both executed by hanging just after midnight on April 14, 1965. Dick and Perry 's mental health was widely discussed
In The Hangman, the narrator and the rest of the city “ceased, and asked no more as the hangman tallied his bloody score”(Ogden 3). No one wants to watch another person get hurt or suffer. The narrator is in a state of self preservation because every time they asked if he was done the Hangman took another man’s life. By the end of the story, the narrator is all alone with the Hangman. The narrator is puzzled as the Hangman explains that “the scaffold was raised for none but you”(Ogden 4). Because the narrator never spoke up, he was the last to die and there was no one there to stand up for him. Many people fear dying alone or before they can do something significant. In this story, the narrator dies alone and knowing that he could have stopped the murders from
...as granted as Perry and Dick were hanged for their horrifying actions against the Clutters. Throughout the story, Capote’s use of dashes make the effect that the murders had on Holcomb stand more. In order to do so, he describes the setting, which is implied by the meaning of the dashes. Capote describes the feelings of the villagers and describes how Holcomb changed after the incident. According to Lemony Snicket, “ We all know that our time in this world is limited, and that eventually all of us will end up underneath some sheet, never to wake up. And yet it is always a surprise when it happens to someone we know. It is like walking up the stairs to your bedroom in the dark, and thinking there is one more stair than there is. Your foot falls down, through the air, and there is a sickly moment of dark surprise as you try and readjust the way you thought of things”.
By the time Smith and Hickock are hanged, Smith is portrayed in the role of misunderstood good guy in the good-guy/bad-guy literary device. Capote was not apposed to the death penalty, he used the double handing as the dramatic ending to In Cold Blood. Thought out the third section of In Cold Blood. Whenever Hickock is contemplating or gagging in a sexual act, Smith reacts in an angry or jealous way. Capote repeatedly interprets Smith’s actions towards Hickock as showing his morality, where Hickock is voiced as having none.
Richard Strout was married to Mary Ann, who was most likely fed up with his hot temperedness that always seemed to get him into fist fights. She separated from her husband and while they were going through the process of divorce, she began a new relationship with Frank Fowler, killing all hope of reconciling her marriage with Strout. In return Strout became enraged not only in losing his wife, but their sons, who now spent their days with this new man who was taking on the father role in their life. Whether it was his love for his wife and children or pride, it drove him to the only solution he could find, and that was to kill Frank. “Richard Strout shot Frank in front of the boys…Strout came in the front door and shot Frank twice in the chest and once in the face with a 9mm automatic(100).”
In Cold Blood by Truman Capote takes a brave deviation from the mainstream of murder or crime novels in that the author frequently takes the perspective of the perpetrators of the crime in question. Dick Hickock and Perry Smith were two particularly perverse individuals who were hung for the murder of the Clutter family. Capote gives a well researched account of the murder and events following November 14th, 1959 in such depth that the reader may even begin to sympathize with the duo. Capote portrays the murderers through a journalistic and mostly impartial description that enhances the reader's understanding of the two by going into trivial details. Dick and Perry are two individuals from conflicting origins and attitudes. Hickcock lives
I do not believe it would have been just for the state to pardon Tucker’s crimes due to the moral injustice she was responsible for. In Jeffrey Reiman’s article “Against the Death Penalty” he analyzes the principle of lex talionis, which states that one who has harmed another should be penalized to the same or equivalent extent, or as the common phrase goes: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. Reiman arrives at the conclusion that there is an equality between human beings by examining the implications of lex talionis, which implies one thinks of other’s pain to be as great as his or her own. Additionally, Reiman explores the Kantian belief that an individual permits the universal form of the objective which guides his action. For example, if an individual kills someone, then he or she authorizes the concept that he or she may be killed, and in doing so there is no injustice done. Thus, this belief also endorses the equality of individuals and helps grant credibility towards Reimans claim. By using Kant’s theory as a basis for his argument, Reiman asserts the concept of lex talionis “affirms both the equality and rationality of human beings and for that reason [lex talionis] is just” (Reiman). Therefore, I believe it would be unjust to grant Tucker a pardon for her crimes because doing so would lose the equality between human beings. Tucker deserved a grave punishment for the brutal murder of two people, but Tucker did not deserve to die.