Journal #3: American Public Address

 This week's prompt led me to look for a speech that really stood out. I wanted to dive into a speech from a person whose name I did not recognize, and I also wanted to find a title that stood out. Thus, I ended up reading through Clarence Darrow's "A Plea for Mercy" speech, as the title came off as high stakes and exhilarating. After reading it, I can definitely understand its placement on the top 100 speeches.

According to an Encyclopedia Britannica article about Leopold and Loeb, two men affiliated with the speech, Darrow was attorney representing the two at a murder trial following the death of 14-year-old Bobby Franks. The two men had killed Franks with no clear motive (they demanded a ransom; however, both boys were wealthy already and had no reason to request the money) aside from a curiosity of whether or not the deed was possible. The court was dead set on the death penalty for Leopold and Loeb despite the two being late teens, but Darrow prepared a defense to instead guarantee the two life in prison.

Strikingly, Darrow explained that he was not completely sure if the two men were capable of improvement, yet he redirected attention to their families and considered the consequences of the death penalty on their futures. Rather than focusing solely on his job, which was to fight for the freedom of his clients, Darrow described the impact of the opposing option and weighed the pros and cons. His consideration of both sides of the dilemma was a major strength in the speech, as was his opening statement about the impact of war-focused society on the young people of that era. His knowledge was apparent, and it was clear that none of his statements were made up without considering both sides of the argument.

Another fantastic sequence of Darrow's speech that really left an impression on me was his comparison of the trial itself to the war-centered country of America. Even though it would be effortless to admit his clients' guilt and allow them to be executed, Darrow remarked that to revel in the deaths of two young men was just as heartless and the actions the men had committed. 

Given his position as a defense attorney, Darrow's specific purpose as a speaker was to persuade people who considered Leopold and Loeb undeniably guilty to rethink their attitude toward the men and realize what further harm might arise from their executions. The post-WWI time period boosted the effectiveness of Darrow's anti-violence message and worries of how violence impacts youths; even if the same speech had been given in our current era, that analogy would not have come off as strongly as it did then. Sure, America is riddled with conflict, and other countries are engaging in war as I write this, but for the average child in this country, war is not especially prominent.

As I previously stated, what struck me about this speech was Darrow's consideration of both sides, allowing him to defend his own opinions without coming across as uneducated or biased. That aspect is something I would love to capture in my own speeches, and just generally an aspect I hope to consider more when I communicate anywhere. An open mind always makes a speaker more credible, and that effect is something I would love to embody in my own speeches.