The Bismarck tribune., 1924-11-10
DARROW ANSWERS THE QUESTION
ARE CRIMINALS WORTH SAVING:
BY ROY j. GIBBONS
NEA Service Writer

| Chicago. Nov. 1O.-Society has no
righ, to condemn Il man to death
For the preservation of the race,
if for nothing else, the state should
not deliberately destroy life.
I so declares Clarence S. Darrow, in
1el nationally famous criminal attor
ney. whose master pleading has aid
ed msrc than 100 murdercrs to cheat
death at the hangman's hands.
| In an exclusive interview with NEA
Service and The Tribune, Darrow for
the first time reveals tho workings
| of his mind in explaining why he has
| come 70 the rescue of so many crimi-
nails marked for the gallows.
Answering the question: Are
criminals worth saving?' narrow
| says:
1T i> first nece ssary to find out
what is meant by the word 'crinlnll.'
" neither it means some person who
has some anti-social instinct, or one
who has been convicted of a crime.
! Everyone has both social and anti
social instincts, and it is only a ques-
ion Of degree as to the extremes
| each way.
',As ror conviction Of a crime, there
are all sorts of crimes. Convictions
| run from dollar fine to death. Many
are convicted who are not guilty, so
| it would be impossible to answer the
question from this standpoint.
But, if the question should be
Are there not criminals who are not
,,<l %h, n-t
| should be asked: Worth saving to
| whom?
There are ar infinite number of
| people who have high standing who
are not worth saving, so far as the
community is concerned. In fact.
many who are called good people, are
very in urious to the community.
"Perhaps there are very few peo-
, pie whose death would make any diff
| ference to the community, and in
| that sense. they would not he worth
saving. But, the only admissible
! question is: Are they worth saving
! to themselves?
~" live because we want to live,
! regardless Of whether we are doing
|
would be very hard to pass and exc
cute law that only those who do
good to others should live.
MANY men, probably most men,
prefer to live inside a prison than to
die. And their wishes should be con-
suited and that of their friends.
ut would be dangerous to consult
| nj wis S1 nf nj In
that case no ones life would be safe.
quite apart from all this, mature
| in the development of the individual,
has created imagination which gives
! him Il certain amount of sympathy
and pity. TO destroy this by brutali-
ty o1 any sort would mean the de-
stluction of the best part of man.
And harsh and cruel punishments al
ways have Il tendency to destroy the
highest emotions of man.
MANY on trial for capital Of
tense say they prefer to die rather
than live out their lives in prison.
lhaps they feel so at the time. But
if life prisoners were given free ac-
cess to guns, raZors and poison and
had good health, most of them would
die Of old age
Every organism. whether it is hu-
man, animal, religious. social or poll
tical has the will to live. With liv-
ing goes the wish to live. Otherwise
); life would not persist
Pausing to comment on the trust
estate which the father of slain Bob
be Franks has c,cated to defeat any
attempt to liberate Nathan F. Leo
red Jr. and Richard A. Loeb, his
sons slayers, Darrow says:
Il would say that Mr.. Franks and
his fund will both be in oblivion be-
fore any effort will be made to re-
lease Loeb or Leopold IT. the time
ever comes that the public considers
that they aye safe to be at large and
they have been in prison long enough,
the public. through their officials,
will, no doubt act. no matter who
opposes it.
Very seldom a case comes before
the pardon board that somebody does
not oppose the release, and yet the
law makes it obligatory that after a
certain length of time, prisoners in
general must be paroled, if fit for
parole, and about 30 percent make
good after release. OF course, in
murder cases there are very few