New Britain herald., 1924-08-20
Marshall, States Attor- ney, Pleads Extreme
 Penalty for Defend
 ants in Franks Case Before Judge Caverly
PHILOSOPHY IS NO
 EXCUSE FOR CRIME
By The Assoelated Press.

By The Associated Prsss.
 Chicago. Aug. 20.-Two of the three high crimes for which Illinois pro- vides the death penalty-murder, rape and kidnapping-were committed by Nathan Leopold, Jr,, and Richard Loeb. in a manner justifying nothing less than death on the galiows Thomas Marshall, assistant states att torney. told Judge John R. caverly today.
 He urged the extreme penalty in an argument based upon the phraseology of the Illinois laws and the formal charges connected with the kidnap- ping and murder of Robert Franks to which the defendants have pleaded guilty.
 Judge Cayerly opened book of law and followed the text as MT. Mar shall read the phrases defining mur- der and Kidnapping as capital crimes in this state. The phrase shall euf- fer the penalty of death," was al- ways brought out in a voice raised in tone and emphatic fin its deliber- ateness
 The defendants gave no visible signs that the phrase death penalty" had been heard by them. They seemed more interested in the notes being made by Clarence S. Darrow and his associate counsel for the de- fense.
 Ridicules Defense.
 The attorney ridicled the defense attempt to show mitigation of punish- ment by the testimony of mental ex- perts.
 No philosophy is an excuse for crime" was MT. Marshail's text on that point and he worked it out by drawing parallels between Leopold's and Loebs' belief in their own pow CTS and the philosophies of anarchists. communists and Mormons. who were convicted of violating the law despite reliance upon their beliefs as justih- cation for their acts.
 Thomas Marshall. assistant states attorney, started with reference to defense testimony that Leopold con- sldered himself a superman.
 go did the Chicago anarchists of S5 years ago consider themselves supermen," said Mir. Marshall. They sought to destroy the land with dyna- mite. These men would destroy it by other means, but on similar philo- sophical grounds"
 He read from the records of the Haymarket riot trials and drew a parallel between speeches by Par- sons. spies and their associates, and the ideas of the defendants.
 "The philosophy here is that the law has no application" said MT. Marshall. The anarchists were exe- cuted by the law that they damned. not for their philosophy but for their violation of law"
 Mir. Marshall in a similar vein, dis cussed the more recent communist cases in which the millionaire Lloyd was the central figure.
 Upon what theory can it be said that the views of Leopold and Loeb, since they do not protect him from the consequences of his act, can be urged in mitigation of his crime ?" asked Mir. Marshall.
 Points to Polygamy Case.
 The findings of the supreme court of the United States in the polygamy cases against Mormon leaders were referred to as another instance in which a philosophy was disregarded by the courts as mitigation.
 When Leopold, Jr., put his views into action and committed murder, he went beyond the pale of rightful philosophy and it is for the overt act itself that he is to be punished" de- clared MT. Marshall.
 T have shown your honor that within the law those defendants are that their beliefs may not be urged as mitigation of the of- fense, and that the judgment must be based upon the turpitude of the crime" continued Mir. Marshall.
 He then turned to the definitions of murder in the Illinois statutes to show that the crime against young Franks came within those laws. There was he urged, no element of justi- fable homicide present to warrant any punishment "short of the penalty of death"
 From the statutory definitions of murder and Kidnapping Mir. Marshall to citations in which courts of this state have interpreted the statutes particularly as to the of malice aforethought, ex- pressed and implied.'
 After a recess. Mir. Marshall con- tinued 10 cite judicial definitions of the clements of murder
 Summarizes Crime.
 He then started a summarization of the crime.
 When Mir. Marshall reached a de- scription of the debate between Leo- pold and Loeb as to what acid should be used to mutilate the victims fea- lures, Loeb turned to Leopold and his lips plainly formed the words: Which one was wrong?"
 Tt is proved there." said Mir. Mar shall. that these master criminals wanted to commit an undetectable ,rirne. And they did commit a most ltrocious crime. one which deserves ,nly one punishment. and that the ieath penalty"
 Now is there anything in the that the defendants are