I think one of the coolest parts of this book is its structure. Capote brilliantly weaves two seemingly disjointed stories into one compact book. But the book is not airtight. There is a case to be made here that might suggest Capote deliberately structured In Cold Blood in such a way so that the reader feels sympathy, not contempt, for the killers. Look at how many times Capote mentions Perry's short legs and soft, sweet singing voice. Look at how many times Capote reminds us that poor Perry used to wet the bed. Look at how many times Capote shows us Perry's horrible childhood and dysfunctional family life.
It's like saying, yes, Jack the Ripper was terrible, but (but!) he did recycle and he never forgot his mother's birthday, so...
Closely
examine the M'Naghten Rule, best described on pg. 277. Know it. Apply
that law not to Dr. Jones' testimony beginning on pg. 294, but rather,
to Capote's blatant and egregious inclusion of Jones' inadmissible
testimony, the part negated in Kansas court rooms. How can Capote get
away with sharing with his readers information the jury never learned?
Why did Capote do this? Is Capote being irresponsible? Unethical, even?
Just what is so dang important here that Capote would explain a law,
then proceed to break it right in front of our faces?
I do not think that Truman Capote’s inclusion of Dr. Jones’ testimony is irresponsible or unethical. We must remember why Capote wrote In Cold Blood. Capote was not a stenographer; he was an author. In Cold Blood is not a court report; it is a living, breathing piece of literature. In other words, while Capote includes many primary sources and direct quotes from the trial itself, In Cold Blood is much more than a regurgitation of quotes. Many passages in the book were not included in the trial. For example, on multiple occasions, Capote includes specific songs that Perry sang to Dick on their journey, and surely, the jury did not hear these songs. Does this mean that Capote is being irresponsible by including these lines? Of course not. He includes these details to make the story more memorable. Capote’s inclusion of Dr. Jones’ testimony is not a “blatant and egregious” attempt to build sympathy for the murderers. Capote includes the details of Dr. Jones’ psychoanalysis of Dick in order to allow the reader to understand what kind of human being Dick was. If Capote had set out to write a summary of the Clutter murders and the trial that followed, then inclusion of Dr. Jones’ psychoanalysis of Dick Hickock would be out of line, but as we all know, In Cold Blood runs much deeper than a rote summary of the facts. It is a true story about the killers and the victims, but it also discusses deeper themes. One of these themes is whether law is a concrete, rigidly defined system that is either black or white, or a fluid, living system that has grey areas. Perhaps Capote included this testimony in order to further that theme.
ReplyDeleteCapote takes full reign of the advantages of being an author. As the author, he chooses what the reader will know, and without dictating, guides the reader to feel certain things. He can paint a picture that appears unbiased (or in this case biased) until one stands back and realizes exactly what he has done. In this case, Capote presents the murderers in a more pleasant light, where he could have spent pages describing the vulgarity of the crime, he rather elaborates on the hard upbringing and lack of confidence shared by the two culprits.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I do not view his strategy as unfair. He creates the rules, the words, and the story; thus, he is allowed to choose the final presentation of these. The readers’ opinion is never revoked, but rather sculpted to fit the will of Capotes. I think the case could even be justified. For just as many times as Captote speaks of the damaged legs or the harsh nuns, a character is sure to bring up young willing Nancy or the ill mother.
Capote shares this information to make the decision harder. He gives the readers the chance the jurors never had, to hear the background to the story. He wants the reader (as all good authors want) to think. To ponder as to whether these men are guilty enough for the death penalty, or is there a chance that they aren’t as evil as they seem? He is not leading us to the conclusion that the men’s actions were excusable, nor is he saying that the legal system was not without fault. If the information had been presented in court, the case would have most likely had a different outcome. Dr. Jones would have shown the court not necessarily motives but at least possible causes of why these men had committed the atrocious crimes. The results of his examinations were thorough as well as sound proof, but since the court refused, the fate was sealed for these men. The details provided by these reports of the men do offer a sympathetic view, keeping in line with the rest of the details provided by Capote. Does one find it shocking at this point that the men could easily have an emotional/psychological disorder? I would hope that it would have been apparent long before due to context clues. Is it unfair for Capote to wrap these details, put a bow on the top, and present them? I think not, as he is the author, the writer of the story. In addition, none of the information in these reports was shockingly new or out of line with the characters current self.
If anything, Capote is presenting the argument as unbiased as possible. He is not predetermined as the jurors are, nor is he justifying that they are sane or guilt free. He is simply giving the readers a 360 degree view that was not allowed to those involved in the court case.
In our society, when one hears about the murder of a human being, their sympathetic emotions always go out to the victim. This is especially the case when multiple members of a seemingly very sweet family (like the Clutters are portrayed) are wrongfully slaughtered. In the story, Capote not only shows the sympathetic side of the victims, but also the side of the perpetrators, a side that is never viewed by the audience of a crime. By showing the reader the circumstances and the past events in the lives of Perry and Dick, Capote allows the reader to feel sympathy for the killers. This tactic of explaining the rule in contrast to the Durham rule gives the reader a perspective that is hardly ever perceived. It gives the reader a reason to pardon the killers for their crime due to their sympathy, rather than desire for the killers to receive the fullest punishment possible for their actions. The findings of Dr. Jones that the accused had mental defects gives reasons to the reader for why the crime was committed. If these findings along with the past of the two men were not presented, the reader would have undoubtedly decided that the crimes the two men committed were too horrendous for the possibility of their pardon from the charges. Capote wanted the reader to take a closer look into the case, and understand that although the crimes committed were terrible, the two men had an excuse for the way they acted inside the Clutter home, a fact that the jury should have been made aware of before they presented their ruling.
ReplyDeleteIn this “non-fiction novel,” the author takes great care in remaining as removed from the story as possible, relaying facts and testimonies uncovered by extensive research and speaking in third-person. However, though Capote is, in a sense, a journalist, he is not strictly confined by the same code of ethics binding those responsible for strictly reporting the bottom line of the court case to the public. Instead, his status as an author allows him certain creative liberties not granted to a court reporter. Therefore, his inclusion of Dr. Jones’ testimony is neither irresponsible nor unethical. It is simply another aspect to a true story rife with sources otherwise unavailable to a jury. After all, the reader is not the jury—and Capote wants his audience to make a different kind of judgment of the killers, one that should be biased by knowledge that a jury would not be legally allowed to consider.
ReplyDeleteThe narrative detailing Dick and Perry’s stint on the lam is riddled with information never delivered in court. For example, the reader is made painfully aware of the criminals’ proclivity for killing stray dogs. Though this could conceivably convince a jury of the duo’s ruthless nature, this telling tidbit of knowledge was one exclusively available to the author. While it contributes to the reader’s understanding of the murderers, the anecdote was not used as evidence in the courtroom. Is this sufficient reason for the episode to be omitted from Capote’s account? It is not, nor is it justification for the disregard of Dr. Jones’ important report.
Because the book’s focus is directed primarily upon the criminals and their backgrounds, rather than upon the horrific murder they carried out, the novel could be considered as much a psychological profile of a pair of killers as a chronicle of a shocking crime and its aftermath. This classification makes Dr. Jones’ testimony paramount in importance. While we have, after observing his present and studying his past, reached our own conclusions regarding Dick’s mental, emotional, and moral capacities, the opinion of an expert is extraordinarily helpful in coming to the most accurate decision. For these reasons, I believe that Capote is, as the novel’s author, obligated to include Dr. Jones’ findings.
The author prominently features the doctor’s testimony immediately following a description of the McNaughton Rule, blatantly violating this court mandate despite its gravity during the trial. This clearly illustrates the author’s disdain for the rule. Though Capote does not explicitly explain his dislike for the implication that the law is a black-and-white matter, I imagine that the close relationship that the author cultivated with the killers is likely the reason. Much like the complexities found in Dick’s and Perry’s pasts, the law itself is much too intricate to be restricted by the cut-and-dry nature of yes or no questions. It is this disparity between the law and the full truth that Capote likely resents and a discrepancy against which he rebels.
The literal definition of the M'Naghten rule, according to FindLaw, states: "Every man is to be presumed to be sane, and . . . that to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong."
ReplyDeletePersonally, I do not believe that Capote was unethical nor irresponsible for including what Dr. Jones' testimony would have said had he gotten the opportunity to say it. Due to the severe lack of exceptions, the M'Naghten rule prevents the jury to ever have to make the decision themselves whether or not someone is sane or not. In Capote's perspective, the case was unjust, and therefore by constructing this recounting of this so-called nonfiction novel, he provides the reader with the opportunity to formulate his own opinion on the true faults of the men and the what the ruling should have ultimately been, whether it be the same or exponentially different. Had Dr. Jones' whole analysis been utilized in the case, along with more in-depth research and testing, then the jury's verdict for the men of death would be more justifiable. However, this is unfortunately not the case. Rather than Capote overtly attempting through his novel to relay the message that the decision made was unwarranted, he was simply striving to make apparent the fact that the jury was not in the position to make a just decision due to the inopportune fact that they didn't hear Dr. Jones' full testimony as well as their bias in all being from Kansas. Though the jury was inept to make a fair decision, by providing the significant information in the novel, the readers are capable of being a fair judge and forming an educated opinion for themselves. Even if the jury had the knowledge of Jones' analysis in all its entirety, it is likely that the same conclusion would have been made.
Capote did an apt job in covering the two drastically different sides of the stories, and in doing so allowed the readers to delve into the killers' lives and understand how they came to be who they are as well as how they could have gone through with this murder. Though the reader is permitted into the lives of those we are supposed to hate, I still did not sympathize with Dick and Perry. The glimpses into their lives did augment my understanding of their morals, but by no means made them condonable. Possibly this is what Capote was striving to achieve; that even when given all sides of the story, and a look into the lives and motives behind the killers, what they committed is still undeniably immoral and inexcusable.
The M’Naghten rule is a great source of controversy for many valid reasons. It is not simple to make a single rule to define all cases, yet that is what we encounter with this law. It also provides for an ethical struggle when examining the law and it’s opponents. It makes clear that anyone who is capable of committing a crime and understands what they are doing and that it is wrong should be considered guilty. Opponents, however, argue that there are other mental illnesses that may take place that may evade those rules. As in Dick’s case, he knew what he was doing was wrong, but he does not think of consequences. He was said by Dr. Jones to have a severe character disorder. Although this does not fall into the exact specifications of the M’Naghten rule, he still was inhibited by a mental illness.
ReplyDeleteThose who are in favor of the law, though, may have an even stronger argument in my opinion. Knowing what you’re doing and that it is wrong should probably be enough to convict a person. If they had no thought of the consequences, they still had thoughts about what they were doing. Other problems may have helped contribute to mental instability, but in the end they knew enough about what they were doing and the negative qualities of that action. Perry’s case, for example, also shows that he had a severe mental illness. It is said that he has no emotional attachment to things, but in the case of the Clutters one would not be necessary. He had not known them long enough to become attached or to begin fostering any meaningful feelings for them.
I do think, though, that learning this information arouses a sense of sympathy for Dick and Perry, as he also attempted to do by showing us the narrative from the eyes of the two characters throughout the novel. Although the sympathy is not enough to completely forgive them, or even argue against the death penalty, it is enough to make you feel for them in a way. I think Capote shared this information for exactly that reason. The testimony that was denied from the courtroom could have been the best argument in favor of the victim’s insanity, yet it was not allowed in court. If nothing else it may have helped to reduce their sentencing, possibly to life imprisonment or to confinement in a mental institution.
I do not think Capote is being irresponsible, but rather showing what could have been. In showing every side of the argument it is easier to see not only why the lawyers were attempting to argue insanity but also why Dick and Perry committed the crimes in the first place. In a sense these testimonies are vital to understanding what could have possessed two men to kill, cold-blooded, people they had never met. I think more than anything that is what makes these testimonies so important, their essentialness to the plot. Though it may help, it will never be possible to fully understand their crime, for they still knew what they were doing and the immoral implications of their actions.
Ok... so Greg literally took the words right out of my mouth but I'll ramble on anyways.
ReplyDeleteCapote not was being irresponsible in including Dr. Jones testimony. In reading this book one can see every line is very well edited and reviewed before its final product is placed upon the page. We can see this in his transitions, i.e the horn, which was very carefully placed in order to deliver its full effect. No detail, no tangent is placed to create controversy; it is placed to somehow further a point or a character in the novel. Therefore his inclusion of the testimony is not irresponsible, because we must take into consideration this is novel, not a formal report of the killing of the Clutter clan. Of course if Dr. Jones testimony were included in a formal, final court report the testimony would be unethical and would not be used to support any point in the case, because it is in fact against the law.
I think for the purpose of further developing and reaching into the depths of the characters the testimony is included. Not to spark a battle of right and wrong, but just to show more an understanding of the killers. Just like the purpose of providing every detail of Nancy's relationship with her boyfriend, or providing the details of what Perry and Dick would drink in the car. Strictly character development.
First of all, I have no problem with Capote providing Dr. Jones' testimony. The notion that Capote "[gets] away" with sharing this information to his readers and that it may be "unethical" is erroneous. It's really quite simple to refute the claims made in this blog: this is a nonfiction novel not a trial or "official" account.
ReplyDeleteFor the sake of clarification here is the definition of a nonfiction novel presented by wikipedia (which is reliable; if it wasn't, we wouldn't use it!): "The non-fiction novel is a literary genre which, broadly speaking, depicts real historical figures and actual events narrated woven together with fictitious allegations and using the storytelling techniques of fiction. The non-fiction novel is an otherwise loosely defined and flexible genre."
Basically with a nonfiction novel, an author can do whatever the heck he wants as long as it is based on fact, official or not.
I do see, however, the case for why this move by Capote is controversial. Capote is making a political statement with his views on the death penalty, M'Naghten rule, and how the court proceeded, which are blatant and obvious. However, I do not think he offends many of his readers as many would agree the killers got what they deserved. Capote, however, does test the waters with his readers by providing a little "food for thought" by presenting a few unorthodox opinions on the matter. As Sherman described, Capote does allow us to sympathize with not only the victims but the perpetrators as well, which also allows the audience to be even more susceptible to the unpopular opinion that perhaps the killers didn't deserve the death penalty.
Many have suggested that Capote attempts to evoke sympathy for the murderers in his novel through examples like the ones above; however, I believe that Capote was simply providing the reader with as much information and as many details as he was able to collect. The fact that the histories of Dick and Perry are pathetic is not thanks to the manipulative doings of Capote, but because they are undeniably depressing. Capote shared Dr. Jones’s testimony because though In Cold Blood is nonfiction, it is not a court record. This novel was not written for the audience to sit in on the jury, but to see the murder from all perspectives: the innocent, the guilty, and the hazy margin between the two. That being said it is not surprising that Capote would choose to include a record of Dr. Jones’s diagnosis given that it is yet another fact, yet another detail to the convoluted, dark story of this Kansas murder.
ReplyDeleteFrom one perspective it can be argued that Capote provided this testimony in an effort to give Perry, a cold blooded murderer, an excuse for his actions. It is not hard to argue this given that Dr. Jones used his psychoanalysis in order to blame the murders on insanity. The benefits of such a testimony are clear for Perry: those diagnosed insane do not receive the death sentence and thus Perry would have greatly profited from the addition of this statement in the court records. It can also be argued that Capote was attempting to make the reader look down on the Kansas legal system and in turn feel sorry for “poor Perry” who never got a chance to be fully represented. So logically Capote shared the analysis to endeavor to make the reader feel pity or understanding for Perry. However, there are many other possible explanations as to why an author would add details like this that don’t necessarily advance the plot nor influence the opinions of the characters in the story.
For example, from the point of views of the defense attorney and Dr. Jones, the addition of this testimony had the potential to save a man’s life. No matter how severe the crime, the United States judicial system dictates that the criminal has a right to defend his life; being stripped of the right to present this diagnosis may to some, Capote included, seem like he was also stripped of his right to due process. Providing this testimony perhaps, to Capote, finally gave Perry the chance to defend himself. From an entirely literary perspective, the addition of details about Perry’s rough upbringing and down-and-out luck causes the reader to second guess what they have been taught about “right” and “wrong”, “guilty” and “innocent”, “fair” and “unfair.” The theme of an ambiguous moral attitude towards the murderers is further promoted thanks to Dr. Jones’s diagnosis.
When one hears about a murder, he immediately pictures the killer as someone who has never done right in their life and is simply the scum of the earth. One never thinks about Perry's dysfunctional family or physical defects of Perry. These factors cause the reader to feel sympathy towards the two killers and thus warrants the reader to give amnesty to the two. Although these factors do cause sympathy for the two, one still wonders, why they would take a human life? Dr. Jones answers this question by showing that the two had mental defects. Capote alerts the reader of these two findings to force us to take a second look at the killers. Maybe they aren't hateful, evil people, they have problems like the rest of us. I do believe that if the jury would have been presented with these two facts, the verdict would have turned out differently.
ReplyDeleteCapote presents the facts about Perry and Dick so that the reader will sympathize with the two, but that most certainly does not excuse their actions. It would be ridiculous to say that having a mental defect excuses murder of an innocent family, but merely explains why they murdered the family. It is hard for me to say that Dick and Perry did not get what they deserved, even though they did have mental defects. I think that Capote told the reader this information not only for the reader to sympathize with Dick and Perry, but also to show that the court system is far from perfect, because Taylor is correct in saying that if the jury knew this information, they likely would have been put in a mental institute, where they belong, thus showing that the court system is flawed and everyone does not always get what they truly deserve, but as I said before, in this case, the decision for the death penalty is not as bad given the terrible crime.
ReplyDeleteRalph Waldo Emerson once wrote “cut these words and they will bleed they are vascular and alive”, this is the case with In Cold Blood. The novel is far more than an uninspired record of a trial, it is alive. Capote makes the victims and killers into living, breathing people who the reader is able to cling to. The murder of the clutters feels like a murder of a friend, and the reader feels disappointed in the murderers themselves. The reader feels like they know the characters personally. The description of the killers’ singing voice and short legs are a good example of that. So when confronted with the question of whether or not Capote was out of line in including the testimony, I believe he was not. Capote has a right as an author to turn a brutal account of a murder into great literature, and that’s what he is doing by including the account. Capote turns a run of the mill murder case packed with facts into a story to which the reader can relate to and according to the “Tim O’Brien Philosophy” that is far more true than any historical account that follows the rules.
ReplyDeleteIn the biographical book, In Cold Blood, the reader is shown the life surrounding the victims and the life surrounding the murderers. Capote knew that there were two sides to every story and while the victims would have no problem of being shown in a sympathetic way in court; Capote placed the murderers in a more flattering light that the people wouldn’t hear about in court as well. While Dr. Jones is giving testament to whether the murderers were completely sane with no mental or emotional disturbances that could excuse them from the crime, he doesn’t talk about Perry’s emotional trauma as a child which has stuck with him into adult hood. If the Dr. Jones had mentioned it, Perry most likely would have been brought into a Psychiatric word instead of put into death row. Capote was against the death penalty and it seems to me that in the book he is giving reasons to why he dislikes it so much. Criminals are more than black and white. There are depths to people and reasons why they turn out the way they do. Perry was lonely and became attached to the wrong person just to fill up that void. The reader sees Perry’s point of view in which he blames his upbringing and believes if he would have had an education that everything wouldn’t have ended the way it did. He thinks he would have had a more normal life. While Capote shows this side, I think he also shows that these are just known as excuses. While the jury is deliberating the verdict, some bring up Perry’s sad childhood which is answered with a logical reasoning. A lot of people have sob stories about their childhood but it’s no excuse to murder completely innocent people. I believe this is what Capote wanted to get through to his audience.
ReplyDelete