American Literature

...its of more importance to community that innocence should be protected, than it is that guilt should be punished were the words of John Adams when he was asked to defend Captain Preston and his eight soldiers after they had killed five disorderly colonists. The jury wanted to convict all the soldiers because it was not clear who exactly had shot the five. In his opinion, Adams thought it was not wise for the jury to convict even one innocent man it was better for all soldiers to be acquitted than to convict one who was innocent (Adams). There was however some sense in Adams statement since these soldiers were defending themselves from an angry mob that was armed with all kinds of objects to fight the soldiers. Therefore the only way to defend themselves was by fighting back. We were not told of the exact number of the colonists but they were not eight as the soldiers. Second there was no clear evidence as to who shot them and at the same time, eight people can not shoot five men there must have been at least three and at most seven who did not shot. Therefore it would have been very wrong to convict these soldiers who were innocent.

I very much concur with Adams that it is much better to leave a crime unpunished than to punish an innocent man. As much as justice must prevail, innocence has to be protected as well. Therefore punishment should be given appropriately after thorough investigation has been made. We all are aware that punishment is meant to correct crime thus punishing an innocent man is like punishing him for being innocent. Most of the times, people who are punished while innocent find themselves guilt of serving the punishment and will always look for means and ways of hitting back and in the end, they end up bringing more harm than good to the society. Thus innocence must at all times be protected for it to be preserved in the society.

Taking the example of the true happening of the killing of the Clutters that was documented by Truman Capote in the book, In Cold Blood, two people, a criminal and an innocent man are convicted of the murder and they both end up being sentenced to death. The book describes the brutal innocent murder of a famous and prosperous farmer, Herbert Clutter together with his wife and two children. Herbert was murdered on 15th November, 1959 in the morning. He lived in Holcomb in the outskirts of Kansas and had successfully established himself everyone in the town envied his way of life. He always gave hope to the hopeless and cared for the needy. His murderers were former prisoners who learnt from their friend, Floyd Wells, who had once worked in Clutters farm, that Herbert Clutter kept large amounts of cash in his safe at home. In reality, Clutter operated with checks, but not in cash, in all the transactions he made (Capote 18).

On hearing this, the murderers, Richard Hickock and Perry Smith planed how they would go and get the cash and escape to Mexico where they would start a new life. After successfully driving and locating the Clutters home Richard and Perry, armed with a knife and a gun, went straight to the house while the family was still asleep. They woke them up and started to demand for the money that was thought to be in the farmhouse. Having searched in vain and assured that there was nothing in the house, Perry became maddened and slit Clutters throat. He then gunshot him in the head and then rest of the family were also shot in the head starting with Kenyon, his son, Nancy, his daughter and finally the wife, Bonnie. Only two daughters remained of the family. Beverly and Eveanna were old enough then and were living in town (Capote 58).  

After the murder, the two escaped to Mexico and stayed there for some time until they had no cash to survive on. Meanwhile, investigations were underway and the authorities were almost giving up when Floyd who had learnt of the plan broke the news to the authorities. Perry and Richard are recognised by a policeman while they were going to Las Vegas and are arrested (Capote 214). Perry confessed to have killed only the two women Nancy and Bonnie, and claimed that Richard had killed the two men. Even though innocent, the court did not consider Richards appeal and both were criminalised and subjected to a death sentence. But before the death sentence was announced, the jury suspected them to be mad. Perry behaves in a way that the jury is not sure whether to consider him as a paranoid or not and whether his behavior is deserved death had he murdered the Clutters while insane (SparkNotes Editors). In the five-year appeal period, Richard tried to write letters to several organisations to plead for his innocence, while Perry starved himself. No organisation was even interested in listening to Richards story since they thought that he had cooked lies. Richard served in the jail for those five years and they were both finally hanged in the night of 14th April, 1965 even though he was innocent (Capote 273).

From this story we find that the jury did not have enough evidence as to who exactly committed the murder. It was clear that it was Perry who had killed all the four, being a close friend and one with whom they had planed the deal, Richard fell in the trap and there was no justice if so to say.  Justice in the sense that they did not conduct enough investigation and only relied on the information collected from unreliable sources thus the MNabhten rule was not efficient enough as Capote expected it to be (SparkNotes Editors). If they could settle on some false information confessed by Perry, the killer, why did they not choose to settle on the correct information that was given by Richard Through out the time these two were in prison, Richard kept on pleading for his innocence but there was no ear to listen to his cry. In the long run, we find him being given the same punishment that the murderer is given. There was no justice here.

Just like Adams puts it, Richards innocence was supposed to be protected by the law. It would not have mattered much if their killing was postponed until they were sure of the murderer. Since everyone should carry hisher own cross, Richard should not have carried Perrys cross, justice did not prevail here. It would have been better if they were both acquitted, since the claim on the ground was that there was no enough evidence. Though this would have meant that a crime had gone unpunished, it would have been much better than killing an innocent Richard. This contributed to the number of innocent deaths that occurred through Perry to be five instead of the initial four. If Perry had been acquitted it would have meant that only four innocent deaths occurred and one crime went unpunished. I therefore stand on the same ground with John Adams that it is better to leave one criminal to go unpunished than to have one innocent man being punished for a crime he has not committed (Adams).

However this should not be taken for granted by those who commit crimes in the hope that they can avoid punishment when they falsely confess that they are innocent or when there is no enough evidence testified against them. It has been the will of every country to ensure that its populace is protected. Therefore if there is no justice, then it means that such a country has failed to protect its people. If today your neighbour whom you have not been in good terms wakes up and writes a statement that you have broken into his house and stolen some amount of cash, yet you have not, the government will have failed to protect you if you are falsely convicted. At the same time, if a crime has truly been committed i.e. you surely broke into the house and stole the money, and there is evidence, then the government will have failed to protect your neighbour if this crime is not punished. Therefore for there to be fair and justice, both sides have to be protected as long as the right channels are followed.

If all crimes that did not have enough evidence were left unpunished then most people would committee crimes in places where they will be sure that no evidence would be available. Such was the case with Perry and Richard they made sure that no evidence was available by killing all the witnesses. Most people would use the same idea to harm many innocent members of the society. Thus it is good if all crime is punished appropriately. Even though it is worse to punish an innocent person, it is even worst not to punish a criminal who is not even sorry of his act. If one crime goes unpunished, two more crimes are committed in the same way and they will still go unpunished. This simple means that releasing a criminal without punishing himher is like asking himher to go commit other crimes and teach the potential criminals how to do the same without falling in the harsh hands of the government. Every crime must therefore be punished so as to discourage those potential criminals who may be tempted to commit some terrible crime.

Even as I support the idea that it is better for innocence to be protected than it is for guilt to be protected, it is also wise to ensure that all guilt is punished appropriately. This will not only ensure that the society is well protected but will also discourage unnecessary crimes being committed.