I Didn’t Do It!..Or..I Wasn’t In The Right Mind When I Did!

Michael Ball

Ms. Robinson

AP English 3

In the novel, In Cold Blood, the morality of the death penalty is challenged by the readers, and the prosecution alike. Sanity is examined in many cases that come through the legal system. In this case, the two defendants, Dick and Perry, are examined by Dr. W. Mitchell Jones. In that era, the doctor that completed the psychiatric evaluation on Perry, as well as Dick, was allowed to state whether he had an opinion on the patient. If the doctor has an opinion, he must state it at that time. He examines them to find if, by his judgment, Dick and Perry both knew what they were doing at the time that they committed the Clutter Family murders.

Dick’s father told the court of a Dick’s rocky mental state. He testified that after 1950, his boy was never the same. “He just didn’t act like the same boy.” (293) With Dick’s father on the stand, the prosecution picks his brain and finds that Dick had, in fact broken into a store in 1949, making the statement that he had a major character change in 1950 seem a bit shady. After examining Dick, Dr. Jones testifies to the court that he has an opinion on the subject of Dick’s sanity. He tells the court that he believes that Dick had a sense of right and wrong at the time he committed the murders, despite what Dick’s father had just previously said of his son. (294) If this mental analysis was fair and true, of which we may never be sure of today, I believe that Dick did in fact deserve the death penalty. His involvement with the crime, even if it had been as minimal as tagging along with Perry, (which would in fact make him an accomplice) would in my mind constitute a punishment as harsh as hanging.

Dr. Jones was once again called upon, but this time to testify as a witness for Perry. (296) “From your conversations and examination of Perry Edward Smith, do you have an opinion as to whether he knew right from wrong at the time of the offense involved in this action?” (296) Dr. Jones testifies that he does not have an opinion on Perry. As you know, his reason for having no opinion was not aloud in court.

The two were sentenced to death by hanging, despite Dr. Jones determining Perry to be mentally ill at the time.

In modern times, his reason for not having an opinion on Perry would be told in court. If Dr. Jones had been allowed to discuss his reason, it would be that Perry showed definite signs of severe mental illness. This had been gathered by Perry’s rough childhood, as explained to the reader in “A History of My Boy’s Life” (125). In the modern justice system, information like this may be crucial in deciding whether the convicted spend years in mental rehabilitation, or years in jail.

On a personal note, political views aside, I will say that I am not a big fan of criminals not being held responsible for their crimes due to mental illness. I do understand that they may have been incapable of determining right or wrong in the situation, but even hindered by a mental illness I think a violent crime should have stronger legal action. Even under certain circumstances, I still don’t understand how someone could commit a crime like this, even if they were mentally ill. Then again, that may be why there are trained professionals to decide.