Clarence Darrow was a hypocrite

Let's face it, educated men aren't necessarily smart, and that can be especially said for lawyers because they'll say anything to win a case no matter who or what it contradicts.

"How can he argue that nothing should impede the flow of knowledge in one trial, and then blame Friedrich Nietzsche for murders in another?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_and_Loeb
During the 12-hour hearing on the final day, Darrow gave a speech, which has been called the finest of his career. The speech included: "this terrible crime was inherent in his organism, and it came from some ancestor … Is any blame attached because somebody took Nietzsche’s philosophy seriously and fashioned his life upon it? … it is hardly fair to hang a 19-year-old boy for the philosophy that was taught him at the university."

It does not appear that Darrow was impeding any knowledge or theories.

He simply added Nietzsche together with Freud's Id/Ego theory of 1923 which states the id "contains everything that is inherited, that is present at birth, that is laid down in the constitution -- above all, therefore, the instincts, which originate from the somatic organisation and which find a first phsychical expression here (in the id) in forms unknown to us."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego

If someting else is always to blame, nothing is to blame.
Darrow was consistent, using every piece of evolutionist tripe in the books to get two child-murderers spared from execution.

By all accounts, Bryan was or had been an opponent of the death penalty. He is the person who needed to resolve some contradictions.

Wiki’s link on the two boys seem to suggest novastar was wrong. Loeb was the youngest graduate in the University of Michigan (at least at the time) and Leopold was an amateur ornithologist and spoke five languages.

But whatever they were, they certainly weren’t very good philosophers or seem to understand Nietzsche. If anything they acted much alike the nihilists or those indifferent to values that he warned about (just like the German nihilists in the ‘Big Lebowski’ film). The ‘Nietzschean supermen’ wouldn’t base himself by killing anyone for money, nor think it is right to do so. At the most, Nietzsche was probably a vague justification; I’d imagine the boys were already at the point of murder, full of hubris and *beep*

I think his argument came down to that the boys weren’t capable of knowing right from wrong and this was compounded by what they were taught a theory to reject any attempt to do so at university. Not Nietzsche or ‘education’ at fault, the boys were apparently incapable of knowing right from wrong. I think this is utter crap, but the right judgement was made, capital punishment is wrong regardless.

Darrow was consistant, but like all lawyers he would BS to get the desired result. This case is a lot more intresting then the Scopes trial because it isn't a clear cut case of right vs. wrong and no intelligent person today would dispute that evolution should be taught. Thank the nonexistent God that he was on our side.

well, you are forgetting 1 major detail.
he was a defence attourney. no *beep* he was a hypocrite.
the end.

It's not the job of a lawyer to explain their personal view on life. The lawyer's only job is to argue for their side. There's nothing at all wrong with a lawyer arguing one way in one case and another way in another case, so long as the arguments serve the needs of his clients in each case.

I don't accept that that's a contradiction. I think you're peddling a logical fallacy here.