Do you think Dick and Perry were sane? Did the psychiatric analysis of them and descriptions of other cold blooded killers surprise you? Scare you? Make you think differently about violent crime or the death penalty? Explain your response.
I do not believe that Perry was sane. I believe the diagnosis that Dick was sane is completely true. He knew what he was doing was wrong but did so anyway. But Perry did not see the how wrong it was. Growing up as he did, he did not have the same morals ground into him as Dick had. Perry wasn't taught any better and did as he was taught. Dick was taught better, but did the crime anyway.
I think that Dick was just as sane as most of the people you meet in day to day life. He may have done things that were wrong, but he knew they were wrong. Perry on the other hand appearing sane on the outside was anything but. He was conflicted and over-sensitive, not understanding why what he did was wrong, just knowing that it was not accepted as the right thing to do. I was not surprised by the descriptions of other cold blooded killers, though it does frightn me that seemingly civilized people could turn out to be monsters. I still have the same outlook on violent crime and the death penalty. I believe that everyone has a choice and that those people who make bad decisions deserve to be bunished for them, as long as the punishment fits the crime. I also believe that there are some people the world would be better off without.
Based on the basic definition of sane which is having a "sound, healthy mind" I truthfully believe that neither Perry nor Dick were sane. Perry more so than Dick however. The lengthy and disgusting details about Perry's childhood made me feel utterly frightened with all that happened to him also what he did to others. Though Perry was at times a very likable soul, his bipolar habits proved to me horrid and you could say "insane." Now Dick gave me a very sane "feel" most of the book, but as I got to know him, though his childhood was seemingly normal, his actions didn't reflect it at all to me. Perry described at one point that Dick had a sort of sickness that made him a thief, that he would steal a packet of gum even with one hundred dollars in his pocket. But Dick truely began to scare me when he was flirting with a extremely young girl at the beach, and then stated in his trial statement that he didn't intend to kill the family just rape Nancy. That way of thinking and what he does with young female souls just creeps me out to no end.
I believe that Dick and Perry were sane enough to be convicted of the crime. Though they may not have been completely aware of the source of their anger, they were fully capable of refraining from the crimes. The psychiatric analysis of the criminals was not surprising because both criminals were able to differentiate right from wrong but felt obligated to take from others just as their lives had been taken from them. Dick felt deprived of a successful life because of his financial situation. Dick had the potential to obtain higher education. Dick envied people with money so he stole and wrote bad checks to make himself feel better. In Perry’s case, the excerpt from The American Journal of Psychiatry on pages 298-301 was very accurate in explaining his mental processes. The excerpt discusses how childhood abuse can manifest itself in the form of an aggressive trance-like state in which the person becomes violent for no apparent reason. Dick and Perry were treated unfairly in the past more than the average person, but do not have the right to claim that the murders were because of mental sickness. These men were merely looking for vengeance for their misguided childhoods by committing devious acts. I feel that the death penalty is wrong because it validates killing people out of revenge. No matter how violent the crime, it is hypocritical to kill a person for killing a person.
I think neither Perry nor Dick were sane, I think Perry was more insane and unstable than Dick. Dick was saner, he planned it out and he calculated what they needed but to plan and debate on what you need for a murder is madness. I don’t think either had healthy minds for the reason I just said and because dick kept saying there is going to be “ lots of hair on them walls” in a almost joking way and that to me is insane. Knowing where they came from it didn’t surprise me about Perry but with Dick you’d think he’d know better but something was evidently wrong with him. This for me reinforces the death penalty I think if you are going to murder and do horrible things you shouldn’t be allowed to sit and live in a jail. That’s getting food, water, and shelter and that to me is a free ride and they should be killed.
In my opinion I find Dick to be completely sane, he calculated his options, got all the details he possibly could to commit the crime. He fully understood what he was doing, and went through with it, He was just acting under the savage impulse that guides his life. However I do believe that Perry is insane, His childhood left him without a clear definition of morals, and without a figure to look up to, leaving him untrusting and unable to understand the value to human life, Dick could use him as a pawn because Perry looked up to him as a macho admirable figure. The analysis didnt really surprise or scare me, I found it very accurate. Although it is scary to think that seemingly normal likeable people can commit such violent crimes. Society wants to think that murderers are the outlier, completely different than everyone else. However, I'm still for the death penalty, I believe that by their calculated murder, Dick and Perry lose their rights to live in our civilized society, we should not have to tolerate them any longer. -Colton Larsen
In my opinion, Dick was sane up to a point. He did have a lot of difficulties with himself, which include the fact that he has low-self esteem. This only helped me sympathize very little for him though, since the only reason one could think of him doing a crime was to prove his 'machoness' or his manliness to others. I believe Dick felt threatened by Perry, and he says so in a chapter where he explains that he is a "normal" but there was wrong with Perry. I also agree with Colton on both accounts of Perry and Dick, and believe that Perry was truly mentally unstable. Studies do show that a life like the one Perry led does lead to mental instability and that Perry probably was confusing the Clutter family with those who had caused him harm. Though he wasn't aware of it, he does express that he always thought that Mr. Clutter was a good man, even when he killed him, which makes me believe that he believed he wasn't killing Mr. Clutter at all, he was killing the people who hurt him. The description of other killers did fairly surprise and scare me. It shows that people really don't know who could be the next killer, like the boy who was the "nicest" in his town. No one is able to predict when a person might snap and go on a killing rampage, which is a frightning thought.
I don't think that sanity was a possiblity in either of their cases, because honestly both Dick and Perry were not very sane. But i feel that both of them wanted a clean start, and this was only a way to get to that fresh start, in saying that i think most people if they could correct some mistake would do anything to correct it, but i think most of us wouldn't take such a dramatic step. Perry had an unnatural hatred of other people's happiness also a deep seated hatred for his life and that he at one point contemplated suicide, as for Dick he had an unnatural attraction to young girls and from Perry's perspective could not keep his sexuality under control, also Dick had a tremendous problem with envy, even though people are envious of other people, Dick blamed the people he envyed for how his life turned out, i guess with the grudges both Dick and Perry had against life, they in turn could just blame everyone with the problems they got themselves into. This book has changed my view of violent crimes and people in general because Dick and Perry, even with a few flaws seem to be completely normal yet could commit a crime like that, and also the way Perry carried himself during the murder made it hard to not sympathize with him.
I think that dick was sane but perry was not. Perry, always being beaten as a child, dosen't seem to have a grip on reality with his odd dreams. I question his sanity everytime he thinks of his dream with the tree in the jungle bearing fruit of diamonds and his yellow bird that he believs is his savior. Dick on the other hand is always pulling his schemes and is very social unlike Perry. Dick always has an idea on what to do and seems completly normal. He was the mastermind behind the murders but did not kill any of The clutters because he felt the guilt it would leave a stain on his soul and realized the brutality. Dick in that way is completly sane. Dick realized the consequences while perry did not. Perry claimed he could not explain why he killed the Clutters that night. He admitted that the Clutters never did anything to him and he didnt want to kill them but he did anyways. Perry is insane.
Dick was certainly sane. He knew right from wrong, that he was guilty, was able to formulate lie, after lie, after lie, and had the intuition to know that Perry would take the blame for the crimes when Dick blamed him for them. Perry, also, was sane. He knew that what he was doing was wrong, which he tried to rectify by making the victims more comfortable and stopping Dick from raping Nancy Clutter. Now, Perry wasn't totally sane in the strictest sense of the word because he was mentally distrubed by his childhood, particularly the nuns who exacerbated his bed-wetting. The description of the cold-blooded killers didn't surprise me; I figured that it took someone so unfeeling to actually take another human's life. The description didn't scare me; it doesn't make life any safer to be afraid of something, or someone, that will probably never touch your life. My thoughts on the death penalty haven't changed: Because they took a human life, they have forfeited their own. Someone has to pay the price, it might as well be them. Connor S.
I think that Dick was certainly sane. He was aware of his actions, and in most cases could have passed off a 'perfectly normal guy', which, disturbingly, he may have been. He had an askew set of morals, and his own set of beliefs. He knew what was socially acceptable and what wasn't, he knew what was 'right' and 'wrong'. This is shown with his attraction to young girls, which he kept hidden out of shame, as well as a part of the book were he feels guilty for using hot checks because his Father would have to pay them off. The book tries to suggest that his previous head trauma may have caused mental damage, but also points out that his behavior was far from perfect before the accident as well. His psychiatric analysis fit, and explained his actions. So yes, in my opinion, Dick was sane. I cannot say for sure whether I think Perry is sane or not. Mentally unstable, definitely. Socially retarded? I have no doubt in my mind. It is obvious from the book that Perry was not fully aware of his actions during that night. In his mind, did he really kill the Clutters? Or did he kill those who had hurt and abused him all his life? But many sane people have done terrible things without really knowing why. His delusions sounded like a safety mechanism to me, a way to escape nigh constant torment in his own fantasies. It was stated that Perry was a very creative soul, and the vast majority of people will admit to escaping off into their own little dreamlands. That being said, I will admit I am leaning toward insane for Perry, if only because of a certainly traumatizing, damaging life, and the fact that there was always some thing just 'off' about him. I have never liked the death sentence. I have heard it described as a 'necessary evil' as well as, and this one is much more disturbing, 'cleansing'. It's not something I speak about often, mostly because it feels that everyone disagrees with me on the matter, but I can't help but feel that by using the death sentence, is the law not lowering itself to the same level as murderers? Killers and rapists should be locked up to rot until the end of their days, but by destroying them, are we not lessening the value of life? Isn't it like saying 'It's okay to kill someone, as long as you have a good reason?' Despite this, I'm still unsure on the matter, and this novel made me even more unsure. It is still deeply unsettling to me that people you wouldn't normally bat an eye at, people who could have been any old average Joe or the 'nicest' guy in town, were capable of something so terrible.
Dick can be referred to as sane because he understood the gravity of what he was doing when he and Perry murdered the Clutter family. While Perry had no real understanding of the severity of what he and Dick had done. Dicks sanity is again shown when he feels guilt for writing hot checks in his parents name because they would not be able to make the checks good. Perry on the other hand had no sympathy or remorse for what Dick had done. Perry's sanity is again put into question when he tells Dick about the nuns punishing him for wetting the bed. It is disturbing that these most average seeming people could be capable of such horrible crimes.
I believe that Dick was sane. Dick knew what he was doing and calculates everything precisely. Even the psychiatric analysis says that Dick “knew what he was doing and still went ahead with it” (Capote 294). The doctor also said that he “did not find the usual signs of organic brain damage” (Capote 294). There was no way that Dick was insane based on this information. The psychiatric analysis also states that Dick had a low self-esteem. Because Dick has a low self-esteem, I agree with Collin, Dick used Perry as a pawn to get his way. On the other hand, I question about Perry’s sanity. When Perry left the house to put the portable radio and the binoculars in the house, he thought that he should have just left or hitch a ride. Base on this information, we know that Perry knew what he did was wrong but he still did it anyway because he "had to know what was going to happen." (Capote 240) But at the same time, he wasn’t fully sane. I agree with everyone that said that Perry wasn’t sane because of his past. How can you not be a bit insane? Perry’s past hit him hard. Lowell Lee Andrews’ case scared me the most. Capote describes him like a normal student, going to school, having good grades and everything. I didn’t believe that such a student can think about killing his family. It makes me worry that maybe someone in the neighborhood or a student at school can be like Andrew. The murderers committed the crime, they certainly have to pay for it. "Life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (Deuteronomy 19:21)
I believe the tests ran were accurate, Perry being insane, and Dick sane. The results of the psychiatric tests did not surprise nor scare me. I predicted for Perry to have some type of different result on the test because of all the stress that Capote put on his childhood and all the sympathy put towards him throughout the book. I didn't want to believe that he was indeed insane though, because I liked Perry as a character, very personable, but I knew it was coming. Dick, I felt was the motivator of the crime, he had purpose and drive which set him apart from Perry. I also predicted his test results accurrately. I think that what really made me think that he was sane was that he was the first to plead guilty, he knew he was guilty from the moment he walked into the Clutter house. But Perry, he didn't even know his motive and in a way just seemed to go wherever for whatever, no reason. Now the death penalty...I will have to say that I am for the death penalty, blood for blood, for the both of them. Even though Perry was declared "insane" he was always sane enough to make decisions for himself prior to that point. Capote has put into perspective that criminals are still people. People with facinating talents, charm, personality. We often thenk that criminals are a sort of alternate species, but in reality, we're all the same.
I believe that Dick was sane but Perry was not. Dick was the one that came up with the plan to steal from the Clutters, the master mind. Once Dick realized that there was no safe he needed all the witnesses murdered but Dick knew this was wrong. Dick knew the wrong doings would corrupt him and upset the ones that loved him. Unlike Dick, Perry had no true family or any sense of the consequences he would receive if he murdered the Clutters. Perry had no true motive to kill the Clutters. Perry felt "sympathetic" for the family but that same night he murdered all four members of the family. At such a young age Perry developed a hate for life and happiness which he eventually considered committing suicide in his last years of his life. I was not surprised that the psychiatric analysis of Perry was "insane" because of the awful childhood he had. I do not believe that death penalty should have taken place because it is as violent as the Clutter tragedy itself.
I believe that Dick was sane but Perry on the other hand was not. In the book Dr. Jones analysis says that, "he (Dick) seems to be in good contact with reality". Which shows that Dick knew exactly what was happening at the times of the murders. Reverend Post analysis of Perry shows that Perry had essentially lost all touch with reality. He had a very little awareness to what he was doing. The trauma in his life had thrown his perception of the world in a tail spin. I wasn't as surprised by the analysis of the other killers. You would venture to guess that the killers would have somewhat the same type of characteristics. My outlook on the death penalty hasn't changed. If your going to kill somebody, you should deserve the same treatment.
In my opinion I believe that Dick was "Sane" to a degree but perry was deffinalty not. Dick always seamed to be ontop of situations and seamed realativly normal. The tests on both these men i believe were correct. Dick being sane and Perry being ranked "insane". The Reverend analysis of perry shows that perry was insane. He had gone through much in his life that caused his thoughts to be in another world. Again I state, the perceptions of the Characters given in the novel in my opinion were correct. I personally beleive in the death penalty. In my words it's Eye for an Eye
I too believe that the tests of the criminals were accurate, Dick was sane but Perry was not. Dick knew that what he was doing was wrong but proceeded anyway. Dick gave advanced thought to the robbing and death of the Clutters, he planned to leave "no witnesses". He came to the Clutter household the intention to rape Nancy Clutter. Perry on the other hand did go the Clutter household with the intention to murder them. Perry did not understand that what he was doing was wrong. He had an extremely rough life which I believe had an effect on his mental stability. As Dr. Jones stated Perry showed "definite signs of severe mental illness"(Capote 296). Before reading this book I thought of all violent killers as being worthy of the death penalty. The characterization of Perry and Dick made me see that some killers, like Perry, that are severely mentally ill, do not understand their wrongdoings and do not deserve the death penalty, but to be sent to a place where they can be helped mentally.
I keep noticing as I read my classmates' responses to this particular question, that almost everyone is under the impression that "Dick was sane, and Perry was not," and after reading the psychiatric analysis of the two, I can see how that would be a more popular answer. However, I must disagree. Yes, I believe Perry was without a doubt a sick man in the head. However, there is a quality in Dick that also puts his sanity to question. On the surface level, he is cold, calculating, logical; he plans his moves carefully and with a conscious decision. But as Leann previously stated, he had a "sickness" about him. The fact that he would steal the gum, that he was abnormally drawn to very young, beautiful women, with full intention to do horrible things to them. Was it simply because he was a murderer, cold to the core? I can't find it in myself to say that is the only reason. I believe both convicts suffered a certain insanity, though their particular degrees of insanity differ. Perry, in my opinion, is a full-on paranoid schizophrenic, whether the blame for that is his childhood, his incident, or simply something he was born with. Dick has no real excuse for his supposed "sickness", though there is the possibility that he, himself, was born into it. The psychiatric analysis did not surprise me, really, nor scare me. However it did leave lingering thoughts on the crime and death penalty. What if that psychiatrist had been allowed to finish his statement on Perry? I do not believe, were that the case, that the man would have been sentenced to death, despite the brutality of his crime, and I cannot say i fully support the judge's decision. I believe, with some help and further psychiatric assistance, Perry might have become a functioning member of society, in time. Not to say that Dick was unsalvageable, but he, more so than Perry, understood the gravity of his crimes. The penalty of death for these two was understandable, as they paid for the lives they took with their own, however once again I cannot say I agree with it. The question of the death penalty, however, is an argument much larger than myself, larger still than the confines of this novel, and is quite possibly a debate that will never reach a true end, as those on death row continue to take the fall for their actions. B.Leggett
While reading "In Cold Blood", I came under the impression that both Dick and Perry were insane. However, by the time I reached the end of the book, I found out that Perry had in fact committed all four murders, and I realized that there was a real possibility that Dick was a normal person stuck with the wrong person at the wrong time. Capote's description of the killers contribute to my view because he describes them as normal people, albeit with a few quirks. I was especially touched by the description of Andrews, the student who killed his parents. To me, he seemed like a smart, respectable young man, someone you'd think would be studying quietly in the back of a library. He's not the type of person who would kill his parents without any type of remorse whatsoever. I think that adds to Andrews' persona of insanity, because he could very well be the kid next door. With Dick, that was the exact opposite. His seeming enthusiasm for violence and his muscular build would make him a viable suspect for any murder. However, it is revealed at the end of the book that he hadn't committed any murders. This surprised me because initially Capote had seemed to slate Dick as "Public Enemy No. 1" so to speak. But, had I read the descriptions of any of the men on death row before knowing their crimes, I would've written them off as normal everyday people. This scares me because an insane criminal could be sitting next to you on a bus, or cutting your grass, or doing your taxes.
I am in concurrence with the classification of the killers, Dick being "sane" and Perry being "insane", though Dick was "insane" to a degree. Dick was conscious and aware that what he did was wrong and sickening, while Perry seemed to not know why what he did was so horrible and fiendish. The way Capote led a way to be sympathetic to both killers makes me wonder how many people that seem "normal" can be cold blooded and vicious. The psychiatric analysis of Dick and Perry, and also the other murderers did not really shock me or frighten me either. The death penalty, as brutal as it is, is necessary. The death penalty ,though not ethical to some, is just. If someone you loved were to get murdered you would want the murderer to be punished, and the only way to keep them from once again murdering is to put there life down.
Perry, in my opinion, was not sane when he commited the crime. Because of Perry's childhoood, and scarred mind and body, the anaylisis was correct in saying he was the least bit sane. Dick, in my opinion, was sane when the crime was plotted and commited. Dick has no mental disorder, and a fairly ordinary childhood. The anaylisis on him was correct in saying he was totally sane in the recent events. The anaylisis of all the killers did surprise and scare me in some moments. The world my mind is in does not see how twisted other minds could be, and how some minds really are. This does not make me feel different about the death penalty. Not just for revenge, but for the safety of everyone else.
Though I would agree with a lot of people that Dick was sane while Perry was insane, I think it is a bit deeper than that. I believe that to kill somebody or plot a robbery, a person has to have a certain level of “insanity”. Perry was just on a higher level of insanity than Dick, though not insane enough to excuse what he did. Perry is obviously described as insane throughout the whole book. He has no feelings and easily murdered four people without feeling a thing. Dick, on the other hand, has more human emotions and knows that what they are doing is wrong. But I believe that deep inside, he is not what someone would call normal. He is a genius but is also very coldblooded, calling humans idiots; he does not think the same way other humans do. After reading In Cold Blood, and seeing a murder in the point of view of the murderers, my thoughts on the death penalty do not change. I still believe that no matter in what state of mind one is—unless one is so insane that the person cannot even talk or doesn’t even know what murder is—a person should be severely punished for murdering a human being. Jasmine N.
I agree with most of the previous posts, that Dick was sane and Perry was not. Dick was in control, he made a plan and he executed it. Perry, on the other hand, was just along for the ride, he had nothing else to do in life and no one else to believe in. Because of Perry’s traumatizing childhood, his perception of right and wrong were altered. Dick took advantage of Perry’s pent up rage and convinced Perry that killing the clutters was no big deal. I wasn’t very surprised by the descriptions of other killers, but it is unsettling the number of cold-blooded killers there were and how well they blend in with the rest of society. I still feel the same about violent crime and the death penalty. I don’t believe that the death penalty is a good solution to any problem. Yes, some people do bad things and make bad decisions, but I don’t understand how someone can justify killing someone else for being a murderer. -Tori J.
There are many definitions of the term "sane" which makes this question challenging and the feedback inevitably controversial. One definition states that being "sane" entails that the person is able to understand one's actions and distinguish right from wrong. In lieu of this definition, clearly both Dick and Perry were sane. Both murderers realized the pending decision to kill and were fully aware that it was wrong. If this was not so, no arguments would have ensued the night of the murders between the two criminals. There also would have been no hesitation to kill unless an omnipresent entity, such as a conscience(revealing wrong from right), was present. But another definition claims that being "sane" constitutes having a sound mind that is free from mental disturbances. In this clause, neither Dick nor Perry were sane. Both contained degrees of mental disturbance ranging from Dick's perverse exploits to Perry's confusion between his mentality and reality. This argument between sanity and insanity is subjective, but what is concrete is the fact that they both realized that they had commited murder. Regardless of whether Perry realized the repercussions or magnitude of his actions or not, he knew he was pulling the trigger and ending a life.
I think Dick was completely sane, he was totally aware of what he was doing and knew it was wrong. Perry on the other hand had to be insane. I think he probably had some kind of disorder because one part of him was compasionate but the other side was a savage killer. Dick wanted the witnesses to be killed but knew that it would upset his loved ones and mess with his mind. Perry had nothing to lose not even his sanity because that must have left him so time in the past. Perry had nobody to upset and he didnt care about it messing with him. Perry really is the definition of Psychotic.
I believe that perfectly sane people can do horrific and insane things. Keeping this belief in mind, I also believe that Dick and Perry were completely sane. Yes, Perry did experience terrible and appalling things all throughout his existence and I agree that his exposure to these things influenced several of his decisions later in life, but in no way was he insane. I think that sane people can convince themselves that something is right no matter how erroneous or unlawful it may be. Lowell Lee Andrews, for example, said that he felt nothing about murdering his entire family. He was simply "'doing what (he) had to do'"(Capote 313). Lowell Lee was wholly absorbed in thought, dreaming about becoming a gangster. With plenty of time to think about how to transform himself into something entirely different than what he actually was, Andrews turned something totally illogical (murder) into the "most sensible way of implementing the fantasies that possessed him" (Capote 312). Both Dick and Perry underwent this "possession". For Dick it was the extensive thought on robbing the Clutters. Perry was almost completely possessed by animosity toward authority and anyone he felt inferior to, which explains Perry murdering all four of the Clutters. Dick had a "normal" life and hadn't reached the point of possession that Perry had.
I think that Dick was totally and completely sane because, as was stated in the trial, he knew right from wrong and he knew that killing the Clutter family was the wrong thing to do. Dick knew that if he killed someone, he would upset the ones he loved. Perry, on the other hand, did not understand how bad his actions were that night he killed the Clutter family. When you look back on Perry's childhood, you can see that due to his distorted past he eventually ended up doing what he did with no remorse at all, when other would feel their guilt for what they had done.
I think that both Dick and Perry were sane. Dick knew what he was doing was wrong as did Perry. The psychiatric diagnostic on Perry was ridiculous. Perry came from a broken home with a drunk for a mother and a dad that wasn’t around. Sure he got into trouble when he was a kid, but he had no one around him that would have demonstrated murder as a normal standard or behavior. If Perry knew that rape was wrong he could have certainly figured out that murder is a big no-no. The fact that any doctor could just declare someone insane and therefore possibly get them out of the punishment that they rightfully deserve infuriated me. If the justice system continues to have such a policy that could let every criminal that comes from a broken home or any other sob story childhood walk off scot free we’ll all be in serious trouble. I did not see how the “insane” examples mentioned in the analysis were anything like Perry and Dick’s murder because those were not premeditated like theirs was. My opinion about violent crime has not changed nor has my ideals about the death penalty. I believe that any violent crime should be punished based on only distinction murder, manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter not based on sanity clauses. Your mental state shouldn't matter, you still did it. And I still am a firm believer in life in prison without parole over the death penalty. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Bethany S.
I agree with almost everyone when I say that Dick was certainly sane and aware that the crimes were wrong. Perry on the other hand seemed to be perfectly normal in the beginning of the book, but as he develops as a character and we learn about his childhood we begin to think he may he insane. I do believe that Perry deserved the death penalty because he was aware that the crimes were not deemed acceptable or moral by his peers. Although the other cold blooded killers didn't seem "sane" in their descriptions on page 299 they did commit murder and something needs to be done in response to their crimes.
I believe that neither of the killers were one hundred percent sane. Although Dick did not kill any of the Clutter family members he was still mentally ill in some way because of his desire for adolescent woman. Eventually we discover that Dick also commited crimes because of the rush and thrill he gets from it. Someone who even thinks of killing someone else has some kind of mental deficiency. Unlike Dick, Perry had a very difficult childhood which accounts for his behavior. In the beginning of the story Perry does not want to kill. But as it [the story] progresses, Perry's need to feel accepted, which has haunted him his entire life, drives him to taking part in murdering the Clutters.
Emily, one aspect of being sane is being able to discern right from wrong. In Perry's confession he said that he knew murdering the Clutter's was morally unacceptable. Perry consciously sliced the throat of Mr. Clutter and pulled the trigger that killed the family. In his confession he said, "I liked him up until the moment I slit his throat." In all his statements, Perry reveals that he knew exactly what he was doing and that he was not in some other reality. Perry was, however, emotionally unstable- which was the true cause of the murders - not a misfunctioning brain. Perry said that his pain was building up and someone "just had to pay for it."
I do believe that they both of them were a little insane but Dick was definitley more in his right mind than Perry. The fact that Dick did realize and understand that what he did was horrible and wrong does show that he was completely aware from the start but I believe that he was a little insane cause I believe that anybody who could do such a terrible thing is not in their right mind. Perry was not sane in my opinion. The whole book he was talking about a giant parrot that would come and save him and even after he committed the murders he felt no remorse and couldn't understand why people thought was such a bad thing. The analysis of the other murderers did not surprise me very much but did disturb me. It's hard for me to believe that a person could be able to do such a thing. I believe that the death penalty is brutal but very necessary. If a man takes a life, his life should be taken in return.
Personally, I think Dick and Perry were both sane. I agree that adults can develop issues from traumatic childhoods, just as Perry did, but I don't think that could be used as an excuse for murder. Yes, Perry did show more remorse than Dick, but that could easily just be their contrasting personalities.
I was surprised by the very detailed descriptions of the murders. I could not even fathom having those kinds of memories on my conscience.
This novel did not change my view on the death penalty, as I have always disagreed with it. I don't see how taking a life from a killer could teach any kind of lesson. Death cannot be justified by death.
After reading the book, it was clear that both Dick and Perry had a few mental issues. But as for the lines of sanity, I think the psychologist in the book nailed it when he said that Dick was of mental clarity and Perry was not.
Dick was aware of what was going on and the gravity of the situation at the time it occurred, but being Dick, he tried to play the tough guy and make it not phaze him at all. He knew what he got into, and rode along anyway.
Perry, backed with his rather unfortunate upbringing, was a trainwreck waiting to happen. He clearly showed mental issues, and even saw a golden parrot as his guardian angel. I'm not a psychologist, but I'm pretty sure something is wrong with that. That, paired with the fact that he clearly had problems with obsessing over possessions, shows he has extensive psychological issues.
The psychiatric evaluations didn't really scare or surprise me a whole lot. Not to say that is was expected, but it wasn't anything mind boggling. As for my own stance on violent crime or the death penalty, it didn't really change, but the different view on the matter was quite enlightening. Not often do you try to see it from the view of the person who is destined to die.
Based on the brutality of their crimes and lack of any remorse for their actions, I do not believe that Dick and Perry were sane. To be sane is to be "free from mental derrangement," and clearly these criminals were not. Even further, the psychiatric analysis of both men revealed that the proffessional opinion leaned toward insane and showed that both had deep-rooted emotional abnormalitites and severe personality disorders. The psychiatric analysis more summed up what I thought of the criminals than surprised me. Throughout the novel and especially during their confessions, the criminals showed great emotional issues and signs of mental irregularity. However, Capote's citing of numerous other cases of premediated and unemotional murder such as Lowell Andrews' was unsettling. That someone could commit such atroucious acts, and on their own family, and feel nothing, was frightening and unfathomable to me. Hearing of crimes like Andrews' is what continues to leave my stance on capital punishment undecided. One part of me feels that it is immoral to answer murder with murder, and another more human part knows that if such things had been done to my family, my definition of "immoral" would constrict only to include the criminals actions against my loved ones, and not my own retalitory actions against him or her.
I do not think Dick or Perry were sane. Perry was not sane because his emotional stability was conflicting with any mental stability he had. All of the things that occurred through his life made him mentally unstable. Dick on the other hand lived a normal life and was just a bad man. He knew what they where doing was wrong but decided to do it anyways. He was also the mastermind behind the plan making him the worse of the two. Considering the word sane means "of sound mind" neither were sane. Perry wasn't sane because he unstable mentally, and Dick wasn't sane because he did not have a sound mind. That’s why I do not think Dick or Perry were sane.
I think that Dick and Perry both were insane and had no morals. I think that if they planned out a murder, bragged about it, and carried it through then they obviously had no consideration for human beings. I think that the death penalty was not the right punishment for somebody that murdered a family in cold blood. They don't deserve to be put out of their own misery. They deserve to sit in a cell and think about what they've done for the rest of their lives.
I dont think Dick or Perry have an ounce psycological issues. Sure they killed innocent people in cold blood, but that doesnt make you psychotic, it simply makes you a lost, ignorant individual without morals or remorse. I understand Perry had a ruff childhood, but that doesnt excuse the crimes he has commited or make it exceptable. They knew what they went to the Clutter home to do, and they did exactly as Dick said they would. I will say that i dont believe in the death penalty. No man should have the right to take another mans life except God. Self defense is a totaly different subject, but the point im trying to make is that they dont deserve to die, but they do deserve to rot in prison. Killing a taking the life of a person is cruel, its even worse when you kill them without a motive or probble cause.
I Think That Dick & Perry Were On Different Levels Of Sanity . There Was Alot Of Characteristics Shown That Separated The Two . Perry Doesn't Have Any Morals Due To His Horrible Childhood . He Naturally Thinks That Everybody Hates Him . Perry Doesn't Have Any Compassion . & Dick Basically Doesn't Have Any Excuse On How He Acts . He Had A Pretty Good Life & HE Decided To Change His Future . Basically They Both Knew What They're Doing Which Shows Hints Of Insanity .
In my opinion, Dick was sane. Perry, however, wasn't. Dick has no excuse for what he did - he was logical, and chose to act the way he did, never thinking of the consequences of his actions. Perry, on the other hand, had a traumatic childhood, which could easily have caused mental problems, and seemed completely detached from the real world. He didn't feel anything when he killed the Clutters. It was like he couldn't quite comprehend the damage he'd done, all of the lives he'd negatively affected.
He lived in fantasy land. Literature, music, vocabulary, treasure hunting - those were his methods of escape from the real world, and they never seemed to really go away. He dreamed of golden parrot that would come and destroy who ever was hurting him - but it was almost like he still believed in the parrot when he woke up.
The description of these murderers did kind of scare me. It made them more real, not random people you just read about in the news. Society has painted a picture of the typical cold blooded murderer which probably isn't realistic at all.
This book didn't make me feel any different towards the death penalty. I'm still for it. Regardless of how the murderers feel, they took the lives of innocent people. They need to be punished.
in my oppion i do not believe that perry was a true physico path, but i do not deny that their was a problem in his childhood development. a human will only react as a reflection of their parents, how they were raised, and to the scars placed apon his or her childhood memories. so hence forth when he saw at a young age, his 3 other siblings kill themselfs, he saw no wrong in the taking of a humans life.theirfore he was taught that their is no wrong. and to an added of the facts after confronting with socity and then having the feeling remorse, just proves that he learned the wrong in his doing and when that huge of a change accured he did not diserve to die. closley watched and monnotered,yes, but no, not death. on the other hand Dick is a completley different story their was nothing wrong with dicks mind he knew that what he was doing was wrong and just persisted into doing so, knowing the concequence of his action. and at his age, his mind would have been fully developed.putting him in the possion of knowing right from wrong. and does he diserve to die from that? maybe. maybe not, but who am i to decide rather one should live or die.im 16. altho i am not for nor againsed the death penalty so the story does not have much of an impact to sway my oppionin in any way.
It made me think differently about the death penalty. The death penalty is saying that if someone "a killer" commits a murder that the person responsible should be killed. In this day and age if a killer is on death row they have the right to say they are mentaly disabled. Meaning they are crazy. In my opinion Perry was not crazy, he was as sane as any other human being. Dick on the other hand was insane. He only wanted to steal the clutters money and rape the daughter.
I believe Perry wasn't sane but dick was, Perry didn't relize he had slit mr. Clutters untell it was done and after that preceeded to kill the rest of the family when he was against it in the first place shows that he wasn't in the best state of mind when he committed the crime. Also Perry told the investigaters that while he was in the house he felt like he had no control over his body and felt like he was watching a movie and not the one in control of the outcome which again is another sign of mental illness escaping from reality. Dick on the hand had premeditated the murder and knew what it was he was doing and was in full control of his actions. I've always been against the death penality and this book didn't change my views.
i belive that they were both, in there own way, sane and insane. Perry was in most ways a very sane man. he acted normal and what i got fromf his point of view tought normaly as well. his only insane quality, in my opinon, was that he felt no remorse for the clutter family after he killed them. Dick however did not act as a normel person does, althoug in my opinoin he did not act compleatly insane, adn he did have a insane set of mind. he ploted out the death of an entire family for the sake of money. they were both in very much controll of there actions and were fully aware of the consiquences of what they did, but neither had any feelings for the crime they comited. in my opoin this makes them insade to a lesser degre.
As for me the fact that other killers besides these two kill , and comit similer crims to musrder do not suprise at all. In this world there are acts of insainty all the time even ones that can not be seen with the human eye. I belive that the both were a littel insane but not completely gone.
I do not believe that Perry was sane. I believe the diagnosis that Dick was sane is completely true. He knew what he was doing was wrong but did so anyway. But Perry did not see the how wrong it was. Growing up as he did, he did not have the same morals ground into him as Dick had. Perry wasn't taught any better and did as he was taught. Dick was taught better, but did the crime anyway.
ReplyDeleteI think that Dick was just as sane as most of the people you meet in day to day life. He may have done things that were wrong, but he knew they were wrong. Perry on the other hand appearing sane on the outside was anything but. He was conflicted and over-sensitive, not understanding why what he did was wrong, just knowing that it was not accepted as the right thing to do. I was not surprised by the descriptions of other cold blooded killers, though it does frightn me that seemingly civilized people could turn out to be monsters. I still have the same outlook on violent crime and the death penalty. I believe that everyone has a choice and that those people who make bad decisions deserve to be bunished for them, as long as the punishment fits the crime. I also believe that there are some people the world would be better off without.
ReplyDeleteRachael Jensen
((Redo, because last entry was too long))
ReplyDeleteBased on the basic definition of sane which is having a "sound, healthy mind" I truthfully believe that neither Perry nor Dick were sane. Perry more so than Dick however. The lengthy and disgusting details about Perry's childhood made me feel utterly frightened with all that happened to him also what he did to others. Though Perry was at times a very likable soul, his bipolar habits proved to me horrid and you could say "insane." Now Dick gave me a very sane "feel" most of the book, but as I got to know him, though his childhood was seemingly normal, his actions didn't reflect it at all to me. Perry described at one point that Dick had a sort of sickness that made him a thief, that he would steal a packet of gum even with one hundred dollars in his pocket. But Dick truely began to scare me when he was flirting with a extremely young girl at the beach, and then stated in his trial statement that he didn't intend to kill the family just rape Nancy. That way of thinking and what he does with young female souls just creeps me out to no end.
I believe that Dick and Perry were sane enough to be convicted of the crime. Though they may not have been completely aware of the source of their anger, they were fully capable of refraining from the crimes. The psychiatric analysis of the criminals was not surprising because both criminals were able to differentiate right from wrong but felt obligated to take from others just as their lives had been taken from them. Dick felt deprived of a successful life because of his financial situation. Dick had the potential to obtain higher education. Dick envied people with money so he stole and wrote bad checks to make himself feel better. In Perry’s case, the excerpt from The American Journal of Psychiatry on pages 298-301 was very accurate in explaining his mental processes. The excerpt discusses how childhood abuse can manifest itself in the form of an aggressive trance-like state in which the person becomes violent for no apparent reason. Dick and Perry were treated unfairly in the past more than the average person, but do not have the right to claim that the murders were because of mental sickness. These men were merely looking for vengeance for their misguided childhoods by committing devious acts. I feel that the death penalty is wrong because it validates killing people out of revenge. No matter how violent the crime, it is hypocritical to kill a person for killing a person.
ReplyDeleteI think neither Perry nor Dick were sane, I think Perry was more insane and unstable than Dick. Dick was saner, he planned it out and he calculated what they needed but to plan and debate on what you need for a murder is madness. I don’t think either had healthy minds for the reason I just said and because dick kept saying there is going to be “ lots of hair on them walls” in a almost joking way and that to me is insane. Knowing where they came from it didn’t surprise me about Perry but with Dick you’d think he’d know better but something was evidently wrong with him. This for me reinforces the death penalty I think if you are going to murder and do horrible things you shouldn’t be allowed to sit and live in a jail. That’s getting food, water, and shelter and that to me is a free ride and they should be killed.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I find Dick to be completely sane, he calculated his options, got all the details he possibly could to commit the crime. He fully understood what he was doing, and went through with it, He was just acting under the savage impulse that guides his life. However I do believe that Perry is insane, His childhood left him without a clear definition of morals, and without a figure to look up to, leaving him untrusting and unable to understand the value to human life, Dick could use him as a pawn because Perry looked up to him as a macho admirable figure. The analysis didnt really surprise or scare me, I found it very accurate. Although it is scary to think that seemingly normal likeable people can commit such violent crimes. Society wants to think that murderers are the outlier, completely different than everyone else. However, I'm still for the death penalty, I believe that by their calculated murder, Dick and Perry lose their rights to live in our civilized society, we should not have to tolerate them any longer.
ReplyDelete-Colton Larsen
In my opinion, Dick was sane up to a point. He did have a lot of difficulties with himself, which include the fact that he has low-self esteem. This only helped me sympathize very little for him though, since the only reason one could think of him doing a crime was to prove his 'machoness' or his manliness to others. I believe Dick felt threatened by Perry, and he says so in a chapter where he explains that he is a "normal" but there was wrong with Perry.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Colton on both accounts of Perry and Dick, and believe that Perry was truly mentally unstable. Studies do show that a life like the one Perry led does lead to mental instability and that Perry probably was confusing the Clutter family with those who had caused him harm. Though he wasn't aware of it, he does express that he always thought that Mr. Clutter was a good man, even when he killed him, which makes me believe that he believed he wasn't killing Mr. Clutter at all, he was killing the people who hurt him.
The description of other killers did fairly surprise and scare me. It shows that people really don't know who could be the next killer, like the boy who was the "nicest" in his town. No one is able to predict when a person might snap and go on a killing rampage, which is a frightning thought.
Good job everyone!! Mariel, I am thrilled to see someone responding to another student's post!
ReplyDeleteMrs. Kasper
I don't think that sanity was a possiblity in either of their cases, because honestly both Dick and Perry were not very sane. But i feel that both of them wanted a clean start, and this was only a way to get to that fresh start, in saying that i think most people if they could correct some mistake would do anything to correct it, but i think most of us wouldn't take such a dramatic step. Perry had an unnatural hatred of other people's happiness also a deep seated hatred for his life and that he at one point contemplated suicide, as for Dick he had an unnatural attraction to young girls and from Perry's perspective could not keep his sexuality under control, also Dick had a tremendous problem with envy, even though people are envious of other people, Dick blamed the people he envyed for how his life turned out, i guess with the grudges both Dick and Perry had against life, they in turn could just blame everyone with the problems they got themselves into. This book has changed my view of violent crimes and people in general because Dick and Perry, even with a few flaws seem to be completely normal yet could commit a crime like that, and also the way Perry carried himself during the murder made it hard to not sympathize with him.
ReplyDelete-Rocio Espinoza
I think that dick was sane but perry was not. Perry, always being beaten as a child, dosen't seem to have a grip on reality with his odd dreams. I question his sanity everytime he thinks of his dream with the tree in the jungle bearing fruit of diamonds and his yellow bird that he believs is his savior. Dick on the other hand is always pulling his schemes and is very social unlike Perry. Dick always has an idea on what to do and seems completly normal. He was the mastermind behind the murders but did not kill any of The clutters because he felt the guilt it would leave a stain on his soul and realized the brutality. Dick in that way is completly sane. Dick realized the consequences while perry did not. Perry claimed he could not explain why he killed the Clutters that night. He admitted that the Clutters never did anything to him and he didnt want to kill them but he did anyways. Perry is insane.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDick was certainly sane. He knew right from wrong, that he was guilty, was able to formulate lie, after lie, after lie, and had the intuition to know that Perry would take the blame for the crimes when Dick blamed him for them. Perry, also, was sane. He knew that what he was doing was wrong, which he tried to rectify by making the victims more comfortable and stopping Dick from raping Nancy Clutter. Now, Perry wasn't totally sane in the strictest sense of the word because he was mentally distrubed by his childhood, particularly the nuns who exacerbated his bed-wetting. The description of the cold-blooded killers didn't surprise me; I figured that it took someone so unfeeling to actually take another human's life. The description didn't scare me; it doesn't make life any safer to be afraid of something, or someone, that will probably never touch your life. My thoughts on the death penalty haven't changed: Because they took a human life, they have forfeited their own. Someone has to pay the price, it might as well be them.
ReplyDeleteConnor S.
I think that Dick was certainly sane. He was aware of his actions, and in most cases could have passed off a 'perfectly normal guy', which, disturbingly, he may have been. He had an askew set of morals, and his own set of beliefs. He knew what was socially acceptable and what wasn't, he knew what was 'right' and 'wrong'. This is shown with his attraction to young girls, which he kept hidden out of shame, as well as a part of the book were he feels guilty for using hot checks because his Father would have to pay them off. The book tries to suggest that his previous head trauma may have caused mental damage, but also points out that his behavior was far from perfect before the accident as well. His psychiatric analysis fit, and explained his actions. So yes, in my opinion, Dick was sane. I cannot say for sure whether I think Perry is sane or not. Mentally unstable, definitely. Socially retarded? I have no doubt in my mind. It is obvious from the book that Perry was not fully aware of his actions during that night. In his mind, did he really kill the Clutters? Or did he kill those who had hurt and abused him all his life? But many sane people have done terrible things without really knowing why. His delusions sounded like a safety mechanism to me, a way to escape nigh constant torment in his own fantasies. It was stated that Perry was a very creative soul, and the vast majority of people will admit to escaping off into their own little dreamlands. That being said, I will admit I am leaning toward insane for Perry, if only because of a certainly traumatizing, damaging life, and the fact that there was always some thing just 'off' about him. I have never liked the death sentence. I have heard it described as a 'necessary evil' as well as, and this one is much more disturbing, 'cleansing'. It's not something I speak about often, mostly because it feels that everyone disagrees with me on the matter, but I can't help but feel that by using the death sentence, is the law not lowering itself to the same level as murderers? Killers and rapists should be locked up to rot until the end of their days, but by destroying them, are we not lessening the value of life? Isn't it like saying 'It's okay to kill someone, as long as you have a good reason?' Despite this, I'm still unsure on the matter, and this novel made me even more unsure. It is still deeply unsettling to me that people you wouldn't normally bat an eye at, people who could have been any old average Joe or the 'nicest' guy in town, were capable of something so terrible.
ReplyDeleteEmilia K
Dick can be referred to as sane because he understood the gravity of what he was doing when he and Perry murdered the Clutter family. While Perry had no real understanding of the severity of what he and Dick had done. Dicks sanity is again shown when he feels guilt for writing hot checks in his parents name because they would not be able to make the checks good. Perry on the other hand had no sympathy or remorse for what Dick had done. Perry's sanity is again put into question when he tells Dick about the nuns punishing him for wetting the bed. It is disturbing that these most average seeming people could be capable of such horrible crimes.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Dick was sane. Dick knew what he was doing and calculates everything precisely. Even the psychiatric analysis says that Dick “knew what he was doing and still went ahead with it” (Capote 294). The doctor also said that he “did not find the usual signs of organic brain damage” (Capote 294). There was no way that Dick was insane based on this information. The psychiatric analysis also states that Dick had a low self-esteem. Because Dick has a low self-esteem, I agree with Collin, Dick used Perry as a pawn to get his way.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I question about Perry’s sanity. When Perry left the house to put the portable radio and the binoculars in the house, he thought that he should have just left or hitch a ride. Base on this information, we know that Perry knew what he did was wrong but he still did it anyway because he "had to know what was going to happen." (Capote 240) But at the same time, he wasn’t fully sane. I agree with everyone that said that Perry wasn’t sane because of his past. How can you not be a bit insane? Perry’s past hit him hard.
Lowell Lee Andrews’ case scared me the most. Capote describes him like a normal student, going to school, having good grades and everything. I didn’t believe that such a student can think about killing his family. It makes me worry that maybe someone in the neighborhood or a student at school can be like Andrew.
The murderers committed the crime, they certainly have to pay for it. "Life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (Deuteronomy 19:21)
I believe the tests ran were accurate, Perry being insane, and Dick sane. The results of the psychiatric tests did not surprise nor scare me. I predicted for Perry to have some type of different result on the test because of all the stress that Capote put on his childhood and all the sympathy put towards him throughout the book. I didn't want to believe that he was indeed insane though, because I liked Perry as a character, very personable, but I knew it was coming. Dick, I felt was the motivator of the crime, he had purpose and drive which set him apart from Perry. I also predicted his test results accurrately. I think that what really made me think that he was sane was that he was the first to plead guilty, he knew he was guilty from the moment he walked into the Clutter house. But Perry, he didn't even know his motive and in a way just seemed to go wherever for whatever, no reason. Now the death penalty...I will have to say that I am for the death penalty, blood for blood, for the both of them. Even though Perry was declared "insane" he was always sane enough to make decisions for himself prior to that point. Capote has put into perspective that criminals are still people. People with facinating talents, charm, personality. We often thenk that criminals are a sort of alternate species, but in reality, we're all the same.
ReplyDeleteI'm so sorry again!
ReplyDelete-Emily Haban
(the prior post)
I believe that Dick was sane but Perry was not. Dick was the one that came up with the plan to steal from the Clutters, the master mind. Once Dick realized that there was no safe he needed all the witnesses murdered but Dick knew this was wrong. Dick knew the wrong doings would corrupt him and upset the ones that loved him. Unlike Dick, Perry had no true family or any sense of the consequences he would receive if he murdered the Clutters. Perry had no true motive to kill the Clutters. Perry felt "sympathetic" for the family but that same night he murdered all four members of the family. At such a young age Perry developed a hate for life and happiness which he eventually considered committing suicide in his last years of his life. I was not surprised that the psychiatric analysis of Perry was "insane" because of the awful childhood he had. I do not believe that death penalty should have taken place because it is as violent as the Clutter tragedy itself.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Dick was sane but Perry on the other hand was not. In the book Dr. Jones analysis says that, "he (Dick) seems to be in good contact with reality". Which shows that Dick knew exactly what was happening at the times of the murders. Reverend Post analysis of Perry shows that Perry had essentially lost all touch with reality. He had a very little awareness to what he was doing. The trauma in his life had thrown his perception of the world in a tail spin. I wasn't as surprised by the analysis of the other killers. You would venture to guess that the killers would have somewhat the same type of characteristics. My outlook on the death penalty hasn't changed. If your going to kill somebody, you should deserve the same treatment.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I believe that Dick was "Sane" to a degree but perry was deffinalty not. Dick always seamed to be ontop of situations and seamed realativly normal. The tests on both these men i believe were correct. Dick being sane and Perry being ranked "insane". The Reverend analysis of perry shows that perry was insane. He had gone through much in his life that caused his thoughts to be in another world. Again I state, the perceptions of the Characters given in the novel in my opinion were correct. I personally beleive in the death penalty. In my words it's Eye for an Eye
ReplyDeleteI too believe that the tests of the criminals were accurate, Dick was sane but Perry was not. Dick knew that what he was doing was wrong but proceeded anyway. Dick gave advanced thought to the robbing and death of the Clutters, he planned to leave "no witnesses". He came to the Clutter household the intention to rape Nancy Clutter. Perry on the other hand did go the Clutter household with the intention to murder them. Perry did not understand that what he was doing was wrong. He had an extremely rough life which I believe had an effect on his mental stability. As Dr. Jones stated Perry showed "definite signs of severe mental illness"(Capote 296). Before reading this book I thought of all violent killers as being worthy of the death penalty. The characterization of Perry and Dick made me see that some killers, like Perry, that are severely mentally ill, do not understand their wrongdoings and do not deserve the death penalty, but to be sent to a place where they can be helped mentally.
ReplyDeleteI keep noticing as I read my classmates' responses to this particular question, that almost everyone is under the impression that "Dick was sane, and Perry was not," and after reading the psychiatric analysis of the two, I can see how that would be a more popular answer. However, I must disagree. Yes, I believe Perry was without a doubt a sick man in the head. However, there is a quality in Dick that also puts his sanity to question. On the surface level, he is cold, calculating, logical; he plans his moves carefully and with a conscious decision. But as Leann previously stated, he had a "sickness" about him. The fact that he would steal the gum, that he was abnormally drawn to very young, beautiful women, with full intention to do horrible things to them. Was it simply because he was a murderer, cold to the core? I can't find it in myself to say that is the only reason. I believe both convicts suffered a certain insanity, though their particular degrees of insanity differ. Perry, in my opinion, is a full-on paranoid schizophrenic, whether the blame for that is his childhood, his incident, or simply something he was born with. Dick has no real excuse for his supposed "sickness", though there is the possibility that he, himself, was born into it. The psychiatric analysis did not surprise me, really, nor scare me. However it did leave lingering thoughts on the crime and death penalty. What if that psychiatrist had been allowed to finish his statement on Perry? I do not believe, were that the case, that the man would have been sentenced to death, despite the brutality of his crime, and I cannot say i fully support the judge's decision. I believe, with some help and further psychiatric assistance, Perry might have become a functioning member of society, in time. Not to say that Dick was unsalvageable, but he, more so than Perry, understood the gravity of his crimes. The penalty of death for these two was understandable, as they paid for the lives they took with their own, however once again I cannot say I agree with it. The question of the death penalty, however, is an argument much larger than myself, larger still than the confines of this novel, and is quite possibly a debate that will never reach a true end, as those on death row continue to take the fall for their actions.
ReplyDeleteB.Leggett
While reading "In Cold Blood", I came under the impression that both Dick and Perry were insane. However, by the time I reached the end of the book, I found out that Perry had in fact committed all four murders, and I realized that there was a real possibility that Dick was a normal person stuck with the wrong person at the wrong time. Capote's description of the killers contribute to my view because he describes them as normal people, albeit with a few quirks. I was especially touched by the description of Andrews, the student who killed his parents. To me, he seemed like a smart, respectable young man, someone you'd think would be studying quietly in the back of a library. He's not the type of person who would kill his parents without any type of remorse whatsoever. I think that adds to Andrews' persona of insanity, because he could very well be the kid next door. With Dick, that was the exact opposite. His seeming enthusiasm for violence and his muscular build would make him a viable suspect for any murder. However, it is revealed at the end of the book that he hadn't committed any murders. This surprised me because initially Capote had seemed to slate Dick as "Public Enemy No. 1" so to speak. But, had I read the descriptions of any of the men on death row before knowing their crimes, I would've written them off as normal everyday people. This scares me because an insane criminal could be sitting next to you on a bus, or cutting your grass, or doing your taxes.
ReplyDeleteI am in concurrence with the classification of the killers, Dick being "sane" and Perry being "insane", though Dick was "insane" to a degree. Dick was conscious and aware that what he did was wrong and sickening, while Perry seemed to not know why what he did was so horrible and fiendish. The way Capote led a way to be sympathetic to both killers makes me wonder how many people that seem "normal" can be cold blooded and vicious. The psychiatric analysis of Dick and Perry, and also the other murderers did not really shock me or frighten me either. The death penalty, as brutal as it is, is necessary. The death penalty ,though not ethical to some, is just. If someone you loved were to get murdered you would want the murderer to be punished, and the only way to keep them from once again murdering is to put there life down.
ReplyDeleteScott Mitchell
Perry, in my opinion, was not sane when he commited the crime. Because of Perry's childhoood, and scarred mind and body, the anaylisis was correct in saying he was the least bit sane. Dick, in my opinion, was sane when the crime was plotted and commited. Dick has no mental disorder, and a fairly ordinary childhood. The anaylisis on him was correct in saying he was totally sane in the recent events. The anaylisis of all the killers did surprise and scare me in some moments. The world my mind is in does not see how twisted other minds could be, and how some minds really are. This does not make me feel different about the death penalty. Not just for revenge, but for the safety of everyone else.
ReplyDeleteThough I would agree with a lot of people that Dick was sane while Perry was insane, I think it is a bit deeper than that. I believe that to kill somebody or plot a robbery, a person has to have a certain level of “insanity”. Perry was just on a higher level of insanity than Dick, though not insane enough to excuse what he did. Perry is obviously described as insane throughout the whole book. He has no feelings and easily murdered four people without feeling a thing. Dick, on the other hand, has more human emotions and knows that what they are doing is wrong. But I believe that deep inside, he is not what someone would call normal. He is a genius but is also very coldblooded, calling humans idiots; he does not think the same way other humans do. After reading In Cold Blood, and seeing a murder in the point of view of the murderers, my thoughts on the death penalty do not change. I still believe that no matter in what state of mind one is—unless one is so insane that the person cannot even talk or doesn’t even know what murder is—a person should be severely punished for murdering a human being.
ReplyDeleteJasmine N.
I agree with most of the previous posts, that Dick was sane and Perry was not. Dick was in control, he made a plan and he executed it. Perry, on the other hand, was just along for the ride, he had nothing else to do in life and no one else to believe in. Because of Perry’s traumatizing childhood, his perception of right and wrong were altered. Dick took advantage of Perry’s pent up rage and convinced Perry that killing the clutters was no big deal. I wasn’t very surprised by the descriptions of other killers, but it is unsettling the number of cold-blooded killers there were and how well they blend in with the rest of society. I still feel the same about violent crime and the death penalty. I don’t believe that the death penalty is a good solution to any problem. Yes, some people do bad things and make bad decisions, but I don’t understand how someone can justify killing someone else for being a murderer.
ReplyDelete-Tori J.
There are many definitions of the term "sane" which makes this question challenging and the feedback inevitably controversial. One definition states that being "sane" entails that the person is able to understand one's actions and distinguish right from wrong. In lieu of this definition, clearly both Dick and Perry were sane. Both murderers realized the pending decision to kill and were fully aware that it was wrong. If this was not so, no arguments would have ensued the night of the murders between the two criminals. There also would have been no hesitation to kill unless an omnipresent entity, such as a conscience(revealing wrong from right), was present. But another definition claims that being "sane" constitutes having a sound mind that is free from mental disturbances. In this clause, neither Dick nor Perry were sane. Both contained degrees of mental disturbance ranging from Dick's perverse exploits to Perry's confusion between his mentality and reality. This argument between sanity and insanity is subjective, but what is concrete is the fact that they both realized that they had commited murder. Regardless of whether Perry realized the repercussions or magnitude of his actions or not, he knew he was pulling the trigger and ending a life.
ReplyDeleteI think Dick was completely sane, he was totally aware of what he was doing and knew it was wrong. Perry on the other hand had to be insane. I think he probably had some kind of disorder because one part of him was compasionate but the other side was a savage killer. Dick wanted the witnesses to be killed but knew that it would upset his loved ones and mess with his mind. Perry had nothing to lose not even his sanity because that must have left him so time in the past. Perry had nobody to upset and he didnt care about it messing with him. Perry really is the definition of Psychotic.
ReplyDeleteI believe that perfectly sane people can do horrific and insane things. Keeping this belief in mind, I also believe that Dick and Perry were completely sane. Yes, Perry did experience terrible and appalling things all throughout his existence and I agree that his exposure to these things influenced several of his decisions later in life, but in no way was he insane. I think that sane people can convince themselves that something is right no matter how erroneous or unlawful it may be. Lowell Lee Andrews, for example, said that he felt nothing about murdering his entire family. He was simply "'doing what (he) had to do'"(Capote 313). Lowell Lee was wholly absorbed in thought, dreaming about becoming a gangster. With plenty of time to think about how to transform himself into something entirely different than what he actually was, Andrews turned something totally illogical (murder) into the "most sensible way of implementing the fantasies that possessed him" (Capote 312). Both Dick and Perry underwent this "possession". For Dick it was the extensive thought on robbing the Clutters. Perry was almost completely possessed by animosity toward authority and anyone he felt inferior to, which explains Perry murdering all four of the Clutters. Dick had a "normal" life and hadn't reached the point of possession that Perry had.
ReplyDeleteI think that Dick was totally and completely sane because, as was stated in the trial, he knew right from wrong and he knew that killing the Clutter family was the wrong thing to do. Dick knew that if he killed someone, he would upset the ones he loved. Perry, on the other hand, did not understand how bad his actions were that night he killed the Clutter family. When you look back on Perry's childhood, you can see that due to his distorted past he eventually ended up doing
ReplyDeletewhat he did with no remorse at all, when other would feel their guilt for what they had done.
Wesley Cannon
I think that both Dick and Perry were sane. Dick knew what he was doing was wrong as did Perry. The psychiatric diagnostic on Perry was ridiculous. Perry came from a broken home with a drunk for a mother and a dad that wasn’t around. Sure he got into trouble when he was a kid, but he had no one around him that would have demonstrated murder as a normal standard or behavior. If Perry knew that rape was wrong he could have certainly figured out that murder is a big no-no. The fact that any doctor could just declare someone insane and therefore possibly get them out of the punishment that they rightfully deserve infuriated me. If the justice system continues to have such a policy that could let every criminal that comes from a broken home or any other sob story childhood walk off scot free we’ll all be in serious trouble. I did not see how the “insane” examples mentioned in the analysis were anything like Perry and Dick’s murder because those were not premeditated like theirs was. My opinion about violent crime has not changed nor has my ideals about the death penalty. I believe that any violent crime should be punished based on only distinction murder, manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter not based on sanity clauses. Your mental state shouldn't matter, you still did it. And I still am a firm believer in life in prison without parole over the death penalty. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
ReplyDeleteBethany S.
I agree with almost everyone when I say that Dick was certainly sane and aware that the crimes were wrong. Perry on the other hand seemed to be perfectly normal in the beginning of the book, but as he develops as a character and we learn about his childhood we begin to think he may he insane. I do believe that Perry deserved the death penalty because he was aware that the crimes were not deemed acceptable or moral by his peers. Although the other cold blooded killers didn't seem "sane" in their descriptions on page 299 they did commit murder and something needs to be done in response to their crimes.
ReplyDeleteI believe that neither of the killers were one hundred percent sane. Although Dick did not kill any of the Clutter family members he was still mentally ill in some way because of his desire for adolescent woman. Eventually we discover that Dick also commited crimes because of the rush and thrill he gets from it. Someone who even thinks of killing someone else has some kind of mental deficiency. Unlike Dick, Perry had a very difficult childhood which accounts for his behavior. In the beginning of the story Perry does not want to kill. But as it [the story] progresses, Perry's need to feel accepted, which has haunted him his entire life, drives him to taking part in murdering the Clutters.
ReplyDeleteEmily, one aspect of being sane is being able to discern right from wrong. In Perry's confession he said that he knew murdering the Clutter's was morally unacceptable. Perry consciously sliced the throat of Mr. Clutter and pulled the trigger that killed the family. In his confession he said, "I liked him up until the moment I slit his throat." In all his statements, Perry reveals that he knew exactly what he was doing and that he was not in some other reality. Perry was, however, emotionally unstable- which was the true cause of the murders - not a misfunctioning brain. Perry said that his pain was building up and someone "just had to pay for it."
ReplyDeleteI do believe that they both of them were a little insane but Dick was definitley more in his right mind than Perry. The fact that Dick did realize and understand that what he did was horrible and wrong does show that he was completely aware from the start but I believe that he was a little insane cause I believe that anybody who could do such a terrible thing is not in their right mind. Perry was not sane in my opinion. The whole book he was talking about a giant parrot that would come and save him and even after he committed the murders he felt no remorse and couldn't understand why people thought was such a bad thing. The analysis of the other murderers did not surprise me very much but did disturb me. It's hard for me to believe that a person could be able to do such a thing. I believe that the death penalty is brutal but very necessary. If a man takes a life, his life should be taken in return.
ReplyDelete-Beaux Pace
Personally, I think Dick and Perry were both sane. I agree that adults can develop issues from traumatic childhoods, just as Perry did, but I don't think that could be used as an excuse for murder. Yes, Perry did show more remorse than Dick, but that could easily just be their contrasting personalities.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised by the very detailed descriptions of the murders. I could not even fathom having those kinds of memories on my conscience.
This novel did not change my view on the death penalty, as I have always disagreed with it. I don't see how taking a life from a killer could teach any kind of lesson. Death cannot be justified by death.
Amanda P.
After reading the book, it was clear that both Dick and Perry had a few mental issues. But as for the lines of sanity, I think the psychologist in the book nailed it when he said that Dick was of mental clarity and Perry was not.
ReplyDeleteDick was aware of what was going on and the gravity of the situation at the time it occurred, but being Dick, he tried to play the tough guy and make it not phaze him at all. He knew what he got into, and rode along anyway.
Perry, backed with his rather unfortunate upbringing, was a trainwreck waiting to happen. He clearly showed mental issues, and even saw a golden parrot as his guardian angel. I'm not a psychologist, but I'm pretty sure something is wrong with that. That, paired with the fact that he clearly had problems with obsessing over possessions, shows he has extensive psychological issues.
The psychiatric evaluations didn't really scare or surprise me a whole lot. Not to say that is was expected, but it wasn't anything mind boggling. As for my own stance on violent crime or the death penalty, it didn't really change, but the different view on the matter was quite enlightening. Not often do you try to see it from the view of the person who is destined to die.
Based on the brutality of their crimes and lack of any remorse for their actions, I do not believe that Dick and Perry were sane. To be sane is to be "free from mental derrangement," and clearly these criminals were not. Even further, the psychiatric analysis of both men revealed that the proffessional opinion leaned toward insane and showed that both had deep-rooted emotional abnormalitites and severe personality disorders.
ReplyDeleteThe psychiatric analysis more summed up what I thought of the criminals than surprised me. Throughout the novel and especially during their confessions, the criminals showed great emotional issues and signs of mental irregularity. However, Capote's citing of numerous other cases of premediated and unemotional murder such as Lowell Andrews' was unsettling. That someone could commit such atroucious acts, and on their own family, and feel nothing, was frightening and unfathomable to me.
Hearing of crimes like Andrews' is what continues to leave my stance on capital punishment undecided. One part of me feels that it is immoral to answer murder with murder, and another more human part knows that if such things had been done to my family, my definition of "immoral" would constrict only to include the criminals actions against my loved ones, and not my own retalitory actions against him or her.
I do not think Dick or Perry were sane. Perry was not sane because his emotional stability was conflicting with any mental stability he had. All of the things that occurred through his life made him mentally unstable. Dick on the other hand lived a normal life and was just a bad man. He knew what they where doing was wrong but decided to do it anyways. He was also the mastermind behind the plan making him the worse of the two. Considering the word sane means "of sound mind" neither were sane. Perry wasn't sane because he unstable mentally, and Dick wasn't sane because he did not have a sound mind. That’s why I do not think Dick or Perry were sane.
ReplyDeleteI think that Dick and Perry both were insane and had no morals. I think that if they planned out a murder, bragged about it, and carried it through then they obviously had no consideration for human beings. I think that the death penalty was not the right punishment for somebody that murdered a family in cold blood. They don't deserve to be put out of their own misery. They deserve to sit in a cell and think about what they've done for the rest of their lives.
ReplyDeleteI dont think Dick or Perry have an ounce psycological issues. Sure they killed innocent people in cold blood, but that doesnt make you psychotic, it simply makes you a lost, ignorant individual without morals or remorse. I understand Perry had a ruff childhood, but that doesnt excuse the crimes he has commited or make it exceptable. They knew what they went to the Clutter home to do, and they did exactly as Dick said they would. I will say that i dont believe in the death penalty. No man should have the right to take another mans life except God. Self defense is a totaly different subject, but the point im trying to make is that they dont deserve to die, but they do deserve to rot in prison. Killing a taking the life of a person is cruel, its even worse when you kill them without a motive or probble cause.
ReplyDeleteI Think That Dick & Perry Were On Different Levels Of Sanity . There Was Alot Of Characteristics Shown That Separated The Two . Perry Doesn't Have Any Morals Due To His Horrible Childhood . He Naturally Thinks That Everybody Hates Him . Perry Doesn't Have Any Compassion . & Dick Basically Doesn't Have Any Excuse On How He Acts . He Had A Pretty Good Life & HE Decided To Change His Future . Basically They Both Knew What They're Doing Which Shows Hints Of Insanity .
ReplyDelete- Camri Taylor .
In my opinion, Dick was sane. Perry, however, wasn't. Dick has no excuse for what he did - he was logical, and chose to act the way he did, never thinking of the consequences of his actions. Perry, on the other hand, had a traumatic childhood, which could easily have caused mental problems, and seemed completely detached from the real world. He didn't feel anything when he killed the Clutters. It was like he couldn't quite comprehend the damage he'd done, all of the lives he'd negatively affected.
ReplyDeleteHe lived in fantasy land. Literature, music, vocabulary, treasure hunting - those were his methods of escape from the real world, and they never seemed to really go away. He dreamed of golden parrot that would come and destroy who ever was hurting him - but it was almost like he still believed in the parrot when he woke up.
The description of these murderers did kind of scare me. It made them more real, not random people you just read about in the news. Society has painted a picture of the typical cold blooded murderer which probably isn't realistic at all.
This book didn't make me feel any different towards the death penalty. I'm still for it. Regardless of how the murderers feel, they took the lives of innocent people. They need to be punished.
Alecia H.
in my oppion i do not believe that perry was a true physico path, but i do not deny that their was a problem in his childhood development. a human will only react as a reflection of their parents, how they were raised, and to the scars placed apon his or her childhood memories. so hence forth when he saw at a young age, his 3 other siblings kill themselfs, he saw no wrong in the taking of a humans life.theirfore he was taught that their is no wrong. and to an added of the facts after confronting with socity and then having the feeling remorse, just proves that he learned the wrong in his doing and when that huge of a change accured he did not diserve to die. closley watched and monnotered,yes, but no, not death. on the other hand Dick is a completley different story their was nothing wrong with dicks mind he knew that what he was doing was wrong and just persisted into doing so, knowing the concequence of his action. and at his age, his mind would have been fully developed.putting him in the possion of knowing right from wrong. and does he diserve to die from that? maybe. maybe not, but who am i to decide rather one should live or die.im 16. altho i am not for nor againsed the death penalty so the story does not have much of an impact to sway my oppionin in any way.
ReplyDeleteIt made me think differently about the death penalty. The death penalty is saying that if someone "a killer" commits a murder that the person responsible should be killed. In this day and age if a killer is on death row they have the right to say they are mentaly disabled. Meaning they are crazy. In my opinion Perry was not crazy, he was as sane as any other human being. Dick on the other hand was insane. He only wanted to steal the clutters money and rape the daughter.
ReplyDeleteAshley Tullos
4th period
I believe Perry wasn't sane but dick was, Perry didn't relize he had slit mr. Clutters untell it was done and after that preceeded to kill the rest of the family when he was against it in the first place shows that he wasn't in the best state of mind when he committed the crime. Also Perry told the investigaters that while he was in the house he felt like he had no control over his body and felt like he was watching a movie and not the one in control of the outcome which again is another sign of mental illness escaping from reality. Dick on the hand had premeditated the murder and knew what it was he was doing and was in full control of his actions. I've always been against the death penality and this book didn't change my views.
ReplyDeleteNatasha Rutter
1st period
i belive that they were both, in there own way, sane and insane. Perry was in most ways a very sane man. he acted normal and what i got fromf his point of view tought normaly as well. his only insane quality, in my opinon, was that he felt no remorse for the clutter family after he killed them. Dick however did not act as a normel person does, althoug in my opinoin he did not act compleatly insane, adn he did have a insane set of mind. he ploted out the death of an entire family for the sake of money. they were both in very much controll of there actions and were fully aware of the consiquences of what they did, but neither had any feelings for the crime they comited. in my opoin this makes them insade to a lesser degre.
ReplyDelete-Blair Jarvis-
As for me the fact that other killers besides these two kill , and comit similer crims to musrder do not suprise at all. In this world there are acts of insainty all the time even ones that can not be seen with the human eye. I belive that the both were a littel insane but not completely gone.
ReplyDelete