The Classification of David Barnett and Robert Harris: Guilty or Not

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Premise 1
Premise 2
Premise 3
Premise 4
Premise 5
Conclusion

Introduction

The classification of David Barnett and Robert Harris as guilty or not should be determined by their actions during the crimes but by their hereditary and environmental characteristics, which they have limited control over.

Premise 1

Nobody should be blamed for being born vicious and not virtuous (Blatchford says: “Men should not be classified as good and bad, but as fortunate and unfortunate; that they should be pitied and not blamed; helped instead of being punished.” p. 460).

Premise 2

People’s actions are influenced by past experiences and inherited traits (Blatchford says: “But it is true, also, that heredity and environment account for every quality of human make-up.” p. 460).

Premise 3

Immoral actions are not a result of a lack of conscience but the role one’s environment played in developing the required conscience (Blatchford says: “A child is not born with a conscience; but with the rudiments of a conscience: the materials from which a conscience may or may not be developed.” P.462).

Premise 4

What David and Robert lacked, was a help to manage their bad environment and not proper morals, which are built on a good environment (Blatchford says: “and we shall always find that the man who rises above his environment has already been helped by the good environment to overcome bad environment” p.463).

Premise 5

Free will during a crime is determined by one’s heredity and environment, and not their conscience (Blatchford says: “When a man says his will is free, he means that he is free of all control or interference: that it can overrule heredity and environment.”).

Conclusion

David Barnett and Robert Harris are not guilty (Blatchford p. 472).

Click Here To Order Now!