Read the passage.

In 1924, Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb were convicted of killing a fourteen-year-old neighbor boy. Leopold and Loeb were in their late teens, came from wealthy families, and attended college. They wanted to commit the “perfect crime.” Attorney Clarence Darrow, a lifetime opponent of the death penalty, was their defense attorney.

excerpt from Clarence Darrow’s closing argument in Illinois v. Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, August 22–25, 1924

And then came the planning for this crime. Murder was the least part of it; to kidnap and get the money, and kill in connection with it; that was the childish scheme growing up in these childish minds. And they had it in mind for five or six months, planning what? Planning where every step was foolish and childish, acts that could have been planned in an hour or a day; planning this, and then planning that, changing this and changing that; the weird actions of two mad brains.

Based on this excerpt, what is the speaker's viewpoint on the crime?

He thinks it was unimportant.

He thinks it was unforgivable.

He thinks it was pathetic.

He thinks it was clever.

The speaker , the attorney, wants to convince the audience that the crime was the result of miserable or poor mental conditions -"..the weird actions of two mad brains."- For the speaker, the two teenage boys were the victims of their own troubled minds; they just followed their childish and weird impulses- "...Planning where every step was foolish and childish, .... been planned in an hour or a day;.."

These options are not right:

-He thinks it was unimportant (Ths speaker thinks it was miserable. He thinks the murder was unimportant: "... the least part of it...")

-He thinks it was unforgivable. ( The attorney does not refer to any memory effect).

-He thinks it was clever. ( On the contrary, he thinks it was foolish. The crime was committed by childish and troubled brains).