In Cold Blood

Because Truman Capote did such a great job recreating and retelling the details, history and outcome of the crime and the criminal investigation, it is possible to treat In Cold Blood like a case study in criminology.  It is possible to examine the book and apply various theories of crime to Dick and Perry, and to try and use their actions to prove or disprove the various crimes.  Truman Capote presents enough background of the criminals and the victims, the context of the location, and the motivations and personalities of Dick and Perry to conclude that Capote wants to use In Cold Blood to prove that this crime was premeditated and is a clear example of the Choice Theory/Rational Choice Theory of Crime.

Ultimately, the Rational Choice Theory says that people consciously decided to commit crimes, and that is exactly the scene that Capote presents (Criminology 1).  One thing that Truman Capote does very well in Cold Blood is set the scene of the crime.  He describes the part of the county where Holcomb is located with great detail and vivid language, and really gives the reader an understanding of what living there must be like.  However, this is the way Capote makes the reader use his or her reason to deduce that Dick and Perry didn’t commit the crime because of all the detail he presents about the background and the environment, but only because of their character and the choices that they make.

Capote writes, “Holcomb, too, can be seen from great distances. Not that there's much to see simply an aimless congregation of buildings divided in the center by the mainline tracks of the Santa Fe Railroad, a haphazard hamlet bounded on the south by a brown stretch of the Arkansas River (Capote, 3).  He describes how the bank closed in 1933, and how the town never really blossomed into anything. The men who live there are described as all dressing and acting in a similar way, a “far west” conformity of Stetson hats, cowboy boots and plain denim jeans (Capote 3).

This vivid description of the town of Holcomb, and the area around it is important because this part of the text serves two purposes.  It describes the scene of the crime and describes the context of the victims and of the murderers.  Certain theories of crime prioritize the context and environment of people, saying that the environment determines the criminal’s action, and their decision to turn to crime.  Thus, Capote is providing information which may very well help to explain why the horrible crime occurred in the first place.

Capote’s inclusion of the description of Holcomb also helps provide a potential motive for the crime, as no matter how boring the town has “a circumstance that the appearance of the community otherwise camouflages: that the…[residents] are, in general, a prosperous people (Capote 4).  Most of the residents of this town without a bank as Capote tells us in the second paragraph of the book, “have done well; money has been made not from farming alone but also from the exploitation of plentiful natural gas resources, and its acquisition is reflected in the new school, the comfortable interiors of the farmhouses, the steep and swollen grain elevators” (Capote 4-5).

Thus, Capote has provided the context and environment for the criminals and for the victims.  The victims we learn, come from a wealthy town, and the residents of the areas of Kansas that surround it, know this.  And there is a reason Capote told us the town does not have a bank in the second paragraph.

Not only does it set up a surprise that the town is rich, it leads to the question of, where do these wealthy people keep their money if the town doesn’t have a bank.  Do they keep their money in their richly furnished homes?  Do they have safes in their houses, or do they keep the money under the mattress?  And we learn that Herbert Clutter was well known in the area.  All of this helps to establish a motive for the crime, which speaks to several theories of criminology.

The reader learns that the Clutter’s lived far from any other people.  At this point, Capote introduces the other main characters of the story, Perry and Dick, the two killers.  We hear they were meeting to make “a score” (Capote 9).  This indicates that the crime, or at least the robbery was meditated.  This is further reinforced by Dick’s repeating the phrase “no witnesses” (Capote 22).  Using that phrase over and over indicates that Dick at least, was willing to kill.

That Dick even uses the phrase when the pair are buying stockings and rope, and other supplies for the ‘operation’ as they called it, further underlines Dick’s willingness to use violence, and although Perry may not have planned to use violence, these exchanges make it much harder for Perry to viably claim he did not know violence was part of the plan.  And the word operation is carefully chosen, again to indicate premeditation.  Dick even goes as far as saying there might be as many as 12 people at the house, and “the only sure thing is every one of them has got to go” (Capote 23).  Capote does not provide any evidence that Perry argued against these statements, and it would be hard to make a jury or court believe one didn’t understand them.

They are both physically described as both somewhat misshapen, and in good shape but with deformities underneath.  These descriptions of a problematic figure or image or body can be used to justify an internal theory of crime; of crime being something internal to a person, not the result of their environment or upbringing, but of their ‘twisted’ and deformed internal characteristics.  It is very smart the way Capote bookends descriptions of the planning of the crime with environment on one end and physical description the other end.  This leaves the question of whether nature of nurture is responsible (learned or inborn) for the two men to commit the crime.  In a sense, Capote is providing evidence that although the Rational Choice theory is the primary cause, the personality of these two criminals can also provide evidence of the Latent Trait Theory which says that there is some sort of inborn trait which the person has always had, and which is the cause of their criminal behavior (Criminology 2).

Dick’s willingness to think about killing as many as 12 people puts him in another category, that of the mass murderer of psychopath.  Anyone who can think calmly of killing 12 people is probably a psychopath.  This does not mean they are crazy or can use an insanity defense, but rather that they are the worst sort of criminal.  A psychopath is a sort of internal trait, as opposed to external, criminal, although the environment might make them even worse.

Although Dick and Perry had spent time in the penitentiary before, Capote doesn’t present that as the cause of this crime.  But when taken with Dick’s psychopathic nature, it makes Dick seem as a naturally violent criminal who has no redeeming values.  The fact that Dick has a good job as a mechanic, making $60 a week, a lot of money back then, is further proof that the environment does not seem to be the cause of Perry’s desire to do great violence.

The text does indicate that Perry fell under the spell of “The brilliant Willie Jay while in the State Penitentiary at Lansing” (Capote 26). Finding another prisoner brilliant is not usually a good sign that an inmate has been rehabilitated while in jail. In the description of the relationship of Perry and Willie Jay, the reader is given a sense of Perry’s background before he committed his first crimes, and the ultimate sense is that of wasted potential and an easily influenced person.  Perry does not possess the dark, violent psychopathic nature of Dick, or so it seems at first.  Rather, the presentation of Perry is one of a follower, one easily lead, especially with promises of adventure and treasure, both of which Dick’s scheme presents to him.  But again, the reader does not see Perry arguing with Dick about the plan to make sure there are no witnesses.

This sense of Perry as an innocent is lost, and the reader discovers that he too may be a psychopath, or at least a cold-blooded killer without regard for human life when Capote describes how Perry had “simply for the hell of it," he had killed a colored man in Las Vegas beaten him to death with a bicycle chain (Capote 33).  Thus, the reader learns why Perry didn’t speak out against Dick’s willingness to kill, as Perry had killed in the past himself.  Although this story appears to have been faked, the reader learns that Perry faked it by choice, which is further evidence of the rational theory.  Not only that, but Perry’s ploy works, as Dick decided to take Perry on the “score” because the story makes him believe Perry is a cold-blooded killer. Again, this shows reason at work, and reason leads to the Rational Choice Theory of Crime.

When Capote writes, “Dick became convinced that Perry was that rarity, "a natural killer" absolutely sane, but conscienceless, and capable of dealing, with or without motive, the coldest blooded deathblows. It was Dick's theory that such a gift could, under his supervision, be profitably exploited”, there seems to be little room for doubt we are dealing with two deviant individuals, and not simply someone who turned to crime because of bad breaks in life, or because of poverty, or to feed their family.  This is a group of calculating killers.  To be able to discuss and plan out murder rationally like this is a sign of a die-hard criminality.

After the killing, Capote starts to include Perry’s dialogue and thoughts about the killing.  Dick, on the other hand, feels absolutely ok with what he did.  He feels normal, and the killings just made him feel a bit smarter than the average person (Capote 62).  This reinforces Dick’s image as a psychopath.  Perry, however, keeps thinking there must be something wrong with someone who could do such a thing as they did (Capote 63).  Capote does not present this as a feeling of guilt, but as part of the overall weirdness of Perry.  Perry may very well be slightly crazy.  Again, Capote does not present this as a defense, but rather as an explanation for how Perry could do what he does in the narrative.

This image of the killing bringing out the truly disturbed nature of their characters is reinforced when Perry says he wishes that “my sister hid been in that house. Dick had laughed and confessed to a similar yearning: I keep thinking what fun if my second wife had been there. Her, and all her goddam family” (Capote 81).  There is no sigh of regret, or guilt, or normal human feelings, just more wish fulfillment and pleasure in violence.  Perry’s sister confirms this when she tells the police that she is afraid of Perry, and that “the rights of other people mean nothing to Perry (Capote 102).

When the break in the case finally came, by the police catching Dick’s former cell mater visiting the crime scene, the reader gets a description of how the plot was formed in the cells of Lansing State Prison in Kansas.  The reader learns that “That's about all you do hear: what a fellow's going to do when he gets out the holdups and robberies and so forth. It's nothing but brag, mostly “(Capote 91).  This gives an image of prison as a learning grounds, a college for criminals, if you will.

When the police question Dick and ask him about his family the environmental theory of crime is further reduced as a possibility, from the way Dick describes his family.  The detectives also note how easily Dick lies.  The combination of these two facts presented in the same section make clear that Capote feels the crime originated in Dick and Perry, not in their environment.  Even though the plan is hatched in jail, jail is not presented in a way that makes it the cause either.  The cause is presented as originating with Dick and easily accepted by Perry.  Thus Capote, while creating a very accurate description of the environment, does not place the origin of the crime in the various sociological theories which rely on environment to make their case.

As Dick and Perry recount the murders, the reader is presented with one least image of the deep, internal criminality of the pair, as both try to pin the crime on the other, and both think to themselves that they should have killed the other person as a way to protect themselves from facing this exact moment.  Dick also regrets not killing his cellmate who told him about the Cutters, and recounts how he planned to “shiv him” but never had the chance to do so.  Once again, Capote is closing the door on sociological theories of this crime.

This is not to say Capote wrote In Cold Blood to disprove sociological theories of crime or murder.  Rather, I believe, as the title of the book makes clear, he wanted to establish for history that this particular murder was not the result of poverty, or of bad schools or bad families, or even the fault of the criminal justice system.  Rather, In Cold Blood sets out to prove that the murders were the premeditated actions of two deeply disturbed individuals; individuals who come as close to ‘natural’ criminal as one can imagine.  Both at times seem to by psychopaths, or criminally deviant.  Again, Capote did not seek to provide them an argument to claim innocent by way of insanity.  Rather, the murders are the rational acts of deeply disturbed individuals who have no moral or ethical problem with killing other human beings.

According to the Class Lecture/Handout “Criminology: Theories of Crime” the main theory of crime that Truman Capote puts forward In Cold Blood is the Choice Theory or Rational Choice Theory which states that “individuals choose to commit crime, looking at the opportunities before them, weighing the decision to proceed or not” (Criminology, 1).  There is little doubt that, although Capote describes the environment of Dick and Perry, describes their time in jail, and describes their families, he does so to show that there was no connection between any of those things and the crimes that Dick and Perry commit.

In Cold Blood demonstrates that nothing influenced Dick and Perry but their own choices.  They selected the target because they believed they would find tens of thousands of dollars there.  But again, the money was a goal to use to live a life of leisure in Mexico, it was not to support a family or escape poverty.  Therefore, the mention of the money as a motive does not provide evidence of the Social Structure Theory which states that “economic class position is a primary cause of crime: (Criminology, 1).  In Cold Blood offers pages and pages of proof that economic class was not the cause.  Dick and Perry were not out to attack a rich person because of class envy, nor were they trying to escape poverty.  The money was yet another rational choice made by the two murderers.

They purchased rope, tape and other materials to bind the victims.  As Capote points out in chilling prose, they had decided before hand they would kill the victims to avoid the chance of leaving any witnesses.  They were willing to kill up to a dozen people.  All of this indicates they were making choices.

Even everything they did after the murders were proof that they were making rational choices.  They went to Mexico to hide, but they didn’t stay there because they couldn’t make enough money, and came back to America, yet another rational choice.  They crime spree they went on, passing bad checks, is likewise a crime of rational choice and planning.

Even the way Dick and Perry handle their arrest, their court case, and their many appeals prove they are always acting in a rational manner, and always attempting to act in their self-interest.  Once could even argue that their willingness to talk to Truman Capote indicates a rational self-interest, as they may have hoped working with a famous writer could turn opinion in their favor, or at least get them a stay of their execution.

Indeed, the number of times they attempted to appeal their conviction, and especially their death sentence, is a perfect example of rational self-interest.  A true psychopath, as has been seen many times in American history doesn’t care about a death sentence, and nothing in their defense attempted to demonstrate any of the other theories of crime to get them leniency.  After reading In Cold Blood there is little doubt that Dick and Perry were acting rationally, and that the book proves the Rational Theory of crime.

Oddly, Truman Capote includes the tale of two other murderers at the end of In True Blood.  However, it is only at first reading that this tale seems out of place.  The story Truman Capote tells of George Ronald York and James Douglas Latham are meant to serve as evidence to the reader the Capote’s decision about Dick and Perry in In Cold Blood is accurate.  The reader might wonder if Truman Capote was correctly reading the characters of Dick and Perry, by presenting them as a mix of internal characteristic, psychopathic behavior and rational choice theory.

However, of George Ronald York and James Douglas Latham are an almost exact copy of the type of criminals Dick and Perry are.  They have a psychopath’s willingness to kill without feeling or regard for human life.  Indeed, York and Latham call killing someone doing them a favor (Capote 186). Thus, there is something internal to them, some trait or characteristic that makes them act this way.  But, like Capote does with Dick and Perry, he goes out of his way to stress they are not “insane” and thus not guilty by reason of insanity.  Rather, like Dick and Perry, of George Ronald York and James Douglas Latham methodically plot out and plan their murders; they are clearly choosing to kill their victims.

Like Dick and Perry, of George Ronald York and James Douglas Latham may seem crazy to a normal person, because of their ability to kill in cold blood, but the truly chilling thing about them is that they are committing these murders rationally and by choice. Thus, the inclusion of George Ronald York and James Douglas Latham in the final pages of In Cold Blood is Capote’s last bit of evidence that his presentation of the character and criminality of Dick and Perry are correct.

The last thing to consider in In Cold Blood is the execution scene.  From the depiction of the witnesses at the hanging, and by the behavior of Dick and Perry, who actually shake the hands of the detectives and thank them for bringing them to the gallows, we see rational choice in action.  In their last moment, Dick and Perry try to make the state’s execution of them not something that the state does to them, but something that was the result and consequences of their actions.  They chose to do the crime; they chose to be executed.  That is the meaning of the thank you.  They are thanking the state for recognizing them as free individuals who controlled their own lives, as strange as that may seem to the reader.

Works Cited

Capote, Truman.  In Cold Blood. New York: Penguin, 1966.

Class Handout.  “Criminology: Theories of Crime”. March, 2017.