1. The mitigating circumstances of the crimes committed were that both men involved were not mentally stable at any point in their lives. The fact that they raped these girls and lit them on fire while they were still alive makes this crime heinous and absolutely abominable. The mitigating circumstances do not help defray the heinous nature of the crimes committed at all. These crimes were too nasty and disturbing and completely unthinkable for these circumstances to make them any less.
2. The prosecutors wanted to bring the defendants to trial because they wanted the criminals to get the death penalty, and that couldn't happen without a trial. The prosecutors and other people who wanted them dead couldn't bare to pass up the chance to execute these two men. The benefits of accepting the guilty peas included life in prison without parole. A negative effect of going to trial and seeking the death penalty is that is the prosecution doesn't win and the judge does not give them the death penalty, then the two men could walk free.
3. In cases like these, mental health issues play a big role. Both men in this case had previous mental problems and were never mentally stable. Some think that it was their mental health that allowed them to commit such a terrible crime. Society has a hard task at hand with balancing punitive justice and our supporting mental health system. At what point do we stop letting criminals go just because they have a mental illness to "justify" their actions? I think it depends on the crime at hand and sometimes if it is bad enough, then the law should override our "supportive mental health system" and punish the criminals who are a threat to society and could put people in danger.
No comments:
Post a Comment