That doesn't make sense, when it's those very emotions that may have led to the crime being committed. The circumstances of the event must be taken into consideration.
Eh? If we considered and mitigated crimes based on the emotions that led to them, where will we be? What message are we sending to society. What about self control and accountability for our actions?
So a man gets fired, he has house, wife and small children and bills. He is emotionally depressed and anguished, so he loads up a gun goes back to work, kills his boss who fired him and a few co workers who did not get fired. And what do we say? We should understood his "emotions that led to the crime" so let's mitigate?
A baby bawling all night non stop, the mother is out of her mind, tired, sleepy, exhausted from the bawling. She stifle the baby to hush it. We should understand "the emotions that led to the crime being committed" and mitigate?
A man's mother dies, he feels the doctors and nurses did not do enough to save his mother. He is distraught, upset, sad, depressed. He loads up goes to the hospital and kills the doctor the same day he buries his mother. We should also understand "the emotions that led to the crime being committed" and mitigate?
Man gets divorced, Judge makes him pay alimony and a lot of his hard earn money to his ex wife, who is now living it up on ex-husband's money and have new men in her life (sometimes in front of the children). Husband is emotionally upset, depressed, and he stabs her and her man. He also kills the Judge who rules on the divorce case. We should also understand "the emotions that led to the crime being committed" and mitigate?
Crimes of passion as a defense are becoming obsolete. Lawyers will always try to use it as defense. But when victims are blamed and criminals get lesser sentences because of uncontrolled rage and emotional havoc it is not right. And society needs to stop supporting this to encourage people to become more responsible.
|
|