Life of the Defendant

One particular point I liked in the book When the State Kills, is in Chapter 4 when the author is discussing the capital case of William Brooks, who was found guilty of the rape and murder of Jeannine Galloway. The chapter narrates the trial but then comes to the penalty phase where the life of the defendant is discussed. Here we learn of the repeated abuse of the defendant by his father and stepfather that in turn created an angry man. The attorney for the defendant tries to put the crime in context by victimizing the defendant to try and sway the jury to discard the death penalty in sentencing. I actually thought the defense did well to bring up the childhood of the defendant because it is relevant to the case in that it makes him a victim and therefore might make the jury feel it unnecessary to add further pain. I think it is important to understand why someone might commit a crime because most violent criminals come from violent circumstances. Where is the Justice for them? I am not saying that their crimes are justified but at least we know where they are coming from. If they came from bad homes then they probably didn’t learn healthy ways to channel anger or other emotions. Is it really necessary to sentence them to death instead of a lifetime in prison? I think the defense attorney was right in saying, “He is responsible for what he did. That’s why we are here, why we are at this point. That’s been decided…Mitigating evidence is offered to help you understand what he did and why, not to excuse or justify it.”