I don’t think it’s completely irrelevant, but I do think that for the most part, it shouldn’t be considered. I think you’d have to take it on a case by case basis.
I say there should be very little difference between brutal homicide punishments. Someone lost something so precious (life) and they can never get it back. I don’t see how a bad childhood would effect the punishment; unless the dead person was the abuser in the bad childhood.
My father grew in in a household of such horrific abuse I don’t even want to get into the things he’s told me. His sisters were sexually abused. His father, my grandfather, was an odious drunk. They were always short of money and my Dad and his siblings were treated like dogs.
Strangely, since leaving home he has never been out of work for a single day, got a degree, started his own business, made lots of money, never hit his wife or abused his kids, and now lives in luxury with his dogs and his swimming pool, where he is regularly visited by his loving children. He’s never been so much as arrested. He doesn’t even cheat on his taxes.
So explain to me why a bad childhood is an excuse.
I think it’s fairly dubious defence to begin with as your background can affect you in different ways.
For instance someone might say, “My father was an alcoholic, my mother was an alcoholic, and my big brother was too. Is it any wonder I’ ve turned out an alcoholic?”
But is it any more implausible for someone to say, “My family were all alcoholics so I got to see the damage it can do firsthand -this perhaps makes me extremely puritanical as regards drink.”
It’s also heavily dependent on the social prejudices of the judge and the jury. For instance how many would be sympathetic to the child of a multi-millionaire who was ignored by his parents and left to the care of paid childminders, thus desensitising him to his fellow man and causing him to commit a murder?
I suspect such a plea would be held in the same esteem as a Michael Jackson Daycare Centre (and rightly so), but it is no less valid a defence. Of course rich people don’t know real suffering, do they? No, only the “good” pleas for mercy on grounds of the criminal’s sad childhood should be considered.
If justice becomes a matter of whether the “moral majority” like the defendant, then the Free People’s Democratic Republic is not far around the corner. I may be exaggerating a little, but in my view “social justice” and justice are exclusive goals.
I think it’s fairly dubious defence to begin with as your background can affect you in different ways.
For instance someone might say, “My father was an alcoholic, my mother was an alcoholic, and my big brother was too. Is it any wonder I’ ve turned out an alcoholic?”
But is it any more implausible for someone to say, “My family were all alcoholics so I got to see the damage it can do firsthand -this perhaps makes me extremely puritanical as regards drink.”
It’s also heavily dependent on the social prejudices of the judge and the jury. For instance how many would be sympathetic to the child of a multi-millionaire who was ignored by his parents and left to the care of paid childminders, thus desensitising him to his fellow man and causing him to commit a murder?
I suspect such a plea would be held in the same esteem as a Michael Jackson Daycare Centre (and rightly so), but it is no less valid a defence. Of course rich people don’t know real suffering, do they? No, only the “good” pleas for mercy on grounds of the criminal’s sad childhood should be considered.
If justice becomes a matter of whether the “moral majority” like the defendant, then the Free People’s Democratic Republic is not far around the corner. I may be exaggerating a little, but in my view “social justice” and justice are mutually exclusive goals.
Welcome to the SDMB, Duncan. You can’t edit or delete posts anywhere on this message board. Given how contentious arguements can get around here, that’s a good thing. You said,
Actually, an old love of mine did something very similar. In his early 20’s, he used to sit back with a buddy after work and knock back a six-pack of beer until one day he realized that ever adult male on his father’s side of the family was an alcoholic and he didn’t want to become one.
My gut reaction to the OP is that it shouldn’t be a consideration. Regardless of what circumstances people are brought up in, they still have free will. Also, using a bad childhood as justification for bad behaviour does a disservice to those who had equally bad childhoods but did not choose to become criminals.
Nah, no matter horrible and depraved a person’s childhood, we shouldn’t consider it. That would involve like, mercy and justice and … thinking. That sort of thing.
Surely you know that an anecdote is not proof of anything.
"People locked behind bars or on probation are twice as likely to have been victims of childhood abuse as the general population, according to a study released today by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. " Study: Abused Kids More Likely to Commit Crime, Hans H. Chen, APBnews.com, April 11, 1999.
If such an individual were to get so far as a sentencing phase, their childhood would be largely irrelevant. It would be relevant pre, and possibly during, trial if they were to go with a mental disease/defect defense. But if they get as far as sentencing, that means that they are NOT legally insane, and therefore, knew the difference between right and wrong.
That’s my opinion, anyway. I’m sure some of you law-talkin’ folks out there can dispute me.
um, no. That sort of stuff is relevant during sentencing. Defense lawyers use it all the time. Different from question of sanity. These are mitigating factors.
Actually, I see it as the reverse: I wouldn’t care about the person’s past, dysfunctional or otherwise, in the trial; I would just care about “what evidence indicates this person committed this crime?”. I would be willing to listen in the sentencing phase, howver, as it helps answer “how severe should the punishment be? Can this person distinguish right from wrong? Can s/he be rehabilitated? Can reliable psychiatric evidence indicate any reason for clemency?”
Wouldn’t such a practice give a sort of carte blanche to people with bad childhoods to go out and commit crimes? (“Eh, I’ll get off wasy if I get caught – I’ll just cry to the judge about how my father beat me, etc.”)
Because I’m interested in how it was determined whether the prisoners or probationers were abused and what the definition of “abuse” was. It seems to me that it would have to be based on self-reports. Which is not a particularly reliable method when there might be a benefit (such as leniency) to claiming past abuse. I work in the criminal justice system and see plenty of people who don’t have a pre-existing drug history (long rap sheets with no drug arrests, on parole without ever testing positive) claiming to be drug addicts in order to be sentenced to a drug program rather than jail time for non-drug related crimes.
As for bringing it up during the sentencing, I wouldn’t prohibit it, but I wouldn’t find it relevant,even as mitigation except in the most extreme cases of abuse. Because it does a disservice to others who have endured the same abuse, but not committed a crime.Not because I don’t want to consider justice, but because
justice is often not the same as leniency.
A lousy childhood may be a reason for a person’s behaviour.
It is not an excuse.
If you kill someone, YOU did it. YOU need to face the consequenses of YOUR actions.
This nation has turned into a society of denial for personal accountibility. I am of the opinion that this is a BAD thing. A VERY bad thing.
If you had a bad childhood, I feel so sorry for you. My heart aches for you. If I know you, I am praying for you. If you need help and it is within my power, I will GIVE it to you.
BUT…if you CHOOSE to act out on your disfunctional childhood, I will not excuse you from culpability for your actions. If YOU understand that what you were doing is/was wrong, you will get no pleas for a lesser sentence from me.
Just because wrong was done to YOU, it does not mean that it is acceptible for YOU to do wrong to others.
Everyone, no matter WHAT their experiences in the past, has the responsibility for their actions. To be trite, “Only do the crime if you are willing to do the time.”
Ah, a classic example of a new social phenom – the bleeding heart conservative. Whereas “bleeding heart liberals” generally seek clemency or mercy for some criminals out of their sympathy for the hard times these criminals have as kids, bleeding heart conservatives cite their deeply felt sympathy and concern for criminals as they seek to maximize sanctions against them.
Bleeding heart conservatives express their sorrow for the criminals sad fate even as they crush a metaphorical boot into the criminal’s face.
It’s an interesting phenom, to say the least. Kinda funny in a way.
The offender was actually given drugs such as Acid when he was in grade school. The crime he committed was incredibley violent…attempted murder…at this point he was 19 years old and had a serious drinking and drug habit.
Personally…my view on this, is that the offender needs to go through a series of psychiatric evaluations…not the usual game that is played between the prosecutor and the defense.
I think that if this sort of testing is done based on the actual problem rather than the games played in the court with high emotion… then perhaps we might be able to avoid putting people in prison for such long sentences as they evolve into even more ugly creatures than what they were due to their own history of being “victim”
I think this is too much for our system…and quite frankly I dont believe people care enough, or are willing to make such effort for what they consider “the worthless lower class”…because we know often that is where the violence is coming from
…ahh what a cynic i am.