Should a murderer's bad childhood be concidered in his punnishment?

Great Debates
21

I personally rather liked what Scotticher said – msmith’s point that one is responsible for one’s actions before a court of law is significant here.

Murder is by definition a crime of motive – it involves premeditation, or at a minimum reckless disregard for human life in the commission of another felony. Otherwise it’s manslaughter.

Hence a dysfunctional childhood is a mitigating factor – not an exculpating factor. If the man is capable of knowing right from wrong in the legal sense, he can form the intention of committing murder, and carry it out. Therefore, he would be guilty of murder after trial. However, the presumption that the abstract “reasonable man” is able to grasp the right of his fellow man to live unmolested by him is weakened by the abused-as-a-child murderer’s presumable sociopathy – his weak grasp on the rights of his fellow man.

Take a parallel with a mentally deficient person – while he may be capable of killing another, he’s not capable of premeditation of the “in cold blood” sort. Therefore, his killing of another is punishable as manslaughter, not murder.

When one suggests mitigating factors, one is not attempting to “feel sorry for the criminal” in the sense of excusing his guilt; one is rather trying to weigh factors affecting what punishment is just (not saying that no punishment should be imposed). Our hypothetical sociopathic killer might have committed a rape-murder and dismembered the corpse, which would be an aggravating factor, also to be weighed into the judgment.

I recently read a bunch of devotionals written by a man in prison in Oklahoma for murder. He met almost precisely the description hypothecated in the OP, save that it was not a double homicide, and was committed in his late teens. Through quite a lot of work on the parts of himself and others, he came to grasp the evilness of his crime and his life to that point, and seriously reformed his life – expecting to spend the rest of it in prison, but intending to make the best of what was left as partial expiation for his crime. He volunteered to speak to groups of tough kids, taken there by guards, exhorting them not to make the mistake he did – and using their language to them. He was recently released on parole – did not expect it, in view of his crime, but the parole board was convinced (as am I and were the editors of Forward Day by Day, for which he wrote) that he was a changed man, and released him on a strict parole. When last he wrote, he was full of plans for the future and what good he could do in the world. I’m praying for him to be able to hold to his high intentions in “the real world.”

The typical murderer has removed one life from Earth’s resources of humanity. The question is, is it in society’s best interests to remove him as well, or is he one of those who can be turned to the doing of good rather than evil? It’s always a tough question, and easy to second-guess. But I use this case as a counter-example to the stereotype of the murder who is totally evil, with no good in him.

22

That’s the bottom line

23

Pardon me for a mild flame in GD, but it is truly ironic that you would post this comment.

24

I believe that violent criminals should be removed (probably permantly) from the mainstream population. I also think that many of them psychically damaged beyond repair, but I get annoyed at callous dismissals of childhood abuse as having anything to do with who these people are. It’s uncomfortable to contemplate, but moral character may have as much to do luck as anything else.
I think the “personal responsibility” mantra is kind of cowardly and mindless. It’s a cheap way not to have to evaluate certain assumptions that may not be as solid as we wish them to be. For instance, we like to think that people can “choose” whethrer to be good or bad, but maybe, just maybe, this isn’t the case. It is really only a matter of faith that such a thing as “free will” exists. The truth is that human behaviour is much more predictable than we like to give it credit for. Subjecting kids to violence creates violent kids. If we’re going to deny that abuse has any causal effect on violent behaviour then we have to say that it is just an extraordinary coincidence that so many violent criminals were abused as children. It is extermely easy to dismiss such abuse as “excuse” making when we have never been abused ourselves. How the hell do we know how we would respond to an utterly loveless childhood? I don’t mean just crappy, I mean a profoundly, pathologically sick and abusive upbringing. Do you think you would still be “good” in spite of it? How do you know? What’s so special about you that you would be different?

If we do nothing else, we should learn from such individual the consequences of child abuse can have ramifications for many more people than just the individual child.

25

Diogenes the Cynic,
First, I’d really like a cite for your statement that “Subjecting kids to violence creates violent kids”. That happens sometimes but some kids who encounter violence grow up to be productive members of society. I ask for a cite because I believe that most kids who are abused grow up to be reasonable adults.

Second, you say “I think the “personal responsibility” mantra is kind of cowardly and mindless. It’s a cheap way not to have to evaluate certain assumptions that may not be as solid as we wish them to be. For instance, we like to think that people can “choose” whethrer to be good or bad, but maybe, just maybe, this isn’t the case.”. If you toss personal responsibility out the window then no one is responsable for their actions and no justice can be done. If that is what you believe then any act by any person can be justified due to fate or God or whatever.

Third, I know a lot about serial killers. While a lot of serial killers were abused as kids some were not. Off the top of my head I remember that Dahlmer, Gacy and Bundy had great childhoods. How can you fit them into your scheme?

I think that childhood abuse is a very bad thing but, at the same time, a whole lot of kids move on. If all the abused kids turned into killers we’d have blood running down the streets.

Slee

26

Dahmer and Gacy were both physically abused as children. You need to do a little more reading.

I did say violent people should be removed from society, I just don’t really believe in free will. I think people just do what they’re programmed to do. This doesn’t mean we can’t have “justice.” I’m not saying that people should be allowed to be violent, only that they might not have had much choice about becoming that way.

27

On the whole, I don’t find it offensive to be termed a “bleeding heart conservative.” Most of my life I was a “bleeding heart liberal”, until I finally grew up and realized that as long as a person who commits a crime adopts the “I’m a victim” mentality, thereby absolving themself of any responsibility for their actions, that person will never be able to change. As long as “it isn’t MY fault I did it” is their belief, they don’t have any reason to change. Why SHOULD they? After all, it ISN’T THEIR FAULT!!!

And if you think that feeling sorrow for a person because of their wrong choices while expecting them to face the consequences is “crushing a boot in their face”, then…hey. I disagree with you, but it is your right to feel that way.

I doubt you WOULD feel that way if said person had murdered your mother, but I may be wrong.

I think that this “victim mentality” is more pervasive than just the criminal community, too. All these lawsuits from people who (for instance) ate too much fast food and so forth…it is really all the same thing. “I am unwilling to accept responsibility for my own actions, so I will find someone to blame. And I will sue them.” If it makes me a bad person to expect people to accept responsibility for their actions, then I guess I will have to live with it.

28

Either way the victim is just as dead. Bad childhood? Too bad.

29

Well, it depends what you’re trying to prove, doesn’t it? In this case, the anecdote clearly proves that it is POSSIBLE to be from an abused home and not engage in criminal behaviour.

I have no doubt an abused child is LIKELIER to be a criminal, but on the whole the great majority of abused children do not, in fact, become violent criminals.

30

Why is someone who commits murder deserving of mercy? How is giving someone a get out of jail free card because of childhood trauma justice?

Hey, that sucks if a person was abused as a child, but we aren’t talking about stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family here. “Gee, Mr. Johnson. I’m sorry that he raped your wife and daughter and then cut off their heads but we have to let him go. You see, his parents never hugged him enough so…well…he can’t be held responsible for his actions”.

31

I agree. A person having a horrible childhood doesn’t give him or her a license to murder. If they do, they should pay the consequences and should not be allowed to get away with it.

32

Why is ANYONE deserving of mercy? do you just not believe in mercy and justice at all, merely revenge, or is murder a crime that extends beyond the limits to which mercy can reasonably be granted?

I think you can fairly make a case for murder being a crime which is qualitatively different from all other crimes, in the same vein that capital punishment is qualitatively different from all other punishments. But I would say that when people are abused repeatedly by someone and finally kill them, it is hard for me to underrstand how killing them in turn constitutes anything I can recognize as “justice.”

I never advocated a “get out of jail free” card to anyone who is abused. Discussions tend to go more your way when you can just make up things for others to say, but you really can’t get away with that online, most of the time.

33

So a surgeon who performs an operation (using medically sound techniques) in an effort to save someone’s life but fails to keep him alive is guilty of murder? His patient is just as dead as if someone had shot him through the heart.

I’m not necessarily even advocating mercy, as Evil Captor notes, but simply a fair assessment of the factors involved in the death, whether reducing or increasing the heinousness of the crime, in deciding what’s the proper punishment for this particular homicide (or other crime). And a sociopathic inability to form the conception that someone else whom he dislikes has just as much right to live as he does, derived from a bad childhood or any other source, is a mitigating factor – the guy is not quite capable of “murdering with premeditation” because he cannot conceive of his victim’s rights. That does not mean he should not be punished, nor does it mean that society must bear the burden of having him go free to exercise his sociopathy again. It means that executing him is not the just punishment for his particular crime. It may mean that with time and care he can be rehabilitated and become a useful and functional member of society, though I would not count on that.

34

It is difficult for me to understand why I should offer “mercy and justice” to someone who offered neither to his/her victim. Maybe I’m a little deficient in the humanity department or something…

35

But does it not stand to reason that someone claiming abuse as a mitigating factor be able to provide evidence of that abuse? After all, anyone can claim abuse. And if that someone has been convicted of a crime and is facing a long sentence, or worse, shouldn’t that claim be looked upon with some suspicion?

And how can it be determined that the abuse *actually led *to the criminal behaviour? If those from good homes can turn to crime all on their own, then those from bad homes can also.

36

Sure, I never put forth the argument that some substantiation wouldn’t be needed. I’m not sure what the standards of proof should be, but as you’ve indicated, they should be high enough taht it wouldn’t be easy to get off a murder rap by falsely claiming abuse.