The Craw

This may open a big can of worms, but it's been stuck in my craw lately. In connection with a suit that was just heard in front of the Supreme Court, there has been more talk than usual about the role of mitigating circumstances in criminal prosecutions, particularly how evidence of mitigating circumstances might affect the sentence someone gets for committing a crime. I have a real problem stomaching the whole concept of mitigating circumstances (and, in a related note, "hate crimes" but we'll get into that).

The basic concept of the judicial system is that it should be fair. If justice isn't fair, we've got nothing (and yes I know there are problems). The fundamental principle of fairness is that everyone is treated the same, so two people who do the same thing should get the same sanction or reward. The reasons that a person does what he does has no bearing on the effect the action has on society, so the motives should not affect the consequences to that person. As an example, let's just say that two people each kill someone. One of the murderers has a low IQ, and one is of average intelligence (assuming both have been found competent). If mental ability is considered as a mitigating circumstance, the fact of the one person's low IQ may lead to a shorter sentence. Now, both committed the same crime; what is the logic of one being denied more freedom because he is smarter than the other guy? If the low-IQ person did not know that killing someone was wrong, that's all the more reason to impress upon him the lesson that it is. After the fact isn't the optimal time to start inculcating this, but if we haven't started before, we have to start sometime.

My biggest problem with mitigating circumstances is that they are rarely unique. More people than we want to think are abused as children. There are a lot of people who have mental illnesses or mental retardation (or whatever we're calling that today). Most of these people manage to lead, if not productive lives, at least non-destructive lives. In the case before the Supreme Court, one of the issues was that counsel failed to present evidence of a neglectful childhood in a bad neighborhood, or the man's diagnosis of schizophrenia. Utter hooey. How many schizophrenics are there who don't stab a person then light them on fire? My guess would be lots. Same with people who have tough childhoods. Jiminy crackers, most people have tough childhoods--some more so than others, but childhood is a tough time (for that matter, adulthood is no walk in the park either). Yet somehow most people manage to follow the rules.