Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances

Since 1972 the U.S. Supreme Court has been encouraging juries to considering mitigating and aggravating factors when considering the death penalty for the defendant. This is an attempt to make death sentences are less randomly and permit to a level of nuance, drawn to a very complex and highly emotional decision into account. However, these factors are not only considered if the death penalty on the table. An attorney can introduce in each test, where they arerelevant.

Mitigating circumstances are variables which the defendant or the crime to convince the jury to choose a lower rate may be related. For example, if the jury is very young, the jury may decide that he or she is not emotionally mature enough to be held fully responsible for his actions or that he or she deserves a second chance in life.

Different states allow different circumstances are taken into account as mitigating circumstances. In California, there are many such variablesJuries may consider as they decide on a sentence. If the defendant acted under extreme stress or control of another person if the victim of murderous conduct of the defendant where the defendant has no prior history of violence or illegal behavior, each of them can convince a jury of it, a lesser conviction, or select It has a lighter sentence.

Aggravating factors are used on the other side to the jury, convinced that a serious conviction and a harsher punishment is needed to.If the defendant is a serious and traditional history of illegal or violent behavior, or if the circumstances of the offense has to make particularly shocking or disturbing that the jury can be convinced that the defendant is guilty of fighting the highest costs, and support the severest punishment.

In the past, mental or psychological illness has sometimes been presented by counsel as a mitigating circumstance. The argument is usually that the defendant was not on the consequences of their actions, or was understoodunder extreme emotional stress at the time of the incident and should not therefore fully responsible. The success of this defense depends heavily debated by the type of crime, the conviction of the defendant and the jury in question.

In the case of People vs. CA 199 Gregory Smith, this kind of reasoning adopted a controversial new twist: in this case, prosecutors used mental illness as an aggravating circumstance. Their expert, Dr. Chris Hatcher,Smith explained that a serious condition had been known as a sadistic pedophile, and was therefore very likely that relapse. Although many people protested, confirmed the Supreme Court of the State of the Public Prosecutor the right to make this argument.

For more information about criminal cases and extenuating or aggravating circumstances, contact Appleton defense lawyers Kohler, Hart & Priebe.

Thanks To : carmonitor car tv monito projection hdtv aveda skin care