Yes, I believe it is right to consider what a person might have gone through in their childhood that probably desensitized them to the good in and the rights of others. They may have been constantly abused physically or sexually or may have been raped repeatedly throughout their childhood years. If there are extenuating circumstances my wish would be for them to be brought in during the sentencing phase of the trial or before the jury even goes out to consider that person's fate.

In many cases such a consideration is already present, particularly when defense attorneys attempt to claim "for action x, not guilty by reason of insanity". Some people do develop psychoses because of past trauma and are acquitted or found not guilty of their alleged crimes (most often with the caveat of going to a psyche-ward).

No. Because just growing up in a bad neighborhood is not a very bad childhood. But that is for the jury on his case to decide.

And thats just another example.

Examples of certain crime scenarios are not valid in this argument. The reason being is that every case is different, and your example wont always be the case. You also can't possibly find a broad enough example to include every possibility of a crime and criminal, ever.

So is there an actual reason to not include this information during sentencing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

I think it is one of many things that should be considered in a murder case. But it should not be the focal point of the trial nor should it be the deciding factor.

I disputed the strength of his argument, not his opinion.

If you had read my post you might have understood that that is all I said.

I think you're right on that thought PA. I'm wrong by stating that as I did. It could actually lead to someone being set free or obtaining a lesser sentence for a heavy crime. Thanks!

I agree that it should be considered during sentencing. But if it is considered during deliberation of the verdict, it could result in the freedom of someone who could potentially kill again.

I feel that during that stage, the only facts that should be considered are those effecting the actual crime and who committed it, and how. Not really why, or if again, et cetera.

That is a very weak argument, Tugman.

That is one circumstance, and not at all representative of every murder crime committed. In fact that is probably one of the least common forms of murder in America.

Please elaborate and clarify.

If not the death penalty, what? Life in prison? I would prefer the death penalty.

How do you measure a tough child hood?

What if the childhood has nothing to do with the crime. Almost everyone would be pleading "tough Childhood".

"Well hey! my bike got stolen! on CHRISTMAS, ...when I was FIVE. So give me a break."

(; That really happened to me.

You know what, I think I'm gonna go murder some people now.