Excuses, excuses

In an interesting move, lawyers for John Muhammad, one of the two men accused of the Washington DC "sniper" shootings last fall, have requested and been granted access to a mitigation expert in the hopes of finding ways to make Muhammad seem more sympathetic to a jury (should the case go that far).  A mitigation expert might also be able to help Muhammad's lawyers negotiate a better plea bargain for him, should they decide to go that route.  One factor they're planning to investigate is whether or not Muhammad may have been exposed to gas or chemical weapons during the first Gulf War, and if they might have had an effect on his mental health.

Mr. Shapiro said his client was an Army engineer in the 1991 war. Persian Gulf war veterans who served with Mr. Muhammad said they believed he once threw a grenade into a tent full of fellow soldiers. None of the soldiers were killed, and the grenade-throwing incident could never be officially tied to Mr. Muhammad.

Prince William law enforcement officials said yesterday that Mr. Muhammad's former wife, Mildred, had told them that she noticed strange changes in his behavior after he returned from the war, and she told investigators that he had said that after the grenade incident, fellow soldiers tied him down and would not allow him to reach for his gas mask during a suspected chemical attack.

I understand why our criminal justice system makes room for mitigating factors when it comes to determining what charges should be brought against a person, whether they are guilty of a crime or not and how harsh of a sentence they deserve if they're convicted.  At the same time, I don't feel that we necessarily require adequate proof that either the mitigating factors existed or that if they did exist that they had a significant impact on the person's ability to control their behaviour or understand what they were doing.  For example, I have no problem with the idea of either reducing or dismissing a murder charge against someone who was obviously in immediate fear for their own life - such as when a burglar breaks into their home or if an abusive husband has begun another round of attacks.  But I find the idea of "imperfect self-defense" to be preposterous. 

"Imperfect self-defense" is when someone believes they have reason to be in fear for their life, and feels the only option they have is to kill whomever is threatening them - but they do it at a time when the person is asleep, unable to defend themselves or otherwise not currently engaged in the threatening behaviour.  One of the best known examples of this defense is from the Menendez brothers trial, where they tried to claim that their lives were in danger from their abusive father, and that they shot both of their parents to prevent them from being able to abuse them again.  The thing was, at the time they shot their parents, they weren't engaged in any kind of threatening or abusive behaviour - they were simply sitting in their den, engaged in their usual evening activities.   In that case, of course, the jury saw through them and convicted them anyway, but the same defense has been used, sucessfully, in many other cases. 

One of the biggest problems with "imperfect self-defense", however, is that the person charged with the murder usually had several other options available to them - such as leaving an abusive marriage, moving into their own home (in the case of young adults, like the Menendez brothers, who were still living with their allegedly abusive parents), and seeking police assistance or protection, among other ideas.  Yet the person still chooses to commit a murder, and then asks society - as represented by the justice system - to forgive them, since they thought they might truly be in danger.  (You know, the more I'm writing about this right now, the more it sounds like the same reasoning used by the Bush administration in justifying the war on Iraq....)

Mohammad may not be claiming "imperfect self-defense" - but looking at the possible exposure to chemical weapons during the Gulf War doesn't strike me as making much more sense.  From the reports in I've read so far, it doesn't sound like there's any actual proof that he even was exposed to chemicals while in the Persian Gulf - and while his former wife says his personality had changed quite a bit after he returned from the war, there are many things other than chemical exposure that could have led to that - including the horrors of war itself.  Yet do we want to give all soldiers an "out" if they decide to commit murder when they leave the army, by saying that participating in a war can be traumatic enough and change your personality enough to turn you into a murderer?  If we make that excuse for one soldier, we have to be prepared for any soldier who thinks he can get away with it to try using the same excuse.  Even if they stick with the idea that it was exposure to chemicals that made him a killer, do we want to give that exuse to any Gulf War I veterans who might need it - especially with no known proof (at this time) of exposure to chemical weapons or evidence that they can cause such a personality change? 

When reasons for mitigation are clear, when there is evidence that some outside factor or force was acting on the person charged, and when we can demonstrate that said factor or force would have the effect necessary to reduce a person's own culpability in a criminal act, then mitigating factors need to be taken into consideration and charges or sentences need to be modified in accordance.  But lets not just let people come up with flimsy excuses with little evidence and no way of showing that what they claim affected their behaviour actually did.  We keep stepping further and futher away from requiring people to be responsible for their own actions, and that's a trend that needs to be halted in its tracks.  Now.