ExpectingUnicorns
. . . only the pure of heart can see.
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 4,617
- Reaction score
- 3,229
After reading all of the incredibly knowledgeable input on this thread it sounds like the mitigation investigation is two-pronged. First to discover and disclose, at the sentencing or DP phase of the trial, why Casey may have done the horrid act (verbal/sexual abuse, dysfunction family, personality disorder, etc). And secondly, to try to present the image that the family is loving, supportive, caring and worried about the penalty Casey may have to pay.
These two goals seem diametrically opposed, at least highly unobtainable. In any case, it's hard for me to imagine that a family meeting (with or without cameras) would prove fruitful for either cause. (And certainly they should not be graced with any exceptions to the rules and provisions that other inmates and family's are held to!!!)
Is Lyon's definition and expectations of a mitigation investigation purely theoretical or is it just me? There must be something I have mixed up or don't understand. Can anyone help me out here?
These two goals seem diametrically opposed, at least highly unobtainable. In any case, it's hard for me to imagine that a family meeting (with or without cameras) would prove fruitful for either cause. (And certainly they should not be graced with any exceptions to the rules and provisions that other inmates and family's are held to!!!)
Is Lyon's definition and expectations of a mitigation investigation purely theoretical or is it just me? There must be something I have mixed up or don't understand. Can anyone help me out here?