Mitigating Factor: Casey's Parents
- Thread starter Searchfortruth
- Start date
- Status
wenwe4
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 9,499
- Reaction score
- 7,359
It really is all about how the person presents themselves. For instance, if I were interviewing a client and they told me they had bugs crawling out of their skin, that would give me information about how they are thinking. This is valuable irregardless of whether the are telling the truth, it is the truth they are going to present to you (and you deal with what is presented to you). It isn't all about their version of what is true, it is how they are functioning within their "truths". There could be value in mitigating factors for the defense, which they are legally bound to present to the court.
BeanE
Inactive
Here are the mitigating factors I found that look to be pertinent to a defendant's parents/family:
6.8.9 OTHER STATUTORY MITIGATING FACTORS
(1) Family background
Generally, family background problems can be considered as a mitigating circumstance.604 Usually this mitigating circumstance becomes an issue worthy of significant weight when the defendant has a “troubled background with a family history of instability, poverty or abuse.”605 While it is unclear how much weight a “good family background” should be given, it is error to completely reject this mitigator as worthy of no weight.606
(5) Mental problems that do not qualify under other statutory mitigating circumstances
This mitigating circumstance covers a variety of different situations. It has been applied in a case where a psychologist referred to the defendant as an “emotional cripple” who was brought up in a negative family setting.617 It applies in a case involving posttraumatic stress disorder as a result of extended sexual abuse by the defendant’s stepfather.618 (Both are one word) Usually, the testimony or other evidence establishing this mitigating circumstance does not rise to the level of "extreme" mental or emotional disturbance, or "substantial" incapacity. It is something less than “extreme” or “substantial.” However, the evidence must still be considered by the jury and the judge as a mitigating circumstance. The trial judge must allow the evidence to be presented, and it must be considered in the sentencing order.619 In Stewart v. State,620 the Court stated that it was not error for the judge to find the statutory mental mitigators did not exist, but it was error for the judge not to find the same evidence as nonstatutory mitigation. Depending upon the facts, it would generally be appropriate to give less weight to mental problems that do not rise to the level of “extreme” or “substantial.”
(6) Abuse of defendant by parents (physical, mental, or sexual)
It is well established that a disadvantaged childhood, abusive parents, and lack of education and training, are mitigating in nature. Although in some cases family background and personal history may be given little weight, such evidence must be considered by the Court and discussed in the sentencing order. Mitigating evidence is not limited to the facts surrounding the crime but can be anything in the life of a defendant that might militate against the appropriateness of the death penalty for that defendant.621 The nonstatutory mitigator of defendant's abusive childhood should
not be rejected, even if the defendant demonstrated good behavior in adult life.622
6.9.7 THE DEFENDANT HAS THE SUPPORT OF FRIENDS AND FAMILY
Evidence of positive “family relationships and the support (the defendant) provided his family are admissible as nonstatutory mitigation.”681 It is error not to consider this mitigation, but the error may be harmless if these factors are otherwise considered.682 The reverse, negative family relations such as abandonment as a child, are not always mitigating.683
6.8.9 OTHER STATUTORY MITIGATING FACTORS
(1) Family background
Generally, family background problems can be considered as a mitigating circumstance.604 Usually this mitigating circumstance becomes an issue worthy of significant weight when the defendant has a “troubled background with a family history of instability, poverty or abuse.”605 While it is unclear how much weight a “good family background” should be given, it is error to completely reject this mitigator as worthy of no weight.606
(5) Mental problems that do not qualify under other statutory mitigating circumstances
This mitigating circumstance covers a variety of different situations. It has been applied in a case where a psychologist referred to the defendant as an “emotional cripple” who was brought up in a negative family setting.617 It applies in a case involving posttraumatic stress disorder as a result of extended sexual abuse by the defendant’s stepfather.618 (Both are one word) Usually, the testimony or other evidence establishing this mitigating circumstance does not rise to the level of "extreme" mental or emotional disturbance, or "substantial" incapacity. It is something less than “extreme” or “substantial.” However, the evidence must still be considered by the jury and the judge as a mitigating circumstance. The trial judge must allow the evidence to be presented, and it must be considered in the sentencing order.619 In Stewart v. State,620 the Court stated that it was not error for the judge to find the statutory mental mitigators did not exist, but it was error for the judge not to find the same evidence as nonstatutory mitigation. Depending upon the facts, it would generally be appropriate to give less weight to mental problems that do not rise to the level of “extreme” or “substantial.”
(6) Abuse of defendant by parents (physical, mental, or sexual)
It is well established that a disadvantaged childhood, abusive parents, and lack of education and training, are mitigating in nature. Although in some cases family background and personal history may be given little weight, such evidence must be considered by the Court and discussed in the sentencing order. Mitigating evidence is not limited to the facts surrounding the crime but can be anything in the life of a defendant that might militate against the appropriateness of the death penalty for that defendant.621 The nonstatutory mitigator of defendant's abusive childhood should
not be rejected, even if the defendant demonstrated good behavior in adult life.622
6.9.7 THE DEFENDANT HAS THE SUPPORT OF FRIENDS AND FAMILY
Evidence of positive “family relationships and the support (the defendant) provided his family are admissible as nonstatutory mitigation.”681 It is error not to consider this mitigation, but the error may be harmless if these factors are otherwise considered.682 The reverse, negative family relations such as abandonment as a child, are not always mitigating.683
elementary
No More Excuses
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,077
- Reaction score
- 1
Thanks! "How they are thinking" makes so much more sense. But isn't this the purview of psychiatrists? (Or does an MSW carry as much weight?)
For example, the above sounds like someone not quite right, in a psychotic sort of way. What about someone who does not present as delusional? What thought processes might mitigation specialists see?
Jenny60123
Just Us for Caylee Marie
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2008
- Messages
- 600
- Reaction score
- 5
I agree. I don't see Casey ever saying she had a hand in this, no matter what. I just don't see it in her makeup.
BeanE
Inactive
Me either. I don't think she'll ever admit guilt. I don't think she'd ever allow her attorneys to indicate admission of guilt. I think mitigation will be presented as 'if' she did it, rather than 'that' she did it.
wenwe4
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 9,499
- Reaction score
- 7,359
A psychiatrist is a Doctor who specializes in medications for management of mental health issues
A psychologist is a Doctor who specializing in testing and diagnosis of mental health issues
An MSW is not a Doctor. However, in this instance, the MSW is also a mitigation specialist. Her job is to look at KC's entire life history and be able to present any factors to the court that might be considered "mitigating" in an effort to lessen the severity of the sentence. MSW's are often schooled in diagnosis and treatment (ie: therapy), as well as look at the whole person in their environment.
Wow, your question is loaded in asking what thought processes mitigation specialists might see. I would say they would probably see everything under the sun. I can't tell you what everyone else might be thinking. But I think I understand what you are trying to ask. Mitigating factors would also include good things about a person (ie: they are a good parent, they held down a steady job for 10 years, they are actively involved in a church or community group, etc).
I agree. I don't think any of her mitigating factors will have to do with family issues or anything that "caused" her to do this because that would be an admission of guilt. Since they cannot say she is innocent during the sentencing phase, I still think they will just beg for leniency.
Remember she will have many( 8 or 9??) felony convictions by that time and that will hurt her a lot imo.
This is a ink to the brand new jury instructions including changes as of October and the background. there is some good reading in here.
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2009/sc05-960.pdf
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2009/sc05-960.pdf
BeanE
Inactive
The mitigation specialist with social work background makes referrals for any mental health related evaluations, tests, or treatment they deem necessary for their client.
Many counselors and therapists are MSWs. I think perhaps most are, but I'm too lazy to look it up. My knowledge is based only on having always seemed to have an inordinate number of friends who are psychiatrists, psychologists, and counselors of various kinds. lol.
BeanE
Inactive
Something to consider:
There is no requirement that mitigating factors be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Florida's jury instruction provides if the jury is "reasonably convinced" of a mitigating circumstance, they may consider it as established. The United States Supreme Court addressed a claim that the defendant had to prove a mitigating circumstance by a preponderance of the evidence and found no constitutional infirmity to this Arizona requirement.542 Unfortunately, individual justices on the Supreme Court of Florida often refer to the burden of proof to prove mitigating circumstances as greater weight of the evidence.543 This is not the standard, unless being reasonably convinced is synonymous with greater weight of the evidence. The Court has used the terms interchangeably.544 However, it is safe to assume that being reasonably convinced is a lesser burden of proof than greater weight of the evidence. In one case, the Supreme Court stated the burden of proof to be met when a reasonable quantum of competent, uncontroverted evidence of a mitigating circumstance is presented.545
There is no requirement that mitigating factors be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Florida's jury instruction provides if the jury is "reasonably convinced" of a mitigating circumstance, they may consider it as established. The United States Supreme Court addressed a claim that the defendant had to prove a mitigating circumstance by a preponderance of the evidence and found no constitutional infirmity to this Arizona requirement.542 Unfortunately, individual justices on the Supreme Court of Florida often refer to the burden of proof to prove mitigating circumstances as greater weight of the evidence.543 This is not the standard, unless being reasonably convinced is synonymous with greater weight of the evidence. The Court has used the terms interchangeably.544 However, it is safe to assume that being reasonably convinced is a lesser burden of proof than greater weight of the evidence. In one case, the Supreme Court stated the burden of proof to be met when a reasonable quantum of competent, uncontroverted evidence of a mitigating circumstance is presented.545
Novice Seeker
My thoughts are all mine
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,622
- Reaction score
- 1
With all the information coming out about personal habits of some who lives under the same roof and George & Cindy's
1. confrontational behavior toward everyone
2. attempts to obstruct the investigation
3. Latest business controversy with their "foundation"
4. income from selling videos, pictures and other things which belonged to
Caylee
5. statements that change depending on who is asking the questions
6. being forced via court order to turn over documents the SA requested
over and over
7. dining at the Ritz eating crab puffs while strangers worked thru the night
for Caylee
1. confrontational behavior toward everyone
2. attempts to obstruct the investigation
3. Latest business controversy with their "foundation"
4. income from selling videos, pictures and other things which belonged to
Caylee
5. statements that change depending on who is asking the questions
6. being forced via court order to turn over documents the SA requested
over and over
7. dining at the Ritz eating crab puffs while strangers worked thru the night
for Caylee
So are you saying that since GA and CA eat crab puffs KC's life should be spared?
TorisMom003
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2009
- Messages
- 4,386
- Reaction score
- 7
I think that the defense is going to have to walk a very fine line with trying to blame any of this on Casey's upbringing. There are many, many people who had the same type of family life that Casey had that have gone on to live normal lives without committing acts of violence towards anyone. All it would take is for one juror to have a similar background (upbringing) as Casey for the rest of the jury to realize what a lame excuse this is. It does not matter if you were loved as a child or not, had a strict upbringing or lax one, had parents that covered for you or made you own up to your mistakes......none of that makes it acceptable to do the things that Casey has done. Casey knows right from wrong, Casey had normal friends that she behaved normally around. You can only blame the parents to a certain extent and that still does not excuse what a person has done and if they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law or not.
JMO
JMO
wenwe4
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 9,499
- Reaction score
- 7,359
Other mitigating factors to spare the dp could be:
1) No previous history w/the law (prior to 7/08)
2) "Good Parent" as reported by many friends and relatives
3) No evidence of violent behaviors in the past
4) "Good ?" student (I am guessing since she was close to graduating)
5) "Employed for a period of time" - except she just didn't show back up to work
6) No previous CPS reports (until after Caylee missing) - again I am assuming
7) Had long term relationships (ie: friends & neighbors) in the community prior to 7/08.
8) Has support of friends and family (at least GA, CA, & LA)
9) Has positive attributes in which she could still be a contributing member of the prison society (ie: likes to clean house and cook for others)
ps: don't beat me up please - just offering ideas
1) No previous history w/the law (prior to 7/08)
2) "Good Parent" as reported by many friends and relatives
3) No evidence of violent behaviors in the past
4) "Good ?" student (I am guessing since she was close to graduating)
5) "Employed for a period of time" - except she just didn't show back up to work
6) No previous CPS reports (until after Caylee missing) - again I am assuming
7) Had long term relationships (ie: friends & neighbors) in the community prior to 7/08.
8) Has support of friends and family (at least GA, CA, & LA)
9) Has positive attributes in which she could still be a contributing member of the prison society (ie: likes to clean house and cook for others)
ps: don't beat me up please - just offering ideas
wenwe4
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 9,499
- Reaction score
- 7,359
That is where the mitigation specialist might focus is on the time period just prior to and during the time Caylee went missing. For instance, if a psychotic break happened during a period of time when all of the bad acts occurred, it might be a mitigating factor. If in a manic phase, she wasn't sleeping, eating, was impulsive, had significant poor decision making, etc. It might be worthy of exploring for issues of mitigating factors. I think that the defense is furious that the check writing charges are being brought in Jan, as there is not much of a defense there (except if they can prove something related to the above outlined theory).
Oh I would agree again 100%, but I do not think she will be admitting guilt. however, I do think that this could be molded into a mitigating factor if she were to say she did it.
kushka
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2008
- Messages
- 134
- Reaction score
- 0
From the little understanding of the law if all relevant mitigating factors are not considered in a death penalty case, the punishment can be consider "cruel and unusual", as the Supreme Court ruled in Tennard v. Dretke. It is also my understanding that KC's attorney does not have to admit her guilt in order to bring up the fact that her parents mistreatment and failure to give her proper moral guidance made her less able appreciate the criminal aspect of the offense and that because of this her ability to control her behavior to was impaired.
Thus I believe that her parents conduct will argued in the sentencing phase and if it is not it would make the sentencing subject to appeal
Gypsy Road
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 7,641
- Reaction score
- 15,461
I happen to know of someone on death row (not personally, but I knew the guy's father many years back). The perp was 21 years old when he killed his father's girlfirend and 11 year old son by stabbing them to death in their home where he also was living at the time of the murders. He said committed the murders while on drugs, and was mad at his father because his father had sold his car earlier that day. He was raised by his single mother in TX where she beat him, where her many boyfriends also beat him. He also endured other abuse. The murders happened in Florida, and last night this thread got me curious about what ever happened to the guy - did he appeal (of course he did), is he still on deathrow, etc. While the murder was not quite the same as Caylee's murder - I still wondered what mitigating factors were used when sentencing this guy (I was also interested in his appeal). Seems his terrible family background (being raised by a single mother who was beyond abusive, being beaten by mother's numerous boyfriends, who was being subjected to beng in the same room while his mother had sex with men, etc) had no value when he was sentenced. He did not get life in prison, he got a death sentence and is still sitting on death row here in Florida. VERY INTERESTING reading for those who want to see an actual case where mitigating factors are discussed. Am I allowed to link to the court docs here or is it going off topic?
- Status