Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
In the field of death penalty mitigation, assessing a defendant’s background is a critical, but often overlooked issue. For instance, while a person’s history of abuse or being raised in a deprived environment might not be directly related to the crime, these factors could “shape [their] life choices, and life chances” (Ashford & Kupferberg, 2013, p. 51). Similarly, a defendant’s mental state can be viewed as grounds for the lessening of one’s punishment because of their diminished moral culpability and responsibility (Ashford & Kupferberg, 2013). Thus, the a critical distinction between criminal responsibility and moral culpability.
The difference between criminal responsibility and moral culpability is relevant when considering an appropriate punishment for an individual. Although one’s guilt (criminal responsibility) can be proven, moral culpability can be diminished by the circumstances surrounding the crime and the defendant’s situation and background. These factors, while not absolving one of criminal responsibility, can affect the choice of appropriate punishment (Ashford & Kupferberg, 2013). A common application of moral culpability is deciding whether persons of a good character committing criminal acts that are not reflective of their character should receive less harsh punishments than those of bad character. The practical implication of this decision is the likelihood that the defendant will re-offend in the future. Thus, judging his or her capacity to act as a moral actor is a critical consideration. As this is an extremely complicated issue, moral agency models can be used to provide a framework to both bases and argue the judgment.
In practical terms, one’s moral culpability and capacity as a moral actor should be heavily considered when evaluating the conditions surrounding the crime, as well as the defendant’s background. Common themes that may emerge are mental illness, history of abuse, or poor socioeconomic status. All of these factors in one’s background can contribute to the erosion of one’s ability to act with rationality and restraint. Therefore, they can all be referred to as mitigating factors in determining the defendant’s punishment. However, as Ashford & Kupferberg (2013) note, these factors can themselves be abused to achieve an unfair reduction of one’s sentence. Ultimately, the concepts of moral culpability, moral character, and moral agency models are valuable tools in social work, as they help assess and evaluate a client’s situation, but they are not universal solutions.
References
Ashford, J. B., & Kupferberg, M. (2013). Death penalty mitigation: A handbook for mitigation specialists, investigators, social scientists, and lawyers. Oxford.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.