- Feb 24, 2013
- Reaction score
The essential question to the jurors is; does the aggravating factor of cruelty outweigh any mitigating factors presented by the defense, or vise versa if you will. So if a juror decides that "no criminal history" is relevant enough to vote for life, the juror is essentially saying the fact that she had no criminal history carried more weight than the fact that she made in suffer in a cruel way while killing him.
:takeabow: Thank you! That was the part I was missing.
I thought that if ONE mitigating factor such as age, lack of criminal history automatically wins if the majority rule (8 jurors) ... sheesh, :blushing: