The contemporary system of the death penalty in the United States is generally straightforward and does not advocate for the defendant. The crimes that have led to this kind of punishment are severe, and, therefore, one usually does not pay much attention to the background of the perpetrator (Ashford & Kupferberg, 2013). Nevertheless, for the just juridical process, it is essential to respect the rights of the defendant and provide sufficient evidence to explain his or her behavior. Mitigating factors, such as the description of the perpetrator’s background or character, might frequently assist the jurors in deciding on an appropriate punishment. Therefore, it is essential to increase the awareness of the public and experts concerning mitigation and explain how it might be relevant to social work practice.
In general, mitigation assessment is a part of the investigation process. The methods might include interviewing family members and friends of the defendant, and collecting and analyzing relevant evidence, such as medical records and employment information (Ashford & Kupferberg, 2013). Furthermore, it might be applicable to utilize cultural information to better comprehend the background of the defendant (Cheng, 2017). These assessment methods are universal in their application since it is possible to search for personal information in most circumstances. Such examination of the defendant’s background might provide useful insights for the jury to assign an appropriate punishment (Cheng, 2019). Therefore, mitigation plays a significant role in the juridical process and potentially other types of social processes.
Summing up, mitigation is a useful and efficient tool for choosing an appropriate punishment during the juridical process and might be highly relevant for other social work practices. The primary methods of assessment include interviewing individuals related to the defendant and collecting collateral information. Such models are effective due to their straightforward nature and relevance in most cases. Furthermore, mitigation might directly influence the decision of the court by explaining the methods of assessment and their consequences.
References
Ashford J. B., & Kupferbeg, M. (2013). Death penalty mitigation: A handbook for mitigation specialists, investigators, social scientists, and lawyers. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cheng, J. (2017). Humanity’s subtensions: Culture theory in US death penalty mitigation. Social Analysis, 61(3), 73-90.
Cheng, J. (2019). Slow law: Temporal logics in US death penalty mitigation investigations. Law & Social Inquiry, 44(4), 1174-1195.