Is social class and enviromental background relevant in court?

Question

More specifically, is it relevant in a domestic murder trial? A friend and I argued its relevancy throughout all of English class today. I personally believe that whether it should be relevant or not is an entirely different, relative notion. Nonetheless, denying its relevance is witholding information. Fearing prejudice and compulsive decisions based on any given information is bigotry all in its own. I believe that although a person's environment, upbringing, and domestic life must be taken into consideration, it should not bear much weight seeing as moral credit must be given according to the individual’s own merit.

Thoughts? Opinions?

10 points to best answer!

Answer 1

No, it should not. From an intellectual standpoint, are there certain cultures or environmental inputs which may raise someone's inherent prediliction to commit murder? Undeniably.

However, as a society, we should only be looking at those things in terms of the prevention angle. We should be honest with ourselves that certain people in a certain social class are more prone to violence. Based on that honest assessment, we can then generate policies designed to combat that problem.

But from an enforcement perspective, the law is the law and that's how it should be. The law, and all of its punishments, should be applied evenly so that every single person in this country know what is expected of them and is expected to act accordingly. To do otherwise would cause confusion, break down what's left of our individual sense of responsibility and generally wreak havoc on the populace. Indeed, those from the lower socio-economic classes would, under the argument posed in your question, be treated with more leniency thus causing fewer of those persons to be held responsible for their actions. This, in turn, would cause them to create more crime by giving them more or less a free license to do so.

Answer 2

I don't think so unless it is specifically relevant to a case or a person involved in a case and it would have to be very specific. For instance, prior arrest records can only be brought up if it is linked directly and is almost never allowed. Like, you can't ruin a witnesses credibility by saying, haven't you been arrested for murder or beating your wife?"

Now, something like some women chopped her husband's penis off and she is saying it was self-defense from rape or what have you then they will go through a history of violence of whatever. It has to be relative to the case or else you would have so many people using the bad background bit(there are already too many people doing this within the restrictions of mental health, etc...) just to get themselves pity with a jury or judge.

Answer 3

yes, and here is why, or my thoughts anyway. unless murder is premeditated i think any court, judge and juror would need to know all facts pertaining to the case in hand and particularly in a domestic murder trial, in most cases there will be mitigating circumstances which may impinge on the judge and the jurors, it may result in a lesser charge being sought or even a plea bargain. let's say a married woman with two kids kills her husband- while guilty of murder, it seems Fair to point out that A) her husband beat her, B) there is/was a history of spousal abuse C) the husband was an alcoholic or drug addict, unemployed etc. the court and jurors need to know that the woman has children whose lives are now adversely affected by this series of events. you kind of miss a salient point- if you judge an individual by his or own merit you need to keep in mind that much of the same merit is influenced by their environment- good or bad- either way you cannot ignore it when endeavoring to arrive at a fair and equitable solution.

Answer 4

Social class or background could influence a person's behavior w/spouse or lover as far as being abusive. However, movies and our world influence us all. All people deserve same harshness and same fairness for same crime.

Answer 5

Considerations such as these may enter into play in the sentencing phase, but should not be part of deciding guilt or innocence.

Answer 6

Innocent when proven wealthy