During her closing argument during the penalty phase of the Jodi Arias trial defense attorney Jennifer Willmott said, “The simple question that’s before you is, do you kill her? That’s the question … It is an awful, awful thing that she did, but your conviction of first-degree murder is how [Alexander’s family] will get peace … We are asking you to find mercy.”
The penalty phase of a capital murder trial is not about killing an individual who has been found guilty of first degree murder and it is not about retribution. It is about following the law to reach an appropriate punishment for heinous crime based on evidence, mitigating and aggravating factors.
Nobody is asking the jury to kill Jodi Arias. Instead, the state is asking the jury to punish Jodi Arias for the atrocious crimes she committed against Travis Alexander. Their decision should be based on their interpretation of the evidence presented at trial and the jury instructions provided by the judge. It should not be based on mercy: particularly the very mercy that Arias denied her victim. The appropriate and legal punishment based upon Arias’ conviction of first degree murder with special circumstances is: the death penalty; life without the possibility of parole; or a life sentence with the possibility of parole after twenty-five years.
What is the second “wrong” that Willmott is referencing? The death penalty is legal punishment in Arizona and it is supported by a majority of the citizens of Arizona. Perhaps she is suggesting that the law of the land and the will of the people are wrong, and that her skewed philosophical point of view is somehow superior and correct.
How dare Jennifer Willmott invoke the name of Alexander’s family in her plea for mercy! The jury rejected character assassination as a defense tactic when Arias was found guilty of first degree murder. That should have been a clear signal to Arias and her defense team that Travis’ character and family are off limits as defense tactics moving forward. Ms. Willmott’s argument was as tone deaf as it was offensive.
Good point on the second “wrong” not being a wrong at all. It’s the law. The same jury that found it cruel, then couldn’t impose the death penalty. I just read today that the foreman said that Travis’ mental abuse of Jodi was a factor in the death discussion. They fell for the abuse excuse. They, in effect, re-victimized Travis right there in the jury room. smh
As unreal as her remark seemed, I think she was referring to the ‘first wrong’ being that Jodi brutally murdered Travis Alexander. How sad. So the second ‘wrong’ that I think she means is that *murdering* Jodi .. two wrongs don’t make a right?? There is so much wrong with her statement. No comparison. Cold, calculated murder compared to the death penalty? I don’t think so.
The biggest problem I see is the unequal treatment of the suspect and the victim. While Jodi and her clan of defense lawyers and so called experts can obviously lie (say things without any proof) the victims and prosecution are suppressed and even proven evidence can’t be submitted. This bashing of the victim is totally wrong, justice is about fair play, equality and deciding on ALL the facts. I understand the biased part but evidence is evidence no matter how bad it makes one look.
Great article