Dr. Charles Frost is a professor of Social Work and the Director of the Social Works Program at Middle Tennessee State University. He has a website that offers up his research on various topics, such as International Social Work, Leadership Skills and Interviewing Skills.
A link on his site is labled “Mitigation’s Web Page” and one can only assume the work is his, although his name is not attached to the article presented.
Mitigation Defined
Mitigation is that which tends to soften, temper, or make less harsh or severe. Mitigating circumstances surrounding a criminal offense are those circumstances that tend to lessen the apparent badness of the particular crime in question or the apparent badness of the particular defendant.
Mitigating circumstances are not limited by the law; they may be unlimited in number, as long as they are based upon the evidence introduced by either the prosecution or the defense at trial or sentencing.
The existence of any mitigating circumstances does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A mitigating circumstance exists if there is any evidence supporting it introduced by either the prosecution or the defense at either the guilt-innocence or sentencing stage of the trial, which is uncontradicted or which outweighs any contradictory evidence. . . .
If you click on the additional link labled “Murderers” there is another piece, apparently by Frost, in which he includes the following reference to Lizzie Borden:
Examples throughout history of serial murderers and other types of murderers are captured in the book: “Human Monsters: An illustrated Encyclopedia of the World’s Most Vicious Murderers” by David Everitt (Contemporary Books: Chicago, 1993). All quotes in this summary are drawn from his book. . . .
Lizzie Borden (1860-1927) is one of America’s most famous murderers….according to folklore, she took her axe and gave daddy 20 whacks and then gave mommy 9 more. Mommy was really her stepmother. And instead of being convicted, she was found not guilty by the court, but not by public opinion, which decided she was indeed the murderer. All evidence does point to her guilt; however, the jury just couldn’t see this nice young lady as being capable of two such dreadful murders. She was 32 when she killed her parents and lived on to age 67.
Lizzie Borden is an example of how important appearances are, often more important than facts or evidence. That is why the jury needs to see the accused dressed, shaved, looking as presentable as possible. That is why OJ was helped tremendously when he was allowed to try on the glove and address the court and jury stating his innocence without having to be cross examined—he knew how to play the role of OJ, the nice guy from the movies and commercials.
One of America’s most interesting murderers, far more interesting though not as famous as Lizzie, was H.H. Holmes (1860-1896). . . .
Here we find the commonly drawn connection of Lizzie to OJ Simpson. Nothing new there. But besides getting the number of whacks incorrect and reversed (it was 19 to Abby and 10 to Andrew), the author proffers the bold assertion that “all evidence does point to her guilt” and summizes that the reason why Lizzie was acquitted was solely because of her gender and the manner of her appearance. Quite an indictment of 19th Century jurisprudence!
All evidence did not point to Lizzie’s guilt. In fact, there was no evidence that pointed to Lizzie’s guilt! Only opportunity and motive.
Of note also is the source that the professor uses in his paper. Human Monsters is one of those mass marketed sensational murder books that has very little to offer in the way of scholarship. This book is like the National Inquirer’s version of history—certainly nothing to use as source material for a research study.
I guess even PhDs can get it wrong, but I hope that isn’t the sum total of his investigation into the Borden case. Nor the sum total of what his students hear of it either.
Thanks to Sherry Chapman for this link!
