Tennessee Criminal Lawyer Blog

Ben Martin, a thirty-one year-old former barber from Los Angeles, really wanted to do his part to help the homeless get off of the city streets, for all the wrong reasons. Instead of volunteering his time at a homeless shelter or joining a program like Habitat for Humanity (which assists persons unable to afford or find housing with obtaining a place to call their own), Mr. Martin decided he would just find a homeless person, douse them with gasoline, and burn them alive. He did just that, and although nearby witnesses attempted to assist the victim they were unable to save him and the man died from his injuries. Mr. Martin reportedly disliked homeless people and despised their presence around the barber shop at which he worked, which may have been the result of a disorder causing Mr. Martin to be obsessed with cleanliness. This led him to hate the homeless because they were, in his view, dirtying up the streets. Mr. Martin had apparently been disciplined at work for harassing the man during a previous incident, causing Mr. Martin to lose his job. He apparently blamed the man for costing him his job and took the aforementioned actions against the man in order to get revenge.

This is a tragic case, but it illustrates an important principle of criminal law that many people often forget: sometimes those who are labeled as the offenders are “victims” as well. If actions like those described above seem heinous, extreme, or sadistic, it is because they are. However, many times these actions are motivated by a mental illness or disorder that causes the offender to rationalize or consider their actions in a different way than does the rest of society. Tennessee law recognizes this as well, and often allows the existence of such a disorder to play a role in the defendant’s punishment in cases such as these. For example, serious mental disorders can prevent the defendant from being competent to stand trial at all, while lesser disorders may serve as a mitigating factor at the defendant’s sentencing which allows the defendant to receive a more lenient sentence than the offense would normally dictate.

The court did not appear to give much weight to Mr. Martin’s disorder in this case, if one existed at all. However, every case, defendant, and disorder are different which leads the court in many cases to mitigate sentences for defendants such as those described in this article. Such defendants can maximize their chances for lenient treatment by consulting a skilled criminal defense attorney, who can assist them in establishing the defendant’s disorder and communicating it to the court.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/28/ben-matthew-martin-barber_n_555518.html