A Defense of Murder

Where does one begin when stating their client is not guilty? The answer is very simple. The accused did not commit murder, because had the deceased acted differently he could have avoided death. All the accused did was act on human instinct, and that cannot be his fault. It was the deceased whose choices shaped the even that occurred.

It was late that night, and he took a short cut through an isolated area. He had been out drinking, wore headphones, and carried a good many items, making himself the perfect target. It would seem the area was not safe, given he is now the deceased. Anyone of these decisions could have changed his fate.

Or what of past wishes? The deceased was known to be depressed, and an alcoholic at that. Had he attempted suicide in the past? Did he have suicidal thoughts? Did the deceased ever utter the words “I wish I was dead”? Perhaps the dead man wanted to die. Maybe he went into that ally with the intent to be killed. Is the accused truly responsible for the deceased’s desires or bad decisions?

It might be said there’s no proof the deceased had it coming. But is there any proof he didn’t? If he’d been armed or fought back harder, the deceased might have made it home that night, alive and unharmed.

Perhaps if the deceased had traveled with a friend, he would not have been in the same danger. If he hadn’t been drinking, he would not have had the drunken swagger that marked him as vulnerable. If he had taken a cab home, the accused wouldn’t have had the chance to strike. The dead man could have take a safer route home, and avoided his killer all together. If he had dressed differently, sporting Kevlar or armor, he might still be alive. So truly, is the accused at fault, or is the deceased?

The accused acted on human instinct, it’s not their fault the deceased made a series of bad decisions that led to the event. In truth, this defense should be sound and shock none. After all, this is the defense often used by lawyers to defend their clients when accused of rape.