Mosley jury deciding life or death

What is the worst of the worst? Prosecutors seeking to condemn a killer often argue to juries that, if any case cries out for the death penalty, than this is that case. On the other hand, defense attorneys trying to save their clients' lives will argue that, no - there are far worse crimes out there than what this person is accused of doing, and shouldn't we save the needle for them?

Deputy District Attorney Steve Schreiner illustrated that point to a Torrance jury today, saying that, when most people think who should be on death row, they think of people like Charles Manson. But Manson's attorney would argue capital punishment is for people who have committed more murders, like night stalker Richard Ramirez. Ramirez's attorneys, of course, would say let's reserve the ultimate penalty for those who really deserve it - like Adolf Hitler. Hitler's attorneys? They'd point to Joseph Stalin. And on and on. Until it moves to the next level: "Well, did he eat his victims?" Schreiner said.

There is no law that says the death penalty must be only given to the worst of the worst, Schreiner argued. "But the defendant, in fact, is in that class of people who we categorize as the worst of the worst."

Defense attorney Richard Everett's approach was to argue that killing Mosley would, in a way, be justifying murder. "When is it ever appropriate to kill someone?" Everett asked. "The state is aking you to get together, with cool minds, and issue an order to kill this man. Is that justice? When is a life for a life justice?"

We'll see what the jury thinks and let you know the verdict as soon as we do.

Previous entries on Mosley's case can be found here.