He is asked to complete 2 parts; 1. to determine what his sentencing should be and 2. why. Item 2 before item 1. X is what everyone else decided it should be. However if he choses more than X he still gets X, however if he chooses less than X he still gets X. Or maybe after being found guilty and not taking the 5h amendment and in the process of speaking item 2, a truthful statement he makes causes those who adjudicated him reassess what they believe X should be based on his testimony. Based on that statement they might get a sense if he is going to be a repeat offender or whether his motivation was in the realm of a normal human being pushed beyond the limit?
Thomas Paul Murphy copyright 2014
Originally published on 11 25 2014 at: www.themilwaukeeandmilwaukeeandwisconsinnews.blogspot.com