I haven't seen them advocating for our sympathy--defense lawyers may, in an attempt to secure an acquittal--but the psychologists in my view are interested in determining the etiology of their offense in the hope of reducing similar offenses.

The psocologists don't in general. They leave that up to the legal minds, but they are the ones who start it. When I psycologist makes the statement that a person is born a killer they are saying it is not their fault. Sympathy may be the wrong word, but I have heard many say that we do not have the right to inflick harsh punishments, based on this idea.

There is a valid concept of mitigating circumstance in American jurisprudence. One can of course argue the degree to which treatment in childhood mitigates agaisnt an offense.

While it can be a variable in their choices, many people insist that it causes their choices. I understand that childhood abuse has an effect on a person, but they are the ones who choose to commit the crime. It is not forced on them because of their abuse.

To quote Jerry Seinfeld, who are these people? (To my mind it seems an apt description of the current Republican administration.)

Actually, that was my way of speaking about abortion without really saying it.

The current administration, you mean? We're in total agreement.

I mean people who want to go easy on violent criminals instead of removing them from society.

Nor most I know. Just teh ones that currently hold the megaphone, and influence political policies to the greatest degree. (You don't see McCain going out of his way to court moderate Christians, do you?)

Yes, but you speak as though it were all Christians. I agree that there are many who does pose a threat to this country, but it is not all. The only real point I was trying to make is that the implied generallities were incorrect.