One of the peculiar aspects of criminal law is the ability to essentially increase, or decrease, depending on the particular factors of a case, the punishment that an offender would normally expect to have imposed after a conviction (Justia, 2016). These circumstances, which are formally known in criminal law as aggravating and mitigation circumstances, are often used to take into account important aspects of the case that may not have been properly addressed during the trial or plea negotiations. Aggravating and mitigating circumstances are normally applied under the discretion of the sentencing judge; however, for some crimes they might be mandatory. Furthermore, both the prosecutor and the defense counsel can provide their own recommendations to the court as to which aggravating or mitigating circumstances as court should take under consideration when making a final recession on what sentence should be imposed.
The case of Wendi E. Andriano provides an illustrative example of the application of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in a criminal case. Andriano is currently on Arizona’s “Death Row” for the murder of her husband. While first degree murder is normally a very serious offense in Arizona, it does not automatically lead to a death sentence. To be sure, other sentences that can be imposed for a conviction of first degree murder in Arizona include life imprisonment, and life imprisonment with parole in 25 years if the jury cannot determine if the murder was premeditated. (Smith, 2012).
The reason that Andriano was sentenced with death, however, are due to the consideration of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances that were present in her particular case. Indeed, Andriano’s murder of her husband included a number of unique characteristics. First, after Andriano’s husband became seriously ill thereby requiring her to take care of him, she grew upset with her situation in life. Determined to make the best of a bad situation, Andriano came up with a plan to murder her husband and collect money from his insurance policy. The problem, initially was that the husband did not have an insurance policy when he fell ill. Accordingly, Andriano enlisted the help of her friends to pretend to be her husband to secure an insurance policy in his name. Once the policy was obtained, Andriano began planning how she would kill her husband. Her efforts to accomplish this goal included researching poisons and how they could be used lethally against another person. After completing her research, she ordered her poison of choice and had it sent to a remote location so that the delivery could not be traced to her address or one that she frequented. With the poison, and an understanding of its use, on October 8, 2000 she put her plan into effect (ADC, 2016). First, she called the for an ambulance, claiming that her husband was having a heart attack. However, when the ambulance arrived she informed them that it was a false alarm. Later in the day, however, she made a second request for an ambulance. This time when he ambulance arrived they found Andriano husband dead from blunt trauma to the head and a stab wound in the neck. Andriano claimed that her husband had been beating her and that she stabbed in self-defense. An autopsy of the husband, however, revealed that after the husband had been weakened and rendered defenseless by the poison Andriano had bought and administered, she hit him no fewer than 20 times with a barstool before stabbing him in the neck.
The aggravating circumstances that called for her sentence to the death penalty were that in murdering her husband, she acted in a particularly, “heinous, cruel, and depraved” manner (ADC, 2016). Considering the facts of the case, especially the manner in which she murdered him, imposing aggravating circumstances seems reasonable. To be sure, that the murder was cruel is illustrated by fact that Andriano first poisoned her husband, who was already weak from his illness, then beat him with a barstool. If that were not enough to satisfy the standards of cruelty, then a final stab to the neck surely does. Moreover, that Andriano’s actions were depraved are illustrated in her whole scheme of her husband’s murder including the research and purchase of the poison as well as her statement to the authorities that her husband’s abuse of her was what led her to stab him in self-defense.
Conversely, according to the court there were no mitigating circumstances that would or could have allowed the court to be lenient and impose a less severe sentence such as life imprisonment. To be sure, one of the most damaging fact arguing against the finding of a mitigating circumstance for Andriano was the fact the she thought up and orchestrated a scheme to murder her husband for profit. Moreover, her scheme also included the assistance of her friends, as well as the blatant misrepresentation of the fact that she was a victim of domestic violence who was acting in the only way she could to save her own life.
References
Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC). (2016). Death Row inmate 19153: Wendi E.
Andriano. Retrieved from https://corrections.az.gov/node/431
Justia. (2016). Aggravating and mitigating factors. Retrieved from
https://www.ustia.com/criminal/aggravating-mitigating-factors
Smith, K. (2012, Oct. 17). Sentencing stiffened for Arizona murders. Retrieved from
http://tucson.com/news/local/crime/sentencing-stiffened-for-arizona-murderers/article_862faf2f-bc7c-5ee9-a387-0d9f11ef66a2.html
