If one was groomed as a child, can they be found innocent as an adult?
<p>Dave the Dad is the father of Bob the boy. Dave groomed Bob to murder minorities from a young age.</p>
<p>If Bob went on to murder some minority at age 12, Bob wouldn't just be given consequences like some random adult who'd committed such a heinous act. More likely, Bob would be given counseling, while Dave would be held responsible.</p>
<p>But what if Bob was groomed by his dad Dave all the way to age 18, and went on the same murder spree? Or up until the age 21? Or whatever reasonable age have you.</p>
<p>My main question is: can Bob be exonerated in any way because he was groomed by an adult (even into his own adulthood)?</p>
<p>To clarify: please do not use &quot;threatening&quot; in your answer. Dave grooming Bob is different than someone &quot;threatening&quot; Bob to do something. Also, &quot;murdering minorities&quot; is a random example that may not be perfect. Feel free to substitute in something more appropriate so as not to distract from the heart of the question (e.g. committing shop-lifting, murdering women, selling meth, etc.)</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/canada" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-canada-tooltip-container">canada</a></p>
<p>No: mitigating factors short of duress or other defences like necessity or self defence do not excuse or justify a crime that is otherwise proven.</p>
<p>Mitigating factors must be taken into account during sentencing. History of abuse is a personal circumstance that can be taken into account: e.g. <em>R. v. Farrell</em>, 2013 BCSC 1537 at <a href="https://canlii.ca/t/g06d5#par9" rel="nofollow noreferrer">para 9</a>. Same for &quot;parental introduction into the criminal lifestyle&quot;: <em>R. v. L.T.N.</em>, 2021 SKCA 73, at <a href="https://canlii.ca/t/jfs52#par61" rel="nofollow noreferrer">para 61</a>.</p>

<p>In ordinary English, &quot;grooming&quot; is when a social superior (in some sense) does normal, legal things to encourage a person to follow a certain path, e.g. &quot;groomed him to take over the company&quot;. It has recently gained a secondary meaning of befriending a minor for illicit sexual purposes, but that sense is clearly not applicable here. Instead, Dave has encouraged Bob to commit illegal acts.</p>
<p>Although serious childhood abuse could constitute a mitigating factor in the case of Bob committing a crime as an adult, there are typically statutory statements as to what factors are relevant. <a href="https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.535" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Here</a> is the Washington state list, which is suggestive, not exhaustive:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(a) To a significant degree, the victim was an initiator, willing
participant, aggressor, or provoker of the incident. (b) Before
detection, the defendant compensated, or made a good faith effort to
compensate, the victim of the criminal conduct for any damage or
injury sustained. (c) The defendant committed the crime under duress,
coercion, threat, or compulsion insufficient to constitute a complete
defense but which significantly affected his or her conduct. (d) The
defendant, with no apparent predisposition to do so, was induced by
others to participate in the crime. (e) The defendant's capacity to
appreciate the wrongfulness of his or her conduct, or to conform his
or her conduct to the requirements of the law, was significantly
impaired. Voluntary use of drugs or alcohol is excluded. (f) The
offense was principally accomplished by another person and the
defendant manifested extreme caution or sincere concern for the safety
or well-being of the victim. (g) The operation of the multiple offense
policy of RCW 9.94A.589 results in a presumptive sentence that is
clearly excessive in light of the purpose of this chapter, as
expressed in RCW 9.94A.010. (h) The defendant or the defendant's
children suffered a continuing pattern of physical or sexual abuse by
the victim of the offense and the offense is a response to that abuse.
(i) The defendant was making a good faith effort to obtain or provide
medical assistance for someone who is experiencing a drug-related
overdose. (j) The current offense involved domestic violence, as
defined in RCW 10.99.020, and the defendant suffered a continuing
pattern of coercion, control, or abuse by the victim of the offense
and the offense is a response to that coercion, control, or abuse. (k)
The defendant was convicted of vehicular homicide, by the operation of
a vehicle in a reckless manner and has committed no other previous
serious traffic offenses as defined in RCW 9.94A.030, and the sentence
is clearly excessive in light of the purpose of this chapter, as
expressed in RCW 9.94A.010.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The only clause that comes close, and it is not close enough, is</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(h) The defendant or the defendant's children suffered a continuing
pattern of physical or sexual abuse by the victim of the offense and
the offense is a response to that abuse</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Being badly brought up is not a mitigating factor for sentencing, and certainly not a defense.</p>

<h2>No in <a href="/questions/tagged/germany" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-germany-tooltip-container">germany</a></h2>
<p>Instead of just holding Bob accountable for murder, both Bob and Dave are very likely accountable for it: Bob for doing it for low reasons (in this case: hatred), and Dave for &quot;Anstiftung&quot; under <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__26.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">§26 StGB</a>. Both are to be punished with prison for life.</p>

united-states criminal-law california juvenile-law adult