Some defenses are not worth hearing

I have a preoccupation, of sorts, with the unique defense strategies used to minimize the penalties imposed on criminals during the sentencing phase of trials. Once a jury has convicted a person of first degree murder for example, the jury (or judge) will then decide the penalty. Their choices are usually limited to life without parole or execution.

One of the most prevalent defense strategies is to explain to the jury the horrible childhood of the convicted person and to somehow blame that rocky start for their crime. Alcohol or drug abuse is almost always cited as yet another contributing factor. And then there's the ever-popular low IQ strategy that is also commonplace. The defense hopes the jury will somehow be swayed by this sad tale of child abuse and not impose the ultimate sentence of the death penalty. More often than not, the strategy works.

There's a highly sensational deliberation under way today in Florida that combines all of the above. John Couey has been found guilty of killing 9-

year-old Jessica Lunsford. Couey is a 48-year-old convicted sex offender who kidnapped the young girl and eventually buried her alive. The details of the case are horrible and not worth repeating in this column. If anyone deserves the death penalty, surely it is John Couey.

His defense attorney, as expected, told the jury that Couey was an abused child, had a low IQ and was a drug and alcohol addict. In short, the defense attorney used every excuse he could muster to convince the jury that Couey should be spared the death penalty.

But then - in a creative move that may well go down in history - the defense attorney employed the most novel defense imaginable. Couey was born prematurely and suffered from a birth defect of "floppy ears." That caused him to be bullied and teased in school. And because of that teasing, Couey was not responsible for the murder of the young girl. Or so the defense would have you believe.

It would be impossible to make this up. Even a creative mind would take pause trying to craft a defense based on "floppy ears." But I guess when your client is obviously guilty of such a horrendous crime, you pull anything out of your bag of tricks.

I hope the jury returns the death penalty in this case. And I hope the day comes when Couey meets his maker in some Florida death chamber. Then and only then will justice be served.

But if the jury should sympathize with the "floppy ears" defense, then we might as well eliminate the death penalty all together. The issue of justice must first be abandoned for anyone to cite such baloney as any excuse for future actions.