Source: p 236-237, With Good Reason, An Introduction to Informal Fallacies (2000 6 ed) by York U. Prof. S. Morris Engel
The trouble with such appeals [to Pity] is that, however are, they may be irrelevant to the issues, in which case they need carry no weight with us. As in all fallacies of relevance, we need to be clear about the question. Thus it would be fallacious for a defense attorney to offer evidence about the defendant's unfortunate lot as a reason why the court should find [1.] him or her innocent of a crime [End of 1.]. It would not be fallacious, on the other hand, for an attorney to offer such evidence as [2.] a reason for treating the convicted person with leniency [End of 2.].
A crime comprises 2 elements: 3. Actus reus, 4. Mens rea. I understand that 2 is separate from 3; whether or not the defendant deserves leniency, changes not the defendant's actions.
I also understand that 1 and 2 reference separate stages of the Criminal Trial: 1 the Judgement, and 2 the Sentencing after the defendant has been convicted.
But is not it possible that 2 can affect and connect with 1?
If 4 is absent, then a jury may treat the defendant with leniency by deciding to find the defendant NOT GUILTY (
Then the defendant would not be convicted?