Fortunately, Mr. Gilmore, here in Texas we judge our criminals based upon the crime they commit, and not upon what "traumas" they experienced in their past. My aunt was robbed and murdered by a man using a defense that he should be judged not upon the crime itself, but based upon the trauma he suffered while he served in Viet Nam. As I participated in counseling for families of murder victims, a woman in my group had a mother robbed and murdered by an individual who had claimed he should not be judged upon the crime itself, but based upon the trauma he had suffered as a child growing up in disadvantaged financial circumstances in a alcoholic single-parent household.

What is the relevance of your argument that the James boys never made much money in their robberies? Do you know how much the man who murdered my aunt took? $23. So should we also judge him based upon the amount he took, just as you say we should judge the James boys? And regarding the "menial jobs" the Jameses and the Youngers worked at--at the time of the crime against my aunt, the traumatized criminal who murdered her was also working at a menial job to support his family.

Mr. Gilmore, every criminal has his own particular set of "unique circumstances" as you call them. To use them to "judge" them makes me feel ill.

Mr. Gilmore, the Jameses and the Youngers killed people in those robberies they committed. Good people, like my aunt. People with children like my aunt. People who had hopes and dreams like my aunt. They should be judged based upon their crimes, not upon the traumas they suffered twenty years earlier.

So, Mr. Gilmore, it is not best that we judge men based upon what they do. We all should be held accountable for our actions. Lots of good men suffered traumas in the Civil War, and in Viet Nam. They did not go around robbing and killing.