In law, the definition of mitigating circumstances is a group of factors that lessen the severity of a criminal offense.

Mitigating
circumstances can include things such as the age, mental state, history of abuse, or lack of criminal record of the defendant. These
represent specific circumstances that lessen a person's culpability in court. This definition is also applied to mitigating factors. Mitigating
factors are the opposite to aggravating factors, or factors that increase the culpability of a criminal offense. Examples of aggravating
factors include the cruelty associated with the act, lack of remorse, or previous criminal record.
There are two types of mitigating factors: positive mitigation and negative mitigation. Positive mitigation occurs when the factor is used
to paint a more positive view of the defendant, showing that their offense was out of character. Negative mitigation shows the hardships
of the defendant that were out of their control that should be considered to lessen their sentence.
Importance of Mitigating Circumstances
Mitigating circumstances are an important piece for courtroom discussions. Lawyers of all parties have the opportunity to present
mitigating and aggravating factors to the judge in order to sway their ruling. A judge may decide to lessen a sentence because of
mitigating factors or harshen it because of aggravating factors. In cases of severe crimes that may call for the death penalty, judges are
required to consider all mitigating circumstances before deciding on a sentence.
Mitigating Factors Examples
There are several types of mitigating factors that have the ability to sway the opinion of the court. Some examples of these are as
follows:
Minor role: A defendant may be given a lighter sentence because they only had a minor role in the offense. For example, Sarah drove
her friend to a store and back, knowing that her friend was going to shoplift $1000 worth of merchandise. Sarah's lawyer makes the
argument that because Sarah only transported the person who stole the merchandise she should receive a lighter sentence. The judge
considered this a valid mitigating circumstance.
Age: In the case of a young or elderly defendant, age may be considered a mitigating factor. For example, 12-year-old Joey stole
a controlled substance from his dad (that had been prescribed to him) and sold it to his classmate for recreational use. After being
caught by his teacher and sent to teen court, his lawyer argued that he should be given a lighter sentence because he is so young. The
court agreed to consider this a mitigating factor.
Criminal Record: A lack of previous criminal record may also be considered a mitigating factor. For example, Charles was arrested for
vandalizing public property after tagging the wall of a post office. His lawyer argued that, because Charles has a clean criminal record,
he should be given a lighter sentence. The judge agrees that because Charles has otherwise proven to be a law-abiding citizen he
would receive a lighter sentence.
Background: The personal history or background of a defendant can also be considered a mitigating factor. For example, Suzie was
arrested for repeatedly shoplifting baby formula from the grocery store. Suzie is a single mom with 4 children who works a low-paying
job. She also has little to no support system as her parents both passed some years ago. Her lawyer argues that her lack of support
system and difficult circumstances should be considered mitigating factors. The judge agrees with her and lightens her sentence.
What is an example of a mitigating circumstance?
A mitigating circumstance is anything that is used to explain why a defendant should receive a lesser sentence. For example, if an
individual with severe combat PTSD attacks another, the fact that they are suffering from a mental illness is considered a mitigating
circumstance. A judge would typically decide to lessen the sentence of a defendant in this scenario.
a) The following grounds shall be accorded weight in favor of withholding or minimizing a
sentence of imprisonment:
(1) The defendant's criminal conduct neither caused
nor threatened serious physical harm to another.
(2) The defendant did not contemplate that his
criminal conduct would cause or threaten serious physical harm to another.
(3) The defendant acted under a strong provocation.
(4) There were substantial grounds tending to excuse
or justify the defendant's criminal conduct, though failing to establish a defense.
 (5) The defendant's criminal conduct was induced or
facilitated by someone other than the defendant.
(6) The defendant has compensated or will compensate
the victim of his criminal conduct for the damage or injury that he sustained.
(7) The defendant has no history of prior delinquency
or criminal activity or has led a law-abiding life for a substantial period of time before the
commission of the present crime.
(8) The defendant's criminal conduct was the result
of circumstances unlikely to recur.
(9) The character and attitudes of the defendant
indicate that he is unlikely to commit another crime.
(10) The defendant is particularly likely to comply
with the terms of a period of probation.
(11) (Blank).
(12) The imprisonment of the defendant would endanger
his or her medical condition.
(13) The defendant was a person with an intellectual
disability as defined in Section 5-1-13 of this Code.
(14) The defendant sought or obtained emergency
medical assistance for an overdose and was convicted of a Class 3 felony or higher
possession, manufacture, or delivery of a controlled, counterfeit, or look-alike substance or
a controlled substance analog under the Illinois Controlled Substances Act or a Class 2
felony or higher possession, manufacture or delivery of methamphetamine under the
Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act.
(15) At the time of the offense, the defendant is or
had been the victim of domestic violence and the effects of the domestic violence tended to
excuse or justify the defendant's criminal conduct. As used in this paragraph (15),
"domestic violence" means abuse as defined in Section 103 of the Illinois Domestic
Violence Act of 1986.
(16) At the time of the offense, the defendant was
suffering from a serious mental illness which, though insufficient to establish the defense of
insanity, substantially affected his or her ability to understand the nature of his or her acts
or to conform his or her conduct to the requirements of the law.
(17) At the time of the offense, the defendant was
suffering from post-partum depression or post-partum psychosis which was either
undiagnosed or untreated, or both, and this temporary mental illness tended to excuse or
justify the defendant's criminal conduct and the defendant has been diagnosed as suffering
from post-partum depression or post-partum psychosis, or both, by a qualified medical
person and the diagnoses or testimony, or both, was not used at trial. In this paragraph
(17):
"Post-partum depression" means a mood disorder
which strikes many women during and after pregnancy which usually occurs during
pregnancy and up to 12 months after delivery. This depression can include anxiety
disorders.
"Post-partum psychosis" means an extreme form of
post-partum depression which can occur during pregnancy and up to 12 months after
delivery. This can include losing touch with reality, distorted thinking, delusions, auditory
and visual hallucinations, paranoia, hyperactivity and rapid speech, or mania.
(18) The defendant is pregnant or is the parent of a
child or infant whose well-being will be negatively affected by the parent's absence.
Circumstances to be considered in assessing this factor in mitigation include:
(A) that the parent is breastfeeding the child;
 (B) the age of the child, with strong
consideration given to avoid disruption of the caregiving of an infant, pre-school or
school-age child by a parent;
(C) the role of the parent in the day-to-day
educational and medical needs of the child;
(D) the relationship of the parent and the child;
(E) any special medical, educational, or
psychological needs of the child;
(F) the role of the parent in the financial
support of the child;
(G) the likelihood that the child will be
adjudged a dependent minor under Section 2-4 and declared a ward of the court under
Section 2-22 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987;
(H) the best interest of the child.
Under this Section, the defendant shall have the
right to present a Family Impact Statement at sentencing, which the court shall consider in
favor of withholding or minimizing a sentence of imprisonment prior to imposing any
sentence and may include testimony from family and community members, written
statements, video, and documentation. Unless the court finds that the parent poses a
significant risk to the community that outweighs the risk of harm from the parent's removal
from the family, the court shall impose a sentence in accordance with subsection (b) that
allows the parent to continue to care for the child or children.
(19) The defendant serves as the caregiver for a
relative who is ill, disabled, or elderly.
(b) If the court, having due regard for the character of the offender, the nature and
circumstances of the offense and the public interest finds that a sentence of imprisonment is
the most appropriate disposition of the offender, or where other provisions of this Code
mandate the imprisonment of the offender, the grounds listed in paragraph (a) of this
subsection shall be considered as factors in mitigation of the term imposed.

What are Aggravating Factors?

Aggravating factors are defined as any facts that increase the level of severity of any criminal activity. For example, recidivism, harm to
the victim, or lack of remorse is what most aggravating factors are made of. Different jurisdictions have different aggravating factors.
Mitigating factors differ from aggravating factors because mitigating are extenuating circumstances that may cause one to get a
reduced sentence. On the other hand, aggravated circumstances increase the defendant's guilt and may cause an addition in the
punishment given.
Many states have their variations of aggravating factors and may not relate to circumstances relating to the capital offense. In 30 states
and federal death penalty statutes, some crimes have past convictions that become aggravating circumstances. The different laws
differ depending on the crime the state specifies.
Importance of Aggravating Factors
If a person is convicted of any crime, aggravating factors related to the case may increase the level of punishment a criminal receives.
For instance, if a person gets a prison term, there is a chance the length would be increased. Therefore, a person gets to serve more
years for the crime than they would have had there not been any aggravating factors. Likewise, if the defendant needs to pay a fine,
the amount will rise dramatically if there are any aggravating factors.
If there is any aggravating evidence, the judge always uses these to choose a much longer sentence than the term that would have
happened initially. These circumstances include the vulnerability of the victim, the severity of the crime, and the defendant's history.
Common Aggravating Factors
The federal government and most states have lists of aggravating factors in their statutes. Some of the common aggravating factors
include:
1. Criminal History of the Offender
An individual's past convictions may be an aggravating factor in the sentencing process. The criminal history of the offender, or the
prior convictions are of increasing seriousness, then the judge is mandated to increase the length of the sentence. Prosecutors are
legally required to apply this factor to criminal cases to protect the rights of all people involved in the criminal proceeding. Their role is
to charge the offender with the crime and advocate the maximum penalty based on their previous convictions.
2. Instrument Used to Commit the Crime
The instrument used to commit a crime is an aggravating factor. The use or possession of any dangerous weapons when committing
the crime is considered in the sentencing. According to a jury, tools that are considered to be burglary tools include firearms, lock picks,
knives, or a crowbar. The jury is responsible for concluding whether the defendant intended to use the tool/s for the robbery they
committed. In the case of armed robbery, the use of force or threat of using force is also another factor a jury considers.
3. Intent Behind the Commission of the Crime
Intent often refers to the mental reasoning behind the crime committed. The concept of intent is primary in criminal law and is
circumstantial evidence, like the defendant's knowledge. The general presumption is that the defendant had the intention to perform the
acts they did. However, some crimes need specific intent and need to be proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
For instance, a person convicted of attempted murder needs to have specific intent to kill; and the prosecutor cannot assume the
defendant tried to kill or killed to prove intent. The defendant might have been acting out of self-defense; and this reason negates the
intention, since the act was for protection and not the desire to kill the victim.
WHAT ARE AGGRAVATING FACTORS IN SENTENCING?
If the prosecution establishes certain facts, these factors can increase your sentence. The legislature created them so the punishment
would better fit the crime. A crime may have minimum and maximum sentences, so they play a role in determining where in that range
you’ll be.
A sentencing judge must consider the factors when deciding the outcome, but a judge can decide to look past the fact that your actions
fit into an aggravating factor when determining your sentence.
The opposite of aggravating factors are mitigating factors. They are issues that could mean a lesser sentence would be fairer. If both
are present, the judge will need to balance the two.
What Are Aggravating Factors in Illinois?
What are examples of aggravating factors? In Illinois, they include:
The defendant’s conduct caused or threatened to cause serious harm.
The defendant had a prior history of criminal offenses.
The defendant held public office and the crime related to its duties.
The defendant held a position where their duties included preventing this specific offense or bringing those committing the offense to
justice.
The sentence should deter others from committing the same offense.
The victim was 60 or older.
The victim was disabled.
The defendant targeted the victim due to their perceived race, color, creed, gender, or other protected class.
The offense occurred at a place of worship around or during the time of a service.
The defendant was out on bail, serving probation or parole at the time of the crime.
WHAT ARE EXAMPLES OF AGGRAVATING FACTORS?
Aggravating factors are a genuine concern for criminal defendants and their attorneys. Some examples are:
Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was sentenced in June to 22.5 years in prison for killing George Floyd, whose death
was caused by Chauvin’s kneeling on his neck for more than nine minutes, reports Newsweek. Chauvin was convicted of second-
degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter. Aggravating factors leading to his sentence were
his abuse of his position of trust and authority; he treated Floyd with “particular cruelty”; the crime occurred in front of at least four
minors; and three others actively participated in the crime.
Consummated, Frustrated, and Attempted Felonies
ART.6

STAGES OF EXECUTION:
1. CONSUMMATED – when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present

2. FRUSTRATED
Elements:
a. offender performs all acts of execution
b. all these acts would produce the felony as a consequence
c. BUT the felony is NOT produced
d. by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator

3. ATTEMPTED

Elements:
a. offender commences the felony directly by overt acts
b. does not perform all acts which would produce the felony
c. his acts are not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance

Crimes, which do not admit of Frustrated and Attempted Stages:

1. Offenses punishable by Special Penal Laws, unless the law provides otherwise
2. Formal crimes – consummated in one instance (e.g.: slander, adultery, etc.)
3. Impossible Crimes
4. Crimes consummated by mere attempt (e.g.: attempt to flee to an enemy country, treason, corruption of minors)
5. Felonies by omission
6. Crimes committed by mere agreement (e.g.: betting in sports: “ending,” corruption of public officers)

Crimes which do not admit of Frustrated Stage:

1. Rape
2. Bribery
3. Corruption of Public Officers
4. Adultery
5. Physical Injury

2 stages in the development of a crime:

1. Internal acts
- e.g. mere ideas of the mind
- not punishable
2. External acts
a. Preparatory acts - ordinarily not punishable except when considered by law as independent crimes (e.g. Art. 304, Possession of
picklocks and similar tools)
b. Acts of Execution - punishable under the RPC

Theft; Stages of Execution (1998

In the jewelry section of a big department store, Julia snatched a couple of bracelets and put them in her purse. At the store's exit,
however, she was arrested by the guard after being radioed by the store personnel who caught the act in the store's moving camera. Is
the crime consummated, frustrated, or attempted?
Suggested Answer:
The crime is consummated theft because the taking of the bracelets was complete after Julia succeeded in putting them in her purse.
Julia acquired complete control of the bracelets after putting them in her purse; hence, the taking with intent to gain is complete and
thus the crime is consummated.
Theft; Stages of Execution (2000)
Sunshine, a beauteous "colegiala" but a shoplifter, went to the Ever Department Store and proceeded to the women's wear section.
The saleslady was of the impression that she brought to the fitting room three (3) pieces of swimsuits of different colors. When she
came out of the fitting room, she returned only two (2] pieces to the clothes rack. The saleslady became suspicious and alerted the
store detective. Sunshine was stopped by the detective before she could leave the store and brought to the office of the store manager.
The detective and the manager searched her and found her wearing the third swimsuit under her blouse and pants. Was the theft of the
swimsuit consummated, frustrated, or attempted? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
The theft was consummated because the taking or asportation was complete. The asportation is complete when the offender acquires
exclusive control of the personal property being taken: in this case, when Sunshine wore the swimsuit under her blouse and pants and
was on her way out of the store. With evident intent to gain, the taking constitutes theft, and being complete, it is consummated. It is not
necessary that the offender is in a position to dispose of the property,
Alternative Answer:
The crime of theft was only frustrated because Sunshine had not yet left the store when the offense was opportunely discovered and
the article seized from her. She does not have yet the freedom to dispose of the swimsuit she was taking (People vs. Dino, CA 45 O.G.
3446). Moreover, in case of doubt as to whether it is consummated or frustrated, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the milder
criminal responsibility.