1

Aggravating and Mitigating Essay

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course Name

Instructor’s Name

Date
 2

Aggravating and Mitigating Essay

The state of Arizona executed Arthur Martin Ross on 29th April 1998 (Arizona executed 2

murderers in one week in 1998, 2020). Born on 24th May 1954, Arthur had been convicted of

murder (Arizona executed 2 murderers in one week in 1998, 2020). The murder took place eight

years before the execution. The victim was a real estate agent. Arthur contacted the agent and

informed them that he was interested in seeing some property available for sale. Ross used a

false name when contacting the agent. The two met at the site. Ross had a handgun with him. He

attempted to take the real estate agent’s wallet. In the ensuing resistance and struggle, Ross shot

Ruble in the head. He dragged the victim behind a counter and reshot him killing him. Ross

began using Ruble's documents such as credit cards and identity card. After his arrest, he claimed

to be Ruble then changed his story and claimed to be Robert Burgess and that he found Ruble's

wallet in a dumpster (Arizona executed 2 murderers in one week in 1998, 2020).

Aggravating circumstances are those factors that increase the culpability of a criminal act

(Blanco, 2020). Ross murdered Ruble for pecuniary gains. His objective was to obtain money as

well as identification. He failed to achieve this objective earlier when he had met with another

real estate agent, Mac Moore (Blanco, 2020). Later on, he was able to achieve the objectives

with agent Ruble. Ross claimed that he fired the first shot by mistake. Nevertheless, he

committed murder to aid his escape and allow him to keep the stolen items. This furthered the

financial gain motive. The evidence available to the state proved that Ross committed murder to

steal credit card and use them for fraudulent purchases. The state showed that the aggravating

circumstance was pecuniary gain beyond a reasonable doubt (Blanco, 2020).

Further, it is essential to establish whether murder is committed in a heinous, depraved or

cruel manner. To establish this, the defendant's state of mind as well as attitude as they
 3

committed the crime is considered (Blanco, 2020). Several factors are taken into account. The

first one is the helplessness of the victim (Blanco, 2020). The others include relishment of the

murder, mutilation of the victim, the senselessness of the crime, and infliction of gratuitous

violence (Blanco, 2020). Ross murdered Ruble to eliminate a witness. Further, the victim was

helpless, and the murder was senseless. This shows depravity or heinousness of the crime.

Ross attempted to fight the decision to categorize his crime as heinous. He claimed that

the murder was not senseless since the victim fought back when he was robbing him. However, a

murder may be categorized as senseless when it is unnecessary to allow the offender to complete

what he wanted (State v. Ross. Justia Law, 2020). Therefore, killing the victim, in this case, was

senseless. Ross was already in possession of Ruble's wallet before taking the second shot. It was,

therefore, unnecessary to shoot again since the robbery was already complete. Ross also argued

that the victim was not helpless since he could have fought back after he was shot the first time.

This could not hold weight since the victim was not in the same state before the second shot.

There was no evidence of a struggle after the first shot (State v. Ross. Justia Law, 2020). Ross

could, therefore, have gotten away without inflicting further harm on the victim. Ross also

argued that there was not sufficient evidence to support the finding that he killed Ruble to

eliminate him as a witness. This challenge carried weight since it is difficult to prove that a

murder was conducted to eliminate a witness where the very victim was also the witness (State v.

Ross. Justia Law, 2020).

Ross presented several mitigating circumstances. These include lack of a previous record

of violence, cooperation with police, family support, troubled childhood, and record of educating

himself and others in prison (State v. Ross. Justia Law, 2020). The trial court found that these

circumstances failed to prove that any of these factors were sufficient to call for leniency. A
 4

difficult family background is not an adequate mitigating factor unless there is an issue as a

result of that background that results in behavior that an individual cannot control. Ross had a

history of imprisonment (State v. Ross. Justia Law, 2020). He had no good behavior during

imprisonment terms to establish a mitigating factor. He was on parole when he murdered Ruble.

Further, he had a history of handling prison contraband and aggravated escape. Also, he had

committed several crimes while on parole. Cooperation with the police is often in the best

interests of the defendant (State v. Ross. Justia Law, 2020). However, Ross had lied severally to

the detectives regarding his identity. He also lied about the circumstances of the crime before

confessing. Such behavior cannot be termed as cooperation with the police. Further, although

Ross had no history of violence, he had a history of convictions for aggravated escape and first-

degree burglary (State v. Ross. Justia Law, 2020).

 5

References

Arizona executed 2 murderers in one week in 1998. KNXV. (2020). Retrieved 2 June 2020, from

https://www.abc15.com/news/crime/death-row-diaries-id-rather-die-than-live-on-death-

row-arthur-martin-ross.

Blanco, J. (2020). Arthur Martin Ross | Murderpedia, the encyclopedia of murderers.

Murderpedia.org. Retrieved 2 June 2020, from https://murderpedia.org/male.R/r1/ross-

arthur-martin.htm.

State v. Ross. Justia Law. (2020). Retrieved 2 June 2020, from

https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/supreme-court/1994/cr-91-0133-ap-2.html.