I choose this picture because no matter how hard we try to look at this case with emotional detatchment to arrive at the most legal answer we should keep in mind that they were real people, who went through severe traumatic experiences. It captures something that words can't descrive: the insidious nature of control the father had over Lyle who clearly looks uncomfortable compared to Lyle whose innocent smile is truly heartbreaking as he wasn't aware of what was happening.
Were the Menendez brothers rightfully convicted for the murder of their parents Jose and Mary Louise Menendez? Let me lay out the facts, the firearms used in the crime were purchased two days before the act. Their testimony stated that they were purchased as means of “protection” from the imminent dangers posed to them by their parents, this reason, even if it was true, seems skeptical considering the close proximity between the dates of the purchase and the murder. If killing them was truly “self defense” it must have occurred as a retaliation to active harm. The purchase of guns seems premeditated to rule out active self defence.
If threat was truly imminent they would not have had the opportunity to take extra “precautions”; alternative options were provided given the circumstances—they were legal adults 18 and 21, they had the freedom of leaving the house, they were not immured, leaving the possibility of reaching out for help or informing the authorities of the threat was available. Murder should only be permissible if it is truly the last resort and that sort of situation is rare to come across in life. In their case murder was clearly not the last option; their actions cannot be dismissed as self defence.
After the shooting, the brothers called 911 claiming that they “found” their parents dead, a fabrication that we come to know after their corollary admission to shooting them themselves. The initial cover up demonstrates consciousness of guilt. If it was truly self defense, coming clean about the events that occurred prior to the murder would have been the most logical.
From the evidence of child abuse experienced by the Menedez brothers, their actions could be considered as an act of retaliation, fueled by revenge; they were wronged, no one can deny it; the consonant trauma and manipulation could have possibly made them think that even law enforcement couldn’t save them from their parents wrath and if they needed to be free the only option was to get rid of them by themselves.
The voluntary, conscious act of taking someone's life is murder by definition, if someone commits murder it warrants being charged for it, the only thing that could sway the punitive ruling is limited to the circumstances surrounding the act. The actus reus of taking a life is inherently wrong, yet the antecedent abuse, both mental and physical, does justify a lax ruling as compared to murder with intent.