Which Murder is Worst?

You are told about two different murders that took place in a nearby town. Who would you give the worst sentencing to? Both murders took place at night while the victims were sleeping. None of the victims were tortured, in fact, it is suspected that the victims knew no pain. The first murderer killed a family of three, leaving only the young daughter, a minor, alive. The second murderer killed a young woman in her own house. Who would you give the worst sentencing to, the murderer of three or the murderer of one? Naturally, you will most likely respond that both should be given a severe punishment, but the one that took three innocent lives will suffer more. In actuality, the murderer that killed three, you would probably send to a rehabilitation center and the other murderer would have the worst sentence. The reason? The man who murdered the young woman was in his twenties, lived with his parents, and was a social outcast. He was someone you avoided on the streets, and most likely avoided you. The murderer of the family? Well, she was the young daughter left alive. She's pretty and fragile-looking, someone who you would help without a second thought.
It is human tendency to attempt to rationalize, well everything. As jurors, or someone solving or following a case, the one question always lingers, why? It is more important to us to understand the reason behind the act, than the act itself. Poe illustrated this in "The Tell-Tale Heart." Never once does the narrator try to defend his actions, instead he attempts to define his motive. Poe is illustrating to the audience that the narrator cares more about being understood than his past deeds. As readers, we are just as guilty. Instead of condeming the narrator for his acts, we are engrossed by his insanity. We feel separated from the narrator. Yet again, he is someone you would avoid on the streets. But we do not avoid him for the murder, instead, we avoid him for his mind. Albert Camus illustrates the same concept in The Stranger. Camus deftly moves his audience to outrage over Mersault's trial. Yes, he murdered a man, but what does his mother's passing have to do with anything? We feel this outrage and shock because we view the world through Mersault. Mersault does not see the connection, and even we are hard pressed to see it as well. The irony is this is a valid description of the real world. If we were in that courtroom, we would want the answers to all of the questions posed by the prosecutors. Yet, they had nothing to do with the murder. It goes back to human tendency to rationalize. We cannot accept that Mersault would kill a man for no reason other than he was hot. We need the reason that something is already wrong, after all he never mourned for his mother. We cannot accept that a little girl would kill her family because there is something evil inside of her. We need to know that something is wrong, but we can fix it, as long as we support her. We can accept the fact that the man murdered the young woman. Afterall, she was beautiful and he would never have had a chance with her. He does not know how to interact socially or play well with others. But, he still should have known better.
Through our attempts to over-rationalize, we provide our society with confusing contradictions. We get lost in the insanity of one character whose story is all about murder and lost in the murdering ways of another character whose story is all about a different view of life. We give help to the murderer who can interact socially and condem the one who cannot. Our society needs to know the why behind most actions, however, we only accept the why when it fits our standards. Is this the way it has to be? Or can we, by realizing our tendencies, change the way we view others? I prefer to believe that we can judge a person by both actions and thoughts. I prefer to believe that if I were a juror, the appearance and acceptable societal standards would not stand in my way of passing down a fair and just sentencing. On the other hand, this form of judgement is deeply ingrained in our society. From character witnesses to who we play with on the playground, we base our decisions on how others operate with the whole. There may be no answer to this puzzling dilemma, but I do know this, it would not be comforting to be a stranger in our society.