Sentencing Joe Goldberg: Mitigation When the Monster Is Human
- Michael J. DeBlis III, Esq.
- Jan 5
- 7 min read
What Criminal Defense Attorneys Can Learn from Netflix’s You
Premise: Assume Joe Goldberg—the obsessive, lethal protagonist of You—has been charged with all known killings, convicted after trial, and now stands before the court for sentencing. The question is no longer guilt. The question is meaning—and mitigation.
For criminal defense attorneys, Joe presents the most uncomfortable client imaginable: intelligent, manipulative, superficially charming, and profoundly dangerous. Yet sentencing is not a referendum on likability. It is a constitutional moment requiring individualized justice. Even monsters are sentenced as human beings.
This article explores how a defense attorney could marshal mitigation for Joe at sentencing—particularly through psychiatric evaluation—without excusing his conduct, minimizing victims, or insulting the court’s intelligence.
I. The Sentencing Posture: When the Verdict Is In
By the time Joe reaches sentencing, several realities shape the advocacy:
The fact-finder has already rejected defenses of justification, insanity, or diminished capacity.
The record likely reflects calculated, repeated acts of violence.
The court may be weighing life imprisonment, consecutive sentences, or the functional equivalent of death by incarceration.
Mitigation, therefore, must do three things:
Explain without excusing
Humanize without sentimentalizing
Contextualize risk without denying it
Joe’s past—and his pathology—allow for all three.
II. Joe Goldberg’s Developmental History as Mitigation
A sentencing court may consider a defendant’s life history insofar as it bears on culpability, character, and prospects for containment.
A. Severe Childhood Trauma and Attachment Disruption
Joe’s canonical background includes:
Chronic childhood abuse
Exposure to intimate partner violence
Early abandonment and institutional neglect
A lack of stable, prosocial attachment figures
Mitigation Argument: Joe’s emotional development arrested at a pre-adolescent stage. His later violence reflects maladaptive survival strategies formed in a world where control equaled safety and intimacy equaled threat.
A defense attorney would argue that Joe did not simply "choose evil," but rather matured inside an environment that neurologically and psychologically conditioned him toward hypervigilance, possessiveness, and emotional dysregulation.
III. The Central Pillar: A Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation
Because Joe exhibits sociopathic tendencies, psychiatric mitigation must be precise, credible, and scientifically grounded.
A. Likely Diagnostic Findings
A qualified forensic psychiatrist might identify:
1. Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD)
Relevant findings may include:
Persistent disregard for the rights of others
Deceitfulness and manipulation
Lack of conventional remorse (though capable of cognitive empathy)
Impulsivity coupled with instrumental violence
Mitigating Relevance: While ASPD does not excuse criminal conduct, courts have recognized that personality disorders can reduce moral blameworthiness by impairing behavioral inhibition and long-term consequence processing.
Importantly, Joe’s violence is not sadistic chaos—it is goal-oriented, relationship-driven, and rooted in distorted attachment needs.
2. Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (C-PTSD)
A psychiatrist may find:
Intrusive trauma-related ideation
Emotional numbing alternating with hyperarousal
Dissociative episodes during stress
Maladaptive bonding behaviors
Mitigating Relevance: C-PTSD reframes Joe’s obsession and violence as trauma reenactment rather than pure predation—an attempt to control abandonment before it occurs.
3. Attachment Disorder with Disorganized Features
Findings could include:
Pathological fear of abandonment
Fusion of love with control
Inability to mentalize others as independent agents
Mitigating Relevance: This disorder explains Joe’s cognitive distortions—particularly his belief that violence can preserve intimacy. While dangerous, this pathology reflects psychological injury, not inherent cruelty.
IV. Specific Psychiatric Findings Relevant to Sentencing
A strong mitigation report would contain concrete, sentencing-relevant conclusions, such as:
Joe’s capacity for impulse control is significantly compromised under perceived relational threat
His violence is situationally triggered rather than globally predatory
He demonstrates intact intellectual functioning but impaired affective regulation
He is not psychotic, but his moral reasoning is developmentally stunted
These findings matter because they:
Distinguish Joe from indiscriminate killers
Support structured containment over pure retribution
Undercut the narrative of gratuitous evil
V. Remorse, Insight, and the Problem of the Sociopath
Joe’s lack of traditional remorse is not disqualifying.
A psychiatrist might testify that:
Joe experiences cognitive remorse (understanding harm) without emotional resonance
His expressions of care are sincere within a distorted framework
His self-justifications are defensive, not purely manipulative
Mitigation Strategy: The defense reframes remorse as capacity for insight. Joe may never feel what others feel—but he can understand rules, consequences, and containment.
VI. Risk Assessment and Containment-Based Sentencing
Sentencing courts care deeply about future danger.
A mitigation expert could opine:
Joe poses a high risk in unstructured environments
His risk significantly decreases in highly controlled, supervised settings
He is amenable to long-term institutional management, even if not “rehabilitation”
This supports arguments against maximum consecutive sentencing where life-without-hope is not statutorily mandated.
VII. The Defense Attorney’s Ethical Tightrope
Mitigating Joe is not about sympathy—it is about fidelity to the law.
The defense attorney does not:
Minimize victims
Blame society
Ask the court to ignore danger
Instead, counsel asks the court to:
Sentence Joe Goldberg for who he is, how he was made, and what he realistically can and cannot become.
VIII. Practical Tools for Defense Counsel: Mitigation Themes & Expert Questions
A. Sample Mitigation Themes for Sentencing Advocacy
Defense counsel representing a defendant like Joe Goldberg should translate clinical findings into legally cognizable mitigation themes. Below are exemplar themes that can be adapted for sentencing memoranda, oral advocacy, and expert testimony.
1. Damaged Development, Not Inherent Depravity
Theme: Joe’s violent conduct is the product of profound developmental trauma that distorted his emotional regulation and attachment—not a life freely chosen in moral equilibrium.
Use at Sentencing:
Emphasize neurodevelopmental impact of early abuse
Argue reduced moral culpability without denying accountability
Frame Joe as psychologically injured rather than innately evil
2. Pathology Explains Pattern
Theme: Joe’s crimes follow a consistent psychological pattern tied to abandonment fear and relational threat, not indiscriminate violence.
Use at Sentencing:
Distinguish Joe from thrill killers or mass offenders
Argue predictability supports structured containment
Undercut arguments for purely retributive sentencing
3. Impaired Emotional Regulation Under Stress
Theme: Joe’s capacity to inhibit violent impulses collapses under perceived relational loss due to trauma-driven dysregulation.
Use at Sentencing:
Argue diminished ability to self-regulate in emotionally charged contexts
Support concurrent rather than consecutive sentencing where permissible
Reinforce the need for institutional controls
4. Cognitive Insight Without Affective Remorse
Theme: Joe understands that his actions are wrong, even if he lacks conventional emotional remorse.
Use at Sentencing:
Preempt prosecution arguments equating lack of remorse with incorrigibility
Emphasize capacity to comply with rules and supervision
Reframe insight as a legitimate sentencing consideration
5. Containable Risk
Theme: Joe is dangerous—but his danger is manageable in highly structured environments.
Use at Sentencing:
Advocate for sentences emphasizing secure confinement over symbolic excess
Argue that protection of society does not require maximal stacking
Align sentence with evidence-based risk management
B. Sample Expert Questions: Psychiatrist or Forensic Psychologist
Below are sample questions designed for direct examination at a sentencing hearing or mitigation phase.
1. Background and Methodology
“Doctor, can you describe the materials you reviewed and the methods you used in evaluating Mr. Goldberg?”
“Did your evaluation include collateral records, developmental history, and structured diagnostic tools?”
2. Childhood Trauma and Development
“Based on your evaluation, what impact did Mr. Goldberg’s childhood abuse and neglect have on his emotional development?”
“How does early trauma affect impulse control and attachment later in life?”
3. Diagnostic Findings
“What diagnoses, if any, did you reach to a reasonable degree of psychiatric certainty?”
“Can you explain Antisocial Personality Disorder for the Court and how it manifests in Mr. Goldberg?”
“Did you find evidence of complex trauma or attachment disorder?”
4. Connection Between Pathology and Offense Conduct
“How do Mr. Goldberg’s psychological conditions relate to the pattern of offenses in this case?”
“In your opinion, were his actions impulsive, situational, or driven by identifiable psychological triggers?”
5. Moral Reasoning and Remorse
“Does Mr. Goldberg understand that his conduct was wrong?”
“How does cognitive remorse differ from emotional remorse?”
“Is the absence of emotional remorse uncommon in individuals with his diagnoses?”
6. Risk Assessment and Future Dangerousness
“What is your assessment of Mr. Goldberg’s risk of future violence?”
“How does that risk change in a structured, highly supervised environment?”
“Are there empirically supported methods for managing individuals with these traits?”
7. Sentencing-Relevant Conclusions
“Doctor, based on your evaluation, what should the Court understand about Mr. Goldberg’s psychological limitations when determining sentence?”
“In your opinion, does a sentence emphasizing containment rather than maximal retribution adequately protect the public?”
IX. Sample Sentencing Memorandum Outline (Using Joe Goldberg as a Hypothetical)
The following outline is designed for adaptation to real cases. It assumes a post-trial sentencing following convictions for multiple homicides.
I. Preliminary Statement
Brief acknowledgment of the verdict and gravity of the offenses
Statement of purpose: to assist the Court in imposing an individualized, lawful, and proportionate sentence
Framing sentence as a determination of how punishment is imposed, not whether it is deserved
“This memorandum does not seek to excuse Mr. Goldberg’s conduct. It seeks to explain the human being the Court is being asked to sentence.”
II. Procedural History and Sentencing Exposure
Summary of charges of conviction
Applicable statutory sentencing ranges
Mandatory minimums or consecutive sentencing provisions (if any)
Clarification of the Court’s discretion
III. Governing Sentencing Principles
Individualized sentencing requirement
Statutory and common-law mitigation factors
Relevance of mental health evidence at sentencing
Sentencing goals: punishment, deterrence, incapacitation, and proportionality
IV. Overview of the Defendant
A. Developmental History
Early childhood abuse and neglect
Exposure to violence and abandonment
Institutional upbringing and lack of stable caregivers
B. Psychological Development
Arrested emotional development
Formation of maladaptive attachment strategies
Early indicators of trauma-driven behavior
V. Psychiatric Evaluation and Clinical Findings
A. Evaluation Methodology
Records reviewed
Clinical interviews
Psychological testing
Collateral interviews (where applicable)
B. Diagnoses
Antisocial Personality Disorder
Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
Disorganized Attachment Disorder
C. Functional Impairments Relevant to Sentencing
Impaired impulse control under relational stress
Distorted moral reasoning rooted in trauma
Limited capacity for affective empathy
VI. Nexus Between Mental Health and Offense Conduct
Patterned, situational nature of offenses
Triggering role of perceived abandonment
Absence of indiscriminate or thrill-seeking violence
“The same pathology that made Mr. Goldberg dangerous also makes his behavior comprehensible and predictable.”
VII. Risk Assessment and Public Safety
Assessment of future dangerousness
Distinction between unstructured freedom and controlled environments
Empirical basis for institutional containment
VIII. Remorse, Insight, and Accountability
Explanation of cognitive versus affective remorse
Evidence of insight into wrongdoing
Acceptance of the verdict and legal accountability
IX. Application of Mitigation Factors
Reduced moral culpability due to psychological impairment
Lifelong trauma as a mitigating circumstance
Mental illness as relevant to sentence severity
X. Sentencing Recommendation
Specific sentence requested (with statutory grounding)
Argument for concurrent vs. consecutive terms
Emphasis on secure confinement rather than symbolic excess
“A sentence emphasizing containment over annihilation satisfies justice without abandoning proportionality.”
XI. Victim Acknowledgment
Recognition of victims and their families
Statement that mitigation does not diminish harm
Affirmation of the Court’s role in honoring loss
XII. Conclusion
Reiteration of individualized justice
Final request for a sentence grounded in law, psychology, and humanity
X. Conclusion: Sentencing as the Last Act of Advocacy
Joe Goldberg reminds us why sentencing advocacy matters most when it is hardest.
If mitigation only applies to the sympathetic, it is not justice—it is favoritism.
For criminal defense attorneys, Joe is the ultimate test case: a client who forces us to argue not for forgiveness, but for understanding, proportionality, and human dignity—even at the edge of the abyss.
Because in sentencing, the question is never whether the defendant is good. The question is whether the system remains just.
Comments