>>104936410>>104935312>>104935277Rarity isn't the issue at law, it's complexity.
A case (in the English tradition, as US law is) is tried based on the law at the time of the alleged offense (very few laws are applied retroactively, though this is not impossible), including statute (as defined by legislators) and case or common law (as defined by the courts in deciding prior cases, or by tradition if the rights and conventions go back beyond court records). The complexity that already exists means there are few cases which are as simple as "guilty/innocent" decisions; oftentimes the charges may be dropped during the prosecution, or modified to something more appropriate as new evidence is considered. In this case, Homer might be initially arrested for murder and eventually be tried for manslaughter ("murder two", usually involuntary or provoked by some cause such as a genuine belief that survival was at stake).
The job of the prosecution isn't to admit that they're defending a monster (nor is it the job of the defense), even if they are and even if this is self evident; their job is to see that the law is applied fairly and evenly, acting on behalf of the aggrieved party. The defense does the same thing acting on behalf of the accused; the judge acts impartially to the same end, and directs a jury (in jury cases) to act the same way.
The fact is if Homer has killed a minor, he is to be tried on that basis. True, seeking the death penalty is unlikely - he doesn't seem to draw out Jimbo's murder, and it's apparently done while emotionally disturbed - but this is a secondary consideration, and if the prosecution sought it and Homer's lawyers were inept, it's a possible outcome. The idea of him being executed before his fat ass dies of heart disease is laughable, though. He's got decades of appeals.
