So what? Why bring up the thought process if not to excuse it?
Because unlike you, I have nuance man. You can be guilty of something while still being a logical explanation as to why you did so. Doesn’t mean it’s excusing anything it just illuminates as to why.
For example, if someone steals a loaf of bread they are wrong. But if they did it because they haven’t eaten then that’s the explanation. Does it mean you get the loaf of bread for free and all is right? No you’re still guilty of stealing. But at least we have a logical explanation as opposed to the guilty party stealing the loaf for the thrill or for fun which would not be a logical explanation for the act.
Not comparing stealing bread to murder, just trying to analogize that you can understand why someone does something without denying the wrongdoing.
Also as a bigger point, if you want to reduce crime the these are things you must dive into. Solely doling out punishment doesn’t change cycles of incarceration and crime in certain communities. We have to understand why people act and what pushes them to commit the crimes. Once you know why you can attack the reasons for the crime not solely the person who committed it.
How can you make a change if the only question you ask is, “guilty or innocent”? Find out why, find out what led to this thought process, what factors pushed these people to act in such a way. You get answers to that and attack those issues then you can actually lower crime.