When we praise and reward a friend for their generosity towards us, or blame and censure someone for their odious actions, we normally take their behaviour at face value. That is, though we may question their motives for these acts, or their appalling character, we do not usually inquire into the origins of their character or from where their motive may have arisen. It is interesting that this convention is a part of our blaming and praising practices because our judgements about a person's freedom and responsibility can be revised from knowing their history. This point is quite strikingly demonstrated in the abridged case of Robert Harris, a man who was on Death Row for the murder of John Mayeski and Michael Baker, two 16 year old boys:1 Harris and his brother Daniel had been looking for a car they could use to rob a bank, when they noticed the boys' car. Harris threatened the boys with his gun and told them to drive him and Daniel to a canyon. Once there, Harris explained that they were going to take their car for the robbery, that they were to report the car stolen, and that some of the money from the bank robbery would go to them. The boys agreed, but once Mayeski had turned around, Harris shot him in the back. Harris chased Baker down a hill and shot him four times. When he returned to Daniel, he saw Mayeski was still alive and shot him directly in the head. Harris then began swinging his weapons in the air and started laughing.