Should James Holmes, Colorado Shooter, Get The Death Penalty??

Captain Darling · 26-07-2012 01:43PM

Poccington wrote: »

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120716/ARTICLES/120719707

There's a result of an armed robbery taking place, while someone in the cafe was carrying a pistol.

While there's no guarantee someone could've stopped Holmes, I'd sooner have a weapon with me than not have one, when something like that happened.

Wow. He just kept shooting. Fair play to him. Surprised he didnt kill them though.

a fat guy · 26-07-2012 01:43PM

I'm not regarding justice (In this case) and the bitter vengeance that the families of the victims would go through would hardly even make it worthwhile.

I simply think that people like that are too dangerous to allow to live.

kirving · 26-07-2012 01:45PM

The death penalty doesn't serve as any deterrent to mass shootings or bombings. They person is crazy enough to do it regardless of the penalty. I would say though, that the death penalty would probably act as a deterrent to something like a pre-meditated murder of a spouse for insurance money. The murderer here would probably be more calculating and so would appreciate the penalty more than someone who is totally deranged.

As for punishing someone who killed a dozen people, the death penalty still serves a purpose, even if it is never carried out. Not being able to relax, knowing that the day of your execution was coming is a fairly horrible thing I'd say. In Japan, criminals on death row are only given notice of their execution on the day, and their relatives are only informed after the fact, which is an awful way of doing things really.

Temptamperu · 26-07-2012 01:46PM

No, he deserves a black hole of a room and never to have his name said in polite company.

I love how there are lots here with an emotional "yes to death" but if hes only the second to die since 76 his name will be remembered far to easily.

Disappear him, americans are good at disappearing folk.

mhigh86 · 26-07-2012 01:47PM

I don't know enough about his motive and mental state to vote Yes at this time but I would vote Yes for ireland to have the death penalty or at least have some sort of penalty for commenting a crime here. But from the outset it would seem that he knew what he was doing and was aware that he's in a death penalty state.

CucaFace · 26-07-2012 01:50PM

RossieMan wrote: »

lifetime of suffering.... over in 5 minutes.

i know which 1 i'd choose for him.

Exactly.

He should be kept alive for as long as possible in a room with the bare basics to live.

Somewhere where it would be a relief to die (but would be virtually impossible t kill yourself) to escape the nothingness of their lives which they should have to live out until they die from natural causes.

Same goes for all other guys like this who commit planned mass murder.

For the suffering he has caused he should suffer for the rest of his life and should not be released from whatever guilt or any other things he may suffer from.

Because the families of those he killed will never get released from their pain, why should this scum get the easy way out?

Basically I'm all for making them suffer as much as possible.

Might not be very humane, but the way he acted wasn't humane either.

Or at the very least the death penalty should be done in a way he suffers a lot, not just a nice peaceful injection where he will just fall off to sleep and never wakes up.

asherbassad · 26-07-2012 01:52PM

Well,

What has executing anybody ever accomplished? It hasn't made society any safer since incarceration has the same effect. It doesn't deter anything. Criminals don't ever think about the penalty they will have to pay for their crimes because they plan on not getting caught so the punishment is irrelevant.

Think of this scenario:

A gunman is in a situation where he is going to rob someone. There's nobody around. If the victim resists, he's going to shoot. Maximum penalty for this sequence of crimes.......life imprisonment. He's still going to do the crime because the opportunity is there and he expects to succeed and get away with it.

Scenario 2:

The same gunman is in the same situation except there is a cop walking alongside him. If he commits the crime he will definitely be caught and he knows this. But let's just say the maximum penalty for the crime is say 6 months in prison. He's still not going to commit the crime despite the light sentence.

So stiffer sentences do not deter crime. The scenaria above lend weight to this. The statistics and the facts verify it.

Execute all you want, you're accomplishing nothing and just pandering to bloodlust and revenge rather than facing the issue of crime and punishment in a mature, intelligent and practical manner.

People throw out the "eye for an eye" cliche but you don't hear them advocating for the perpetrators of assaults or violent crimes to be beaten, stabbed, slashed and clubbed in public. You don't hear them clamouring for rapists to be sodomised the exact number of times that they raped, and then be released. What do they propose we do with thieves? Rob from them?

Sure .... by all means execute this guy, go on! Just make sure you increase the number of guns that he and his ilk can get their hands on. That'll solve everything.

stovelid · 26-07-2012 01:54PM

No.

A large part of me would love to see him in front of a firing squad so I can only imagine what I'd want to do if I knew one of the victims.

Those feelings, however, are no basis for deciding the punishment for crimes.

Seaneh · 26-07-2012 01:56PM

My initial reaction is yes, but sucessive life sentences in solitary confinement without parole would be a much harsher punishment.

I read an article a few years ago about the cost of housing an inmate for life and the cost of the court process for the average death row inmate. Apparently it costs several times more between trials, appeals, admin costs etc to kills someone than it does to just keep them in prison for life.

SocSocPol · 26-07-2012 01:56PM

asherbassad wrote: »

Well,

What has executing anybody ever accomplished? It hasn't made society any safer since incarceration has the same effect. It doesn't deter anything. Criminals don't ever think about the penalty they will have to pay for their crimes because they plan on not getting caught so the punishment is irrelevant.

Think of this scenario:

A gunman is in a situation where he is going to rob someone. There's nobody around. If the victim resists, he's going to shoot. Maximum penalty for this sequence of crimes.......life imprisonment. He's still going to do the crime because the opportunity is there and he expects to succeed and get away with it.

Scenario 2:

The same gunman is in the same situation except there is a cop walking alongside him. If he commits the crime he will definitely be caught and he knows this. But let's just say the maximum penalty for the crime is say 6 months in prison. He's still not going to commit the crime despite the light sentence.

So stiffer sentences do not deter crime. The scenaria above lend weight to this. The statistics and the facts verify it.

Execute all you want, you're accomplishing nothing and just pandering to bloodlust and revenge rather than facing the issue of crime and punishment in a mature, intelligent and practical manner.

People throw out the "eye for an eye" cliche but you don't hear them advocating for the perpetrators of assaults or violent crimes to be beaten, stabbed, slashed and clubbed in public. You don't hear them clamouring for rapists to be sodomised the exact number of times that they raped, and then be released. What do they propose we do with thieves? Rob from them?

Sure .... by all means execute this guy, go on! Just make sure you increase the number of guns that he and his ilk can get their hands on. That'll solve everything.

What has executing anybody ever accomplished?
I'll tell you what it accomplished, the feckers have never committed another crime after they were executed.
For preferance I would bring back hanging.

greenman09 · 26-07-2012 01:57PM

He should be given as much right to life as he did his victims. Death penalty for me. The nice and slow lethal injection. Or death by stoning

Feisar · 26-07-2012 01:58PM

Kill him.

But not as some sort of punishment, just to remove him from society. Why bother locking him up and going to the effort of keeping him incarcerated? Just kill him.

Guy:Incognito · 26-07-2012 01:59PM

buck65 wrote: »

**** it you're right, let's continue as we are maybe it'll sort itself out.

Why not answer the question. The same guy as a Canadian could have gotten the same guns, yet your sayign it was the american gun laws that caused it.

IrishAm · 26-07-2012 01:59PM

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Farmer's tan for all!

I believe the correct internet terminology is Iz just got 0wned.

ResearchWill · 26-07-2012 02:01PM

Has he pleaded guilty or been found guilty. It's funny how we can talk about killing someone who has not had a legal determination of their guilt.

Canis Lupus · 26-07-2012 02:02PM

Poccington wrote: »

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120716/ARTICLES/120719707

There's a result of an armed robbery taking place, while someone in the cafe was carrying a pistol.

While there's no guarantee someone could've stopped Holmes, I'd sooner have a weapon with me than not have one, when something like that happened.

That's pretty awesome for a 71yr old. Watching those lads run is hilarious.

mongdesade · 26-07-2012 02:03PM

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Actually for you're information I think keeping the death penalty actually costs more, because of the appeals and legal procedures etc.

http://www.newser.com/story/51752/recession-may-kill-pricey-death-penalty.html

http://www.fnsa.org/v1n1/dieter1.html

Many states were considering abolishing the death penalty back in 09' because of the high costs during the recession.

Interesting...thank you for the links

Guy:Incognito · 26-07-2012 02:05PM

ResearchWill wrote: »

Has he pleaded guilty or been found guilty. It's funny how we can talk about killing someone who has not had a legal determination of their guilt.

I doubt even his own lawyers are disputing the fact that he had the guns and shot the people.

blatantrereg · 26-07-2012 02:06PM

My main problem with the death penalty is that it can be given to people who are innocent, or whose crimes have been exaggerated.

This case is very straightforward. My only concern would be the precedent it might set. If you made it applicable in cases where it was not questionable that the person was guilty - well some judges might like to decide that applies in cases where it really doesn't.

smash · 26-07-2012 02:06PM

SocSocPol wrote: »

What has executing anybody ever accomplished?
I'll tell you what it accomplished, the feckers have never committed another crime after they were executed.

Cheaper tax bill for the public too!

Canis Lupus · 26-07-2012 02:08PM

ResearchWill wrote: »

Has he pleaded guilty or been found guilty. It's funny how we can talk about killing someone who has not had a legal determination of their guilt.

Ah come off it. In this situation it's more than pedantic to suggest he needs a court of law to confirm he's guilty.

For me the court case will be about determining his sanity and the resultant punishment.

Dyr · 26-07-2012 02:09PM

Holsten wrote: »

He must have some sort of mental illness,

Why must he?

Because humans can't be complete c**ts?

ResearchWill · 26-07-2012 02:12PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I doubt even his own lawyers are disputing the fact that he had the guns and shot the people.

But he has of yet not been found guilty, so as far as the law in the US is concerned is inocent at the moment.

If the question was should he be murdered if found guilty of these murders then ok. But the US allows the insanity defence which may or may not be used.

All persons are entitled to be inocent till proven guilty.

ResearchWill · 26-07-2012 02:16PM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Ah come off it. In this situation it's more than pedantic to suggest he needs a court of law to confirm he's guilty.

For me the court case will be about determining his sanity and the resultant punishment.

The golden thread of the common law legal system is the presumption of innocence. If we throw it away for this guy then it is gone for us all. Sure we know he did it why have a trial at all why waste a jury's time on the law just take him straight out and hang him sure we know he did it.

We can't do that and not to protect home but to protect all of us, he like any of us must walk into the court room an innocent man how he walks out is up to a jury.

latenia · 26-07-2012 02:18PM

Of course he shouldn't- he's a middle-class white man.

Guy:Incognito · 26-07-2012 02:19PM

ResearchWill wrote: »

But he has of yet not been found guilty, so as far as the law in the US is concerned is inocent at the moment.

If the question was should he be murdered if found guilty of these murders then ok. But the US allows the insanity defence which may or may not be used.

All persons are entitled to be inocent till proven guilty.

Is the death penalty discussion not working on the assumption that we are post trial and he is legally guilty?

Matt_Trakker · 26-07-2012 02:20PM

yea, kill him.
he doesn't deserve life, he killed those people for no other reason other than he's an angry dick pissed at the world and he took it out on people who were simply watching a damn film.
A film.
That's all. They did nothing to him, none of him even bloody knew him.

Think about that next time you go to the cinema, some geebag douchebag could waltz in and shoot up the place. And y'know, tough **** your time is up, you gotta go when ya gotta go? Well, no, that's nonsense, every single person in that room had their life ended for no reason.

Kill the bastard and kill him as soon as possible.

kildare.17hmr · 26-07-2012 02:20PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

ResearchWill wrote: »

But he has of yet not been found guilty, so as far as the law in the US is concerned is inocent at the moment.

If the question was should he be murdered if found guilty of these murders then ok. But the US allows the insanity defence which may or may not be used.

All persons are entitled to be inocent till proven guilty.

Is the death penalty discussion not working on the assumption that we are post trial and he is legally guilty?

I thought so anyway!!

Feisar · 26-07-2012 02:21PM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Ah come off it. In this situation it's more than pedantic to suggest he needs a court of law to confirm he's guilty.

For me the court case will be about determining his sanity and the resultant punishment.

This is AFTER HOURS!!! The home of pedantry!

ResearchWill · 26-07-2012 02:22PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Is the death penalty discussion not working on the assumption that we are post trial and he is legally guilty?

I read the OP it said noting about trial or anything just should he die. There has been nothing about this case except what the news has released. I for one disagree with murdering any person to prove murder is wrong. But in this case the guy is currently not guilty under the Law in the US so we are talking about murdering a man that there has been no finding against.

Should James Holmes, Colorado Shooter, Get The Death Penalty??

Comments