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

about 3 fity · 26-07-2012 02:22PM

rapists could be considered for it too imo

asherbassad · 26-07-2012 02:25PM

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.
For preferance I would bring back hanging.

Neither have those who have been locked up for life.

Canis Lupus · 26-07-2012 02:25PM

ResearchWill wrote: »

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.

Oh come on... Stop it. We're all perfectly aware of innocent until proven guilty and no one would want to execute or punish an innocent man but in this case the trial, in terms of guilty/innocent, is just a matter of due process. The more important aspect to be decided in the trial will be whether he was deemed to be of sound mind or not at the time.

Holsten · 26-07-2012 02:26PM

Feisar wrote: »

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.

To learn from him.

Killing him accomplishes NOTHING!

ResearchWill · 26-07-2012 02:28PM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Oh come on... Stop it. We're all perfectly aware of innocent until proven guilty and no one would want to execute or punish an innocent man but in this case the trial, in terms of guilty/innocent, is just a matter of due process. The more important aspect to be decided in the trial will be whether he was deemed to be of sound mind or not at the time.

And he may at the end of the trial be found not guilty by reason of insanity and all this talk would be redundant. By the way why should I stop it, is my opinion not valid.

If you want to talk about legal murder then this is a good story. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/a-chief-justice-got-away-with-murder-1169087.html

Canis Lupus · 26-07-2012 02:31PM

ResearchWill wrote: »

And he may at the end of the trial be found guilty by reason of insanity and all this talk would be redundant. By the way why should I stop it, is my opinion not valid.

If you want to talk about legal murder then this is a good story. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/a-chief-justice-got-away-with-murder-1169087.html

Dude I would hope that anyone wanting him to die/punished would be on the basis of him being declared sane at the time. (rightness of the death penalty itself aside). You're just arguing a pointless slant on the situation here.

ResearchWill · 26-07-2012 02:35PM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Dude I would hope that anyone wanting him to die/punished would be on the basis of him being declared sane at the time. (rightness of the death penalty itself aside). You're just arguing a pointless slant on the situation here.

My problem is the bloodlust of people for another person to be added to the body count with no information to base that call for hanging on. It is because of the public baying for blood that Bentley was hung, if you read the article I posted you would understand the point. I have no issue discussing the pros and cons of the death penalty but this is not a generic death penalty thread this is a specific question about a specific person that no one in here knows anything about except what is gleaned from news papers.

aloyisious · 26-07-2012 02:43PM

IMO, it'd be crueller to hold a person in prison for life for mass murder (rather than executing him/her for the offence) and to study him/her with the alleged aim of preventing a similar crime being committed in the future, then depart to leave the inmate imprisoned with a determined future of non-release; maybe even to go "stir-crazy". The notion of imprisonment is allegedly to allow time and space for an offender to be rehabilitated before rejoining society.

It sound's more like cruel and unusual punishment, revenge even, to deliberately deny some-one the freedom of movement one takes for granted each day, when you know that person will have those same feelings each day while imprisoned, then to merely shrug one's shoulders (ce la vie) when you hear of the inmate's death by suicide.

I honestly don't think a mass murderer can be rehabilitated. It would be more honest of society to accept the truth of that fact and execute him/her, than to take the route of denial and extend the suffering of the survivors and victims families (which might include his own) by incarcerating him so that the memory of his deeds shines brightly in all their minds.

asherbassad · 26-07-2012 02:49PM

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.

Well, I know this is splitting hairs but the law is supposed to be precise and burden of proof is on the prosecution. He still has to be proven guilty. For starters did anyone actually see a certain James Holmes shoot all those people? Did you? No.
Did all the people in the theatre? Well, they saw someone but that someone was wearing a gas mask apparently.....so right there nobody can identify him.
And not a single one of them can testify in court that the guy in the dock was the guy doing the shooting since he was wearing a gas mask. A defence lawyer can question them all and none of them will truthfully be able to say that they definitively saw this specific guy do the shootings. Probably won't get him off but it's certainly in their arsenal of defense arguments.

Again this is outlandish but it's a possibility. It is possible that someone entered the theatre, blasted away, then ducked back out the service entrance, gave his guns to this deluded idiot and told him to continue "the mission of God" or some crap by surrendering to the police and saying nothing. The real gunman could then have turned his jacket inside out re-entered the theatre and fled outside screaming with the rest of the punters. He could have easily ran away from the scene like so many of the audience. Leaving some patsy to carry the can.

I know it's a complete stretch but that's why this guy Holmes must be tried and found guilty. Simply saying "ah he's guilty, hang the bastard" is a complete cop out and is lazyman's thinking.

asherbassad · 26-07-2012 02:52PM

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.

You don't go to court to determine sanity, AFAIK. The sanity of a perpetrator is determined prior to trial.

Raiser · 26-07-2012 02:57PM

He seems to have severe mental issues - I'd argue that in the case of other actual evil people who carried out premeditated heinous crimes while sane and thinking rationally then the death penalty is too damn quick and easy for them.

- Also the US of fcuking A has an awesome, kickass habit of executing innocent people based on prejudices around race and social status.

PizzamanIRL · 26-07-2012 03:06PM

On one hand if he gets the death penalty he will just painlessly die which seems too little. People want him to suffer, including me, especially after seeing pictures of the victims, boyfriends dying while they protected their girlfriend and a young father of two getting killed. I wish 'death by stoning' was allowed. That would be perfect.

If he gets life, he has nothing to lose and can kill prisoners/guards or he will be killed by other prisoners. I can't see him living through his whole sentence.

Killer Wench · 26-07-2012 03:15PM

I'm an American that grew up in a state that allowed capital punishment. I am also a lawyer who went to law school in Illinois. In 1999, Governor George Ryan placed a moratorium on the death penalty because of the number of innocent people who had been convicted and given the death penalty. In the last 40 years, there have been nearly 150 individuals released from death row because they were innocent of the crimes committed.

Our justice system is flawed. It is imperfect. I am aware of about 10 cases of executed men who were later shown to be innocent of the crime. One involved two men with the same name, if I remember correctly. Add to that what the poster above said about the history of lynchings and juries composed of non-peers, and you have the perfect storm.

It costs the state more money to execute a prisoner than it does to keep on a life sentence. Once on death row, they require special housing and special security that makes their time in prison more costly than any other prisoner.

I don't support the death penalty. Not even for a mass murder like this Holmes.

johndoe99 · 26-07-2012 03:22PM

death sentence is a quick let-off. Should be given life in prison without the option of parole. He should die in prison.

26-07-2012 03:27PM

He won't necessarily suffer in prison.
He may even get more famous as the media speak to him in later years to see if he's sorry and why he did it etc.
End it now i say, don't give him another life even if it is behind bars.

Killer Wench · 26-07-2012 03:32PM

I'm not sure why people think this is a quick punishment. The average death row inmate spends ten years in death row.

SocSocPol · 26-07-2012 03:37PM

asherbassad wrote: »

Neither have those who have been locked up for life.

My ar*e, wasnt there a couple of guys murdered in Mountjoy in the last few years, ncluding this case:
http://irishcriminologyresearchnetwork.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/the-death-of-gary-douche/

gerarda · 26-07-2012 03:51PM

I think every prison on earth should be run the way this chap runs his and IMO better than the death penalty:

http://tizona.wordpress.com/2008/05/13/you-all-remember-sheriff-joe-arpaio-of-arizona-who-painted-the-jail-cells-pink-and-made-the-inmates-wear-pink-prison-garb-wellsheriff-joe-is-at-it-again/

Any prisoner that gets out of line should be dealt with by people like Sgt. Weston:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOHL8n76Dps&feature=relmfu

darced · 26-07-2012 04:27PM

This post has been deleted.

Feisar · 26-07-2012 04:29PM

Holsten wrote: »

To learn from him.

Killing him accomplishes NOTHING!

I'm not looking to the greater good or the moral right or wrong of it. Just purge him from society.

asherbassad · 26-07-2012 04:48PM

SocSocPol wrote: »

My ar*e, wasnt there a couple of guys murdered in Mountjoy in the last few years, ncluding this case:
http://irishcriminologyresearchnetwork.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/the-death-of-gary-douche/

Talk about hypocrisy and double standards.
On one hand you want killers to be executed and if that's the case then I can say with no degree of uncertainty that you gleefully rub your hands in sadistic joy at the prospect of other offenders being sent to prison to endure the most brutal, cruel and inhumane conditions including being beaten and raped. Yet here you are now wringing your hands about inmates being murdered. A little consistency please and you might proffer a cogent point.

nbar12 · 26-07-2012 04:52PM

he should be shipped off to Guantanamo Bay and tortured for the rest of his life

jessiejam · 26-07-2012 04:56PM

Why not let the victims families decide on the appropriate penalty. Not sure I agree with the death penalty. I would prefer to see the perpetrator suffer until they felt genuine remorse.

Latchy · 26-07-2012 05:00PM

Lock him up in a cell with that Norwegian mass murder freak and let them beat the **** out of each other .

FouxDaFaFa · 26-07-2012 05:16PM

No, for a number of reasons.

He's not worth spending the money on. Locking him up for life is cheaper.

Someone has to be the one to kill him. Even if he "deserves" it, I don't think anyone should have to kill in the name of justice.

hatrickpatrick · 26-07-2012 05:20PM

Taking the life of another human being is wrong, end of.

JamJamJamJam · 26-07-2012 06:19PM

No. Why should he be?

What are we trying to achieve when we punish criminals, y'know?

Should he be killed to prevent him re-offending? Incarceration does that.

As a deterrent? It has been shown not to work. Particularly not for mass murderers.

Because we're angry? Killing him doesn't achieve anything, it's a medieval solution. The saying 'An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind' might be a little clichéd in these conversations but it's valid. We should not stoop to the level of killing in an attempt to satisfy this anger. Should we not prove ourselves better than that?

Because we shouldn't sustain the life of such a person? It would be cheaper than the whole process of killing him. We can learn from him. Some might say that we could give him (and other prisoners) the task of doing some sort of work almost making prisoners a 'workforce', and gain something. Perhaps he may go on to regret it and feel remorse, which would be a lot more comforting for the victims and their families than seeing him killed. If he had been killed at the cinema it would provide no real comfort either, which is similar.

In general, my biggest issue with the death penalty is the possibility of innocence. I think it's unreasonable to suggest his innocence in this case, but it's another thing to bear in mind when considering execution.

"We kill people who kill people, because killing is wrong". I think a lot of people suggest that he should be killed out of disgust at his actions and sympathy for the victims, but I hope after reading some of the arguments in this thread against the death sentance, people can see that the outcomes of incarceration are better than those of capital punishment.

GunRunner · 26-07-2012 07:46PM

No, I don't think he should get the death penalty. I don't think that anyone deserves the death penalty, regardless or how bad a crime they committed. I don't think he should be tortured either. At the end of the day, he is a person. I know most people will disagree with me on this but I don't think he is a bad person. Yeah, he's done a bad thing, but I don't think that means he's bad.

I think the death penalty is completely barbaric and something which should be left in the past. It's cruel. And don't people realise that he has a family too? I have heard people say that he deserves to die because of the pain he has inflicted on the families of his victims, but if he did get the death sentence, then surely that would cause his family pain?

Matt_Trakker · 26-07-2012 07:53PM

GunRunner wrote: »

Yeah, he's done a bad thing, but I don't think that means he's bad.

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

GunRunner wrote: »

And don't people realise that he has a family too?

**** 'em, who cares that he's got a family. They raised a killer.

DjFlin · 26-07-2012 07:56PM

He should be studied. Not killed.

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

Comments