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

RossieMan · 26-07-2012 10:18PM

firefly08 wrote: »

Anyone who thinks the insanity defence is as easy way out should read Jon Ronson's The Psychopathy Test. It's extremely easy for them to keep you locked up for longer than you would be in prison. In prison people sometimes get parole hearings, and members of the public have a say in the decision. If you're in a mental institution, only the doctors and nurses get to decide how long you stay there.

Seriously don't worry - this guy is probably never going to be released. But this kind of behavior is fast becoming an epidemic. We can' defend ourselves against it because we don't understand it. I don't mean to sound like a hippie or anything but we have to try to understand why people do this. What motivates this behavior? It is the motivation - the will of such people to hurt that we should be afraid of.

It is the hard heart that kills!

that may be so, but isn't it also true that sometimes they get it wrong?
they can lie, and some are very good at it.
they can use split personalities, tell them what they want to here.

i know they can be held longer, but that doesn't happen in most cases.

He'll never be released, for sure, but i don't think the death penalty is the answer either.

the mer · 26-07-2012 10:25PM

RossieMan wrote: »

that may be so, but isn't it also true that sometimes they get it wrong?
they can lie, and some are very good at it.
they can use split personalities, tell them what they want to here.

i know they can be held longer, but that doesn't happen in most cases.

He'll never be released, for sure, but i don't think the death penalty is the answer either.

would you pay for his stay in prison?

firefly08 · 26-07-2012 10:27PM

RossieMan wrote: »

that may be so, but isn't it also true that sometimes they get it wrong?
they can lie, and some are very good at it.
they can use split personalities, tell them what they want to here.

i know they can be held longer, but that doesn't happen in most cases.

He'll never be released, for sure, but i don't think the death penalty is the answer either.

Yep indeed some of them can be very manipulative - but it can backfire too...in fact that is a big part of the theme of Ronson's book. One of the people who features in it basically pretended he was insane to get off for a relatively minor assault charge. Then after a while he told them he wasn't really insane and could he please go home. But they kept him for years and years...eventually it emerged that in fact, they knew he had lied about being insane, to avoid a criminal conviction... and they regarded that as psychopathic behavior and used it as the basis to keep him locked up without any intention of letting him go :eek:

Piste · 26-07-2012 10:34PM

IrishAm wrote: »

Actually, Colorado has very restrictive conceal and carry laws, if they didn't, its quite likely that someone in the cinema would have been packing and the murderer could have been nullified. Thus, saving lives.

Except Holmes had tear gas, darkness, body armour, fear, panic and confusion on his side. If people in the audience had had guns they likely would have panicked and ended up shooting each other, or mistaken shooters in the crowd as Holmes' accomplices and attacked them. I could see a lot more people having been killed if members of the audience had been armed.

RossieMan · 26-07-2012 10:39PM

the mer wrote: »

would you pay for his stay in prison?

Taxes are being paid anyways, so I presume i would seeing as i don't chose where my money goes.

RossieMan · 26-07-2012 10:41PM

firefly08 wrote: »

Yep indeed some of them can be very manipulative - but it can backfire too...in fact that is a big part of the theme of Ronson's book. One of the people who features in it basically pretended he was insane to get off for a relatively minor assault charge. Then after a while he told them he wasn't really insane and could he please go home. But they kept him for years and years...eventually it emerged that in fact, they knew he had lied about being insane, to avoid a criminal conviction... and they regarded that as psychopathic behavior and used it as the basis to keep him locked up without any intention of letting him go :eek:

i'm not a book person, but that does sound like an interesting read.

complete waste of money, but hey, who needs money. :P

firefly08 · 26-07-2012 10:43PM

If people in the audience had had guns they likely would have panicked and ended up shooting each other, or mistaken shooters in the crowd as Holmes' accomplices and attacked them. I could see a lot more people having been killed if members of the audience had been armed.

Why do you think all of that? Do you know of some comparable situation where something like that happened? Most people who carry firearms do not panic in armed confrontations - you only have to look back a few pages to find video footage of that, and incidents like that are very common in America. I don't hear of many instances of armed civilians panicking and shooting the wrong people.

johnjoe7 · 26-07-2012 10:44PM

When you treat a human being like a dog for so long, don't be surprise when he acts like one.

GunRunner · 26-07-2012 11:01PM

johnjoe7 wrote: »

When you treat a human being like a dog for so long, don't be surprise when he acts like one.

I agree completely.

WhatNowForUs? · 26-07-2012 11:07PM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

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.

Your response is excatly the reason we should go through due process.

Wereghost · 26-07-2012 11:10PM

No, I don't think mass-murderers like him should be killed, even if (as I expect to be the case here) they are found to have been reasonably compos mentis at the time. That's not to say that the contrary view doesn't have some cogent arguments in its favour, of course (because it does). I just think that on balance the death penalty in these cases is both unwise and ignoble.

When the perpetrator's actions have a political element, though, it's a different kettle of fish. I can't say for certain that I'd have been against it for Osama bin Laden had he been taken alive, and nor can I say definitively that the decision to execute Saddam Hussein was the wrong call. There's such a thing as tacit encouragement, and particularly in the case of Saddam a decision to spare his life might have been interpreted as a signal to his peers that they could continue with impunity. When it comes to supposed ideologues like bin Laden, though, it's a tricky question. There's always the risk of conspicuous martyrdom, but conversely there's the motivation to be seen to administer punishment that is at once harsh and just. (I have much less of a problem, however, with the purported circumstances of Osama's actual death.)

BorneTobyWilde · 26-07-2012 11:21PM

Death penalty is more to do with the victims rather than the one receiving death penalty,
Its and eye for an eye,
How would that mother feel knowing he sits in jail getting everything handed to him while her 6 year old daughter is gone forever,
He has to die, For victims to feel some justice ,

DEFTLEFTHAND · 26-07-2012 11:25PM

It's a tough one to wrangle with. On one hand, if I put myself in the shoes of a victims parent, I feel like stringing the kid up from the nearest stable rigging device suitable for suspension.

On the other the question of diminished responsibility plays on my mind. Was this chap aware of what he was doing, we're his mental functions impaired at the time? It's a legal avenue which undoubtedly will be explored in court with the help of mental health experts. It should make for a fascinating trial.

Madam_X · 26-07-2012 11:51PM

Insanity exists whether people like it or not - it's not "a load of ****".

As for throwing him in a pit and letting him starve to death - I'd like to think a government isn't on his level.

Piste · 27-07-2012 12:07AM

firefly08 wrote: »

Why do you think all of that? Do you know of some comparable situation where something like that happened? Most people who carry firearms do not panic in armed confrontations - you only have to look back a few pages to find video footage of that, and incidents like that are very common in America. I don't hear of many instances of armed civilians panicking and shooting the wrong people.

There's no comparable situation because-thankfully- mass shootings in cinemas aren't that common. To own a firearm in America requires no training and no proof that you can handle one responsibly. I think it's fair to say that a large group of scared, confused, panicky people with weapons they're not trained to use could cause a lot of damage to each other when in a dark, tear gas-filled room with people screaming and bullets flying.

NIMAN · 27-07-2012 12:18AM

Onixx wrote: »

Insanity exists whether people like it or not - it's not "a load of ****".

As for throwing him in a pit and letting him starve to death - I'd like to think a government isn't on his level.

Yeah I often wonder why people think to punish evil actions with things even sicker.

TeddyTedson · 27-07-2012 12:21AM

My name is URL wrote: »

Killing him isn't going to undo what has happened. I'm against the Death Penalty in general anyway, but in this case I think it would be better to lock him up for life and study him and his behavior. It might help to stop similar things from happening in the future.

Well said Earl.

I'd be completely against the death penalty.

MJ23 · 27-07-2012 12:29AM

He should locked in a room and be made to watch Batman and Robin over and over and over, while being fed only beetroot and horsepiss. Then bring him out and drop in out of a plane in the middle of a desert with no clothes, water or food.

nervous_twitch · 27-07-2012 12:46AM

No. Restorative justice ftw.

poppyvally · 27-07-2012 12:58AM

In Ireland it might be a better deterrent that giving 14 yrs & you'll be out in about 10yrs to live your life, not like your victim, gone forever

oranbhoy67 · 27-07-2012 01:06AM

"An eye for an eye makes everyone blind" said ghandi???

Well im sorry, but if someone gouged my eye out then my immediate thought would be to extract revenge!!

.
- Not to have my assailant checked out to see if he is mentally deficient.. id want justice .. its a natural & just reaction, & just because nowadays its trendy to say otherwise that is not going to change my mind!

I hope i live long enough to manage to see this animal put to sleep because i will celebrate his extermination!

B.A._Baracus · 27-07-2012 01:08AM

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

"An eye for an eye makes everyone blind" said ghandi???

Well im sorry, but if someone gouged my eye out then my immediate thought would be to extract revenge!!

.
- Not to have my assailant checked out to see if he is mentally deficient.. id want justice .. its a natural & just reaction, & just because nowadays its trendy to say otherwise that is not going to change my mind!

I hope i live long enough to manage to see this animal put to sleep because i will celebrate his extermination!

Couldnt agree more.

Holsten · 27-07-2012 01:15AM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Death penalty is more to do with the victims rather than the one receiving death penalty,
Its and eye for an eye,
How would that mother feel knowing he sits in jail getting everything handed to him while her 6 year old daughter is gone forever,
He has to die, For victims to feel some justice ,

This is bollox.

That mother would not feel ANY better knowing he was dead, since her daughter will also still be dead, nothing will change that. She might feel some vengeance has been done, but she will still feel the loss of her child.

He does not HAVE to die. He shouldn't die, a lot could be learned from him.

Ave Sodalis · 27-07-2012 01:37AM

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

"An eye for an eye makes everyone blind" said ghandi???

Well im sorry, but if someone gouged my eye out then my immediate thought would be to extract revenge!!

.
- Not to have my assailant checked out to see if he is mentally deficient.. id want justice .. its a natural & just reaction, & just because nowadays its trendy to say otherwise that is not going to change my mind!

I hope i live long enough to manage to see this animal put to sleep because i will celebrate his extermination!

Couldn't agree less...

It's not a case of it being "trendy" to say otherwise, it's a case of it being common f***ing sense and having a bit of humanity. How are we any better than him for killing him? Who are we to choose who gets to live and who gets to die?
Just because it's happens to be a particular persons' natural reaction to retaliate, it does not make it just especially since it may not be everyone's natural reaction.

johnjoe7 · 27-07-2012 02:14AM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Death penalty is more to do with the victims rather than the one receiving death penalty,
Its and eye for an eye,
How would that mother feel knowing he sits in jail getting everything handed to him while her 6 year old daughter is gone forever,
He has to die, For victims to feel some justice ,

Vengeance achieves NOTHING.

Holmes wasn't born a murderer. What's made him become a killer is what needs to be looked at. He was likely bullied in his adolescence and isolated for much of his adult life.

But forget about that, he's just an evil man who has to die!! :rolleyes:

Samich · 27-07-2012 02:19AM

Not sure how getting the death penalty would be seen as the easy option.

The fear he'd get would be great. He deserves to suffer.

Sir Gallagher · 27-07-2012 02:20AM

The sight of him sitting in court putting on his little deranged look makes me sick, let him loose into general population.

B.A._Baracus · 27-07-2012 02:29AM

Holsten wrote: »

He does not HAVE to die. He shouldn't die, a lot could be learned from him.

Exactly what could they learn from him?
What could they learn that could prevent another lunatic from doing the same?

Or is it about helping to rehabilitate people?????? Studying him to find out to help others? But who? other murderers? other killers? other evil mad men?

NIMAN · 27-07-2012 02:31AM

I cannot understand a nation of people who suffer so much at the hands of high powered weapons yet they seem happy enough for any Tom, Dick or Harry to be able to own them with next to no checks.

Unless they change their laws and drop this 'right to bear arms' bull****, then this will continue, and probably get worse in years to come as more people become more and more disillusioned.

oranbhoy67 · 27-07-2012 02:32AM

sup_dude wrote: »

Couldn't agree less...

It's not a case of it being "trendy" to say otherwise, it's a case of it being common f***ing sense and having a bit of humanity. How are we any better than him for killing him? Who are we to choose who gets to live and who gets to die?
Just because it's happens to be a particular persons' natural reaction to retaliate, it does not make it just especially since it may not be everyone's natural reaction.

He lost his right to our humanity when he massacred these people,

Who was he to choose who lived or died in that cinema that night?

My common sense says that if someone attacks you then you attack back, this guy launched an attack on innocent people and cruelly snuffed out there lifes, he deserves the ultimate punishment & I for one am glad that he will probably receive it!

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

Comments