James Holmes declared guilty: insanity not found

link

Will James Holmes face death for killing 12 people inside an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater?

That could be the next question jurors will be asked after finding Holmes guilty Thursday of first-degree murder in the July 2012 shooting.

Holmes faced two counts of first-degree murder for each of the 12 victims. The jury found him guilty on all 24 counts.

Holmes, who had pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, showed no reaction as the verdict against him was announced. He stood at the defense table with his attorney, his hands in his pockets. He faced a total of 165 charges.

The jury also found Holmes guilty of attempted murder on all of the 140 counts against him for the 70 people wounded in the shooting. Additionally, he was found guilty of one count of possession or control of an explosive or incendiary device.

Click to expand...

While I usually don't give attention to these news stories out of a principle to not give mass murderers any more attention than they already get, I think it's good to talk about how he was not able to get the insanity plea he desired. I also think it's good to talk about what should be done now that the verdict has been delivered - sentencing. It's highly likely he'll be given the death penalty, with a definite influence on the juror's minds from the death penalty given to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev a few weeks ago.

What do you think should happen in this case? Death or life in prison? Do you think he should have been deemed insane instead?

He committed an atrocious crime and deserves the justice he will get. Death row is an inarguable burden on the taxpayers and many men sit on death row that have long been sentenced. If he's allowed anywhere near gen pop in prison, he's a goner anyway. But I guess we'll see. I'm glad he's going away.

Let him go to prison. He'll die much faster there.

I think the real problem, though, is that it took 3 years to get to this point.

I read somewhere that insanity defences are neither common nor successful (most of the time). I do wonder what he had going on though, because there must have been some bumps on his road to lead him to where he is today. He might not be legally insane, but something tells me he had other mental illnesses that, given his personal situation, took him to extreme levels of violence.

I don't know if he can avoid death though, just judging from the severity of his crimes. I think there is a very strong urge to give him death, other mental illnesses notwithstanding. I'm not sure if it's the right thing to do though. He seems really really lost.

One thing though: I think we should point out that the word "insane" doesn't have any real meaning. It's not a psychiatric diagnosis, and therefore there's no set of criteria you could point to that determine whether one is insane. I'm actually curious what criteria a jury would use to determine whether someone is "legally insane", although my hunch is that insanity is anyone whose mental health situation sways the jury - basically no clear criteria at all.

Lost Heart said:

Let him go to prison. He'll die much faster there.

I think the real problem, though, is that it took 3 years to get to this point.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's a problem. Due process should be afforded to all persons, and if it means spending 3 years to have a proper trial, then so be it. What's a 3 years trial mean to anybody anyways? If he's to die, he'll be dead (or at least on death row) sooner or later.

Kanzler said:

One thing though: I think we should point out that the word "insane" doesn't have any real meaning. It's not a psychiatric diagnosis, and therefore there's no set of criteria you could point to that determine whether one is insane. I'm actually curious what criteria a jury would use to determine whether someone is "legally insane", although my hunch is that insanity is anyone whose mental health situation sways the jury - basically no clear criteria at all.

Click to expand...

I remember hearing something about this on a news program years ago when they were talking about the possible verdict for an NZ guy who lost it (on meth) and brutally attacked people with a samurai sword. Very iconic case here in NZ mainly because of his even more iconic facial expressions. Anyway, while a crime committed while on the world's craziest meth high is very much different to mental illness, they broke the theoretical insanity plea down to the accused having no sense of right or wrong during the time of their actions, a big indicator to someone's state of mind and their legal state of sanity. They also mentioned something which Google now tells me is called an irresistible impulse test, a test which gauges whether the accused is incapable of choosing whether to obey right or wrong, even if they knew the difference between them.

Though I don't know if a medical analysis alone automatically defines whether someone is 'legally insane' or if the analysis has to be 'voted in' by the jury.

I think the jury determines guilt, so even if they hear the details of someone's psychiatric analysis, regardless of the outcome, it's still their choice whether to find them culpable or not.

Kanzler said:

I don't think that's a problem. Due process should be afforded to all persons, and if it means spending 3 years to have a proper trial, then so be it. What's a 3 years trial mean to anybody anyways? If he's to die, he'll be dead (or at least on death row) sooner or later.

Click to expand...

I agree, everyone deserves a fair trial and all that entails. What I mean is that it's ridiculous the process is so slow, especially when it concerns a case like this. It really only serves to show how corrupt the whole process is.

I disagree. Patience is a virtue. Just because they're taking their time doesn't mean that the process is corrupt. What if the information the jury needs to process is that extensive and needs a lot of time to explain to the court? What if there are legitimate arguments and counterarguments that don't make it an open-and-shut case? Trying to tease out the effects of mental illness on culpability is a pretty hard question.

Anyways, the trial didn't take too long. A lot of the delay is in selecting a jury (which as you can imagine can be mighty difficult, especially considering the situation of the case at hand), as well as in the psychiatric examinations. The prosecution also need to decide what kind of charges they're going to push for and strategy. Big trials get a lot of attention from everybody, including the public as well as the lawyers involved, meaning it's ever more important that nothing is rushed. Also, since the prosecution plans to give Holmes death, you can imagine that the defence would do everything in their power to fight against it.

I think I read that the defense team in this trial was intentionally trying to draw the proceedings out, probably to get some distance from the events so that they weren't as fresh in people's minds. But, really, in a case like this there's not much room for discussing what happened and who did what, just what the appropriate response/punishment should be.

I'm also okay with it taking as long as it did. Maybe in this case it was just stalling, but there are plenty of other cases where you really want to take your time. You don't want to railroad someone, as has been done too many times to count.

I also think it's important to remember the people who were killed and injured, rather than the killers. So here are the names of those people:

Jonathan Blunk
Alexander J. Boik
Jesse Childress
Gordon Cowden
Jessica Ghawi
John Larimer
Matt McQuinn
Micayla Medek
Veronica Moser-Sullivan
Alex Sullivan
Alexander C. Teves
Rebecca Wingo

Also, Ashley Moser (mother of Veronica, who was 6) who survived as is now quadriplegic. Caleb Medley who suffered serious brain damage. I hope that these survivors, their families, and the families of all the victims can take some solace and find a way to keep moving forward.

'bout fucking time.

I mean, it's been, what...three years now? If he's going on death row, I got a good solution that will save taxpayers dollars:

- Let him into general population in prison

Nature will handle the rest.

I say...

FINISH HIM!

... and the best way to do that is by life in prison(dem prisoners will handle it, assuming the authorities don't give him special treatment). Death Row is a load of BS. I'd be for the death penalty in this case if it was quick and cheap but it's the exact opposite.

I wonder what it says about us if we're suggesting we allow him to be killed by other prisoners.

Esper said:

I wonder what it says about us if we're suggesting we allow him to be killed by other prisoners.

Click to expand...

You WANT your money to pay for this asshole's meals?

CarcharOdin said:

You WANT your money to pay for this asshole's meals?

Click to expand...

I want to live in a society where people aren't killed unnecessarily, whether by the government or by individuals. If that means some people have to be locked up and kept away from the rest of society because they're dangerous then I think it's a price worth paying.

I'm going to say life. To me, he doesn't seem "evil" enough to deserve death. I feel that his mental illness, and the delusions and urges coming from it, muddle up what intent he had in killing those people. If you read about his psychiatric report, apparently he wanted to kill people to gain their "life points" which would make his own life more valuable and actually mean something. It's just really off the wall and chaotic which makes me feel that he isn't entirely "here" with us in reality which therefore does not justify death. I feel that the death penalty should be given to the worst of the worst, especially because it's an example of the state taking away one's right to life (which is the most fundamental of all human rights and therefore should be the one violated most cautiously), but that Holmes' being out-of-touch with reality is a mitigating factor that makes death inappropriate.

Whatever.

All I'm going to say further is if someone or something kills this guy, I'm not shedding a tear.

killing hims not the answer, nor is sending him to prison. their both easy ways out.death would be quick and painless & prison... there are reasons why people who get out of prison often want to go back. humans can adjust to any lifestyle and any environment. what we need is an acupuncture specialist that can hit the most painful nerves without killing him.

shadowmoon522 said:

killing hims not the answer, nor is sending him to prison. their both easy ways out.death would be quick and painless & prison... there are reasons why people who get out of prison often want to go back. humans can adjust to any lifestyle and any environment. what we need is an acupuncture specialist that can hit the most painful nerves without killing him.

Click to expand...

It always scares me when people give prolonged, horrific, aimless torture as their answer to the death penalty vs life in prison argument. It's an expression of profound cruelty under the masquerade of justice.

God said:

It always scares me when people give prolonged, horrific, aimless torture as their answer to the death penalty vs life in prison argument. It's an expression of profound cruelty under the masquerade of justice.

Click to expand...

different people live different lives & get different ideas of whats cruel or not and what is just or not. what i stated was not justice, it was the most fair punishment for the crime committed. death is to much of an unknown variable to be a proper punishment, being sent to prison with 14 kills under his belt? in a place where people brag about their offenses while getting free food, shelter, education and cable? being on protective custody in a jail more of a punishment then that and is actually worse then what i stated. i'd rather have the needles then to go though that. its easier to get a tolerance of pain then it is to deal with isolation.

shadowmoon522 said:

what i stated was not justice, it was the most fair punishment for the crime committed. death is to much of an unknown variable to be a proper punishment, being sent to prison with 14 kills under his belt? in a place where people brag about their offenses while getting free food, shelter, education and cable? being on protective custody in a jail more of a punishment then that and is actually worse then what i stated. i'd rather have the needles then to go though that. its easier to get a tolerance of pain then it is to deal with isolation.

Click to expand...

Contradiction much? Justice has very much to do with determining the most fair outcome. Also, I'm surprised (if you're in the US) how you describe your prison system because here I am in Canada and your prison system scares me. In a max security prison, cells are tiny! Also, prison food is just messed up. According to this dude at San Quentin (http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-food-like-in-prison) there's just no quality control with food being undercooked/overcooked/served in dirty dishes. It's supposed to be cheap, and in places where catering has been privatized, nobody gives a shit about quality. Like, being Chinese I can appreciate free shit and all, but there really comes a point when the shit's so bad that even being free can't be considered a positive.