If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Judge enters not guilty by reason of insanity for Holmes. No shiat, Sherlock   (usatoday.com) divider line 178
    More: Obvious, doctoral programs, insanity defense, competent to stand trial, insanity, centennials, University of Colorado  
•       •       •

7884 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Mar 2013 at 4:00 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



178 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-12 04:41:05 PM
If I ever get that crazy, I hope someone has the decency to shoot me in the off chance I come to my senses and realize what I've done.
 
2013-03-12 04:42:04 PM
It's cases like this that really test my christian belief that the death penalty should be abolished.
 
2013-03-12 04:43:51 PM

akula: Litig8r: Now let's assume that he can be cured.  As in he goes to an institution, and they fix him.  Now what?

Do you really think he needs to be incarcerated or in a mental facility then?  When he is properly medicated he isn't who he was when he wasn't medicated.  Why in the world would you want to punish someone who genuinely wasn't responsible for what he did because of a disease or defect?

Then his ass goes to jail. Or he stays otherwise confined and makes his life as best as he can in captivity.

Sorry, but he doesn't walk free, sane or nuts. If he can be treated, he can always quit keeping with the treatment and go nuts again. He murdered innocent people for no reason whatsoever. Even if he can be completely and fully cured with no future treatment required he should be jailed just for that.

I may sound like a real mean person here, but this farker's a murderer. Making him sane isn't going to change the past. He pays the price for what he did. Period. He never walks free.


Under my fact pattern, he's not a murderer, though.  Murder requires a level of cognition at which a person in the state I described is incapable of functioning.  I'm not even sure someone in that state could commit an act that would rise to the level of involuntary manslaughter, simply because it typically involves some level of either negligence in connection with the fact pattern giving rise to the death (turning off a ventilation hood in a lab while failing to notice that someone is working there) or engaging intentionally in a criminal act that causes a death (running a red light and causing a crash).

And the divorce of moral judgment from the act is the core of what I'm talking about: if someone cannot comprehend or control their act, when one says they're making them "pay a price" for "what he did" they're not separating the judgment of the act from the actual facts in play at the time of the commission of the act.  Making someone pay a price for an act they couldn't control or understand is imposing a consequence on an act that can't be controlled.  It's like punishing a pig because he can't fly -- there's no moral component underlying the act, and no agency driving the behavior.  It just "is" the same way the sky "is" blue.
 
2013-03-12 04:44:59 PM

Happy Hours: praxcelis: The insanity defense is a terrible precedent and should be revoked in perpetuity.  By definition crimes of this nature are insanity--a sane person would not have done them in the first place.  We accept they're not sane.  That does not obviate the need for penalty.  In fact, in increases that need--an extraordinarily unsane person needs an extraordinary reminder of why it's a bad idea to go around killing and maiming people.

IANAL or a doctor, but I believe those 2 professions define insanity differently. I'm not even sure doctors use "insanity" anymore (they call it mentally ill)..

As I understand it, the legal definition requires that he didn't know what he was doing was wrong.


I should have been more clear.  I'm not talking about a legal or medical definition.  I'm talking about out here, in the real world, where the sane and civilized people know that killing someone isn't a polite way to express your frustrations.  The common sense pragmatic definition of "insane".  I'm talking about anyone who has elected to not be a member of civilization and has chosen an unsane way to express that.
 
2013-03-12 04:45:30 PM

crazytrain: It's cases like this that really test my christian belief that the death penalty should be abolished.


Ditto, but my (still evolving) belief that the death penalty should be abolished is not so much a result of Christian worldview but a libertarian one... I don't necessarily think that the government should maintain the power of cold blooded life and death where there is any possibility of error. I'd rather leave the worst scum in existence locked in a perpetually locked down cell for life than risk executing someone who was actually innocent.

But for this bastard, I might make an exception.
 
2013-03-12 04:46:21 PM

timujin: Crazy?

[i2.listal.com image 200x254]


Am I the only one that doesn't get this at all?  Probably.
 
2013-03-12 04:46:21 PM

Ned Stark: Andric: Ned Stark: legitimately sick

Is this documented?

No, the trial is still in progress so a determination of whether he's legally insane lies in the future.

But that's totally irrelevant, isn't it?


Not really.  There's apparently something in this story that makes you think he's sick ("legitimately sick and therefore not guilty of any crime," to be precise), and I'm trying to find out what that is that leads you to that conclusion.  This thread isn't dependent on legal determinations; I'm just looking for information here.  Settle down, Beavis.
 
2013-03-12 04:47:03 PM

ReverendJynxed: People are worried about what happens when he gets out and accidentally forgets his morning meds. If it is something so mundane as needing a pill to fix the problem, the problem could just as easily come back as it is a band-aid and not an actual cure in the case of chemical imbalances. This would indicate a need for lifetime monitoring. The only way to accomplish this in a satisfactory manner to ensure public safety, is to have him locked up and forced to take his meds and finger-paint. When he is rational enough on meds to have this explained, if he is truly remorseful, he shouldn't have a problem with this and understand the need for it. If he doesn't understand it, then no "cure" was affected and he's there for more programming.


I'm with you on this, absolutely.  But my question goes more to the question of what if they fix him?  You know, it turns out he has a brain tumor that made him go crazy or something.  And they remove the tumor and he's back to reality.  At that point there's not "moral" issue involved in punishment, and there's no chance of him doing it again.  What then?
 
2013-03-12 04:49:56 PM

Litig8r: If he's nuts, then he should be locked up in perpetuity in the deepest, darkest basement room of an asylum for the criminally insane. Toss him so far back in there he has to be fed with a slingshot.


That is an unusual punishment you propose, and nice and cruel.
 
2013-03-12 04:50:00 PM
They say he'll be hung.
www.treygarrison.com
 
2013-03-12 04:50:28 PM

Litig8r: if someone cannot comprehend or control their act


Just playing devil's advocate, but It seems like that defense, or line of thinking, would also have to apply to drunk drivers. Even more so for the ones completely bombed out of their mind. Obviously, their judgement is impaired and they're not capable of making rational decisions in that state, so why should we punish them so harshly?
 
2013-03-12 04:51:13 PM

Litig8r: akula: Litig8r: Now let's assume that he can be cured.  As in he goes to an institution, and they fix him.  Now what?

Do you really think he needs to be incarcerated or in a mental facility then?  When he is properly medicated he isn't who he was when he wasn't medicated.  Why in the world would you want to punish someone who genuinely wasn't responsible for what he did because of a disease or defect?

Then his ass goes to jail. Or he stays otherwise confined and makes his life as best as he can in captivity.

Sorry, but he doesn't walk free, sane or nuts. If he can be treated, he can always quit keeping with the treatment and go nuts again. He murdered innocent people for no reason whatsoever. Even if he can be completely and fully cured with no future treatment required he should be jailed just for that.

I may sound like a real mean person here, but this farker's a murderer. Making him sane isn't going to change the past. He pays the price for what he did. Period. He never walks free.

Under my fact pattern, he's not a murderer, though.  Murder requires a level of cognition at which a person in the state I described is incapable of functioning.  I'm not even sure someone in that state could commit an act that would rise to the level of involuntary manslaughter, simply because it typically involves some level of either negligence in connection with the fact pattern giving rise to the death (turning off a ventilation hood in a lab while failing to notice that someone is working there) or engaging intentionally in a criminal act that causes a death (running a red light and causing a crash).

And the divorce of moral judgment from the act is the core of what I'm talking about: if someone cannot comprehend or control their act, when one says they're making them "pay a price" for "what he did" they're not separating the judgment of the act from the actual facts in play at the time of the commission of the act.  Making someone pay a price for an act they couldn't contr ...


If that is the case, then he still stays locked up. Why? Well, he's proven he's a danger to others. He may not have understood what he did (I doubt that's the case, but for the sake of argument), but if that is indeed true then he's still too dangerous to be allowed to breathe the free air ever again. Seeing as how it is not possibly to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he would be cured of such mental illness, his ass stays locked up in the basement of St. Depressing's Home for the Criminally Insane. Let him act sane there for the rest of his life. We'll consider letting him out if he's ever reincarnated.*

What I'm saying is that either way he's too dangerous and too much of a risk to ever let go. If he's incompetent to know what he did, he's also too incompetent to know he's being locked up for the benefit of all the other six billion people on this planet who manage to not go on a shooting spree in a movie theater. Either way, he stays locked up. The only question is WHERE we lock his ass up. If he's sane, then it's prison. If he's not, some padded room with greater access to mental help. Either way, he doesn't feel the sun on his face except through a frosted window. Ever.**

*Yes, that's sarcastic.
** Yeah, I know that's not likely how it's going to pan out, but damn. It would be nice if we didn't have to worry about murderers getting to go outside for some recess. If they murdered others (whether they knew they were or not), they stay in the basement. Forever.
 
2013-03-12 04:51:28 PM

crazytrain: Litig8r: if someone cannot comprehend or control their act

Just playing devil's advocate, but It seems like that defense, or line of thinking, would also have to apply to drunk drivers. Even more so for the ones completely bombed out of their mind. Obviously, their judgement is impaired and they're not capable of making rational decisions in that state, so why should we punish them so harshly?


Voluntarily intoxicated != mentally ill.
 
2013-03-12 04:51:57 PM
Hey guyz!

www.sos-usa.org
 
2013-03-12 04:52:17 PM

onyxruby: Sadly the guy probably /is/ bat-shiat insane. Unfortunately that means he probably won't get to face the death penalty if they did have it. Either way this guy is toast, I doubt he'll ever get out of prison.


Why do you think it unfortunate that mentally ill people cannot be executed?
 
2013-03-12 04:53:14 PM

Nutsac_Jim: Litig8r: If he's nuts, then he should be locked up in perpetuity in the deepest, darkest basement room of an asylum for the criminally insane. Toss him so far back in there he has to be fed with a slingshot.

That is an unusual punishment you propose, and nice and cruel.


That was me. It wasn't original with me, but it wasn't Litig8r saying it.

And being tossed in a basement cell beats hell out of breaking with the wheel (which would be particularly satisfying in this asshole's case).
 
2013-03-12 04:53:57 PM

crazytrain: Just playing devil's advocate, but It seems like that defense, or line of thinking, would also have to apply to drunk drivers. Even more so for the ones completely bombed out of their mind. Obviously, their judgement is impaired and they're not capable of making rational decisions in that state, so why should we punish them so harshly?


Because the person who gets bombed made a decision to engage in a behavior known to them to cause that state.  Crazy people (assuming he is) are just that way and they couldn't control whether they entered that state.  So the causal chain between their conscious acts and the ultimate outcome is severed.
 
2013-03-12 04:54:11 PM

akula: I don't necessarily think that the government should maintain the power of cold blooded life and death where there is any possibility of error.


I agree with that facet of it as well. Some others might also point out the high cost and uneven application of the punishment.
 
2013-03-12 04:55:28 PM

ValisIV: vudukungfu:  I thought I read that it costs about 2 mil per death, but only 4-500,000 for a life sentence on average.


I realize the price of ammunition is going up, but it can't have gone up that much?
 
2013-03-12 04:55:48 PM

Shrugging Atlas: timujin: Crazy?

[i2.listal.com image 200x254]

Am I the only one that doesn't get this at all?  Probably.


Mike Holmes, study it out.

/seriously, if you ever work on your house or hire someone to do it, it's worth your time
 
2013-03-12 04:55:48 PM

Explodo: ValisIV: vudukungfu: How about we just take him out back and bury him.
Don't shoot him first.
Let the fire ants eat.

Do not tell me you are taking my tax dollars to house and rehabilitate this piece of work.

tell me you are having his parents fixed.

There is no way  you can call it justice to make the victims pay for this person's upkeep.

Isn't it quite a bit more expensive to put someone to death rather than keep them in prison for life?  I thought I read that it costs about 2 mil per death, but only 4-500,000 for a life sentence on average.

That's because of the whole appeals part.  I'm happy with the protection of appeals in cases where guilt is NOT in question.  In this case, there is no question of not-guilty.  He did it.  He was seen doing it and caught doing it and admitted doing it.  There should be no appeals for him.  He should be found guilty and be killed immediately.


Look.
Take him out back and shoot him in the head, Do it now.

He can appeal all he farking wants next farking week.

Execute him now.
He gets a fair and speedy trial and we get a fair and speedy execution.

this isn't one of those, "Oh, they convicted him because he's black and we found DNA and shiat 50 years later exhonorating him" deals.

This is a cold blooded mad dog killer.

You take him out and shoot his ass in the head, and sleep well at night.
And use cheap ammo, too.
22 shorts, and keep plugging away until he's dead.

Or 2 CCI stingers.

I don't care. Just don't start warehousing this asshole on my farking dime and tell me you are serving justice.
I lived through enough decades to know when I'm getting farked in the ass while being told I'm actually getting a Beeg, while not enjoying the courtesy of the reach-around.

Do the right thing.
Stop punishing the victims by making them pay for this shiathead's cable TV and hot meals.
 
2013-03-12 04:56:24 PM

ValisIV: Isn't it quite a bit more expensive to put someone to death rather than keep them in prison for life?


Its expensive because we've made it expensive.

Without the appeals, legal finagling, and specialized equipment, doing the deed is pretty cheap.


dl.dropbox.com


/Its not like you'll find a shortage of volunteer executioners.
/Truth be told, I'm ambivalent about the death penalty.
/Kill him or lock him up forever, just don't dick around with the process.
 
2013-03-12 04:57:44 PM

akula: What I'm saying is that either way he's too dangerous and too much of a risk to ever let go.


I'm cool with that outcome if he can't be "cured" -- but assume that he could.  100% cured, no chance of recurrence.  Then what?

Even setting aside that I agree with you, the risk concept is kind of scary when applied in the wrong context -- I'm seeing more and more civil commitments of certain types of offenders following completion of their sentence on just those grounds (I don't litigate those cases, but I've certainly seen them).  And that scares the hell out of me, honestly.
 
2013-03-12 04:58:25 PM

The Muthaship: Voluntarily intoxicated != mentally ill.


The etymology of intoxicated means "shot with a poisoned arrow".

Which I bring up because that is cheaper than ammo and you can use the farking arrow over and over and over.
 
2013-03-12 04:59:40 PM

Litig8r: crazytrain: Just playing devil's advocate, but It seems like that defense, or line of thinking, would also have to apply to drunk drivers. Even more so for the ones completely bombed out of their mind. Obviously, their judgement is impaired and they're not capable of making rational decisions in that state, so why should we punish them so harshly?

Because the person who gets bombed made a decision to engage in a behavior known to them to cause that state.  Crazy people (assuming he is) are just that way and they couldn't control whether they entered that state.  So the causal chain between their conscious acts and the ultimate outcome is severed.



What if the crazy person deliberately chooses to NOT take their meds and they go off and kill?  They made a conscience choice that killed others.  What's the difference?
 
2013-03-12 05:01:10 PM

vudukungfu: The Muthaship: Voluntarily intoxicated != mentally ill.

The etymology of intoxicated means "shot with a poisoned arrow".

Which I bring up because that is cheaper than ammo and you can use the farking arrow over and over and over.


Approves:
www.facts.be
 
2013-03-12 05:03:28 PM
Who cares if they are sick, if the crime was puking in the theater I could understand him getting treatment and then being released.  But the idea that he is sick, a danger because of it, to EVERYONE and we should keep him around for some reason boggles the mind.  He wasn't poor or mentally retarded, he didn't have a hard upbringing.  There are tons of eye witnesses and other evidence against him, string him up and put his head on a pike.
 
2013-03-12 05:04:05 PM

timujin: Shrugging Atlas: timujin: Crazy?

[i2.listal.com image 200x254]

Am I the only one that doesn't get this at all?  Probably.

Mike Holmes, study it out.

/seriously, if you ever work on your house or hire someone to do it, it's worth your time


Thanks.  I've seen his show a bunch, just didn't make the connection with the name.  I thought it was a reference to the 'crazy' part.

I blame the time change, as I've been doing for everything the past two days.
 
2013-03-12 05:04:30 PM
Doesn't the bomb stuff at his apartment indicate that he was sane though - for legal purposes - because he set a trap for the law enforcement people?  Clearly he is well bonkers and then some from the average bloke in the street pov, but isn't the legal definition different?
 
2013-03-12 05:05:26 PM

orbister: Why do you think it unfortunate that mentally ill people cannot be executed?


If he is insane he should not be executed, I thought I made that clear. That being said I'm generally of the opinion that murderers, especially mass murderers should be executed.
 
2013-03-12 05:06:10 PM

Litig8r: akula: What I'm saying is that either way he's too dangerous and too much of a risk to ever let go.

I'm cool with that outcome if he can't be "cured" -- but assume that he could.  100% cured, no chance of recurrence.  Then what?

Even setting aside that I agree with you, the risk concept is kind of scary when applied in the wrong context -- I'm seeing more and more civil commitments of certain types of offenders following completion of their sentence on just those grounds (I don't litigate those cases, but I've certainly seen them).  And that scares the hell out of me, honestly.


I understand, but the thing is, even though he may not have been in any kind of rational state he still did a seriously heinous act. In this case the punishment is not so much just because of any effect it has on the perpetrator, but it is just because of the effect it had on society. The perpetrator is only one item in this equation; some things have punishments because the acts are damaging to society.

I am no lawyer so you have the advantage in terms of vocabulary for the discussion as well as experience with the system, but as a citizen I find it unreasonable to think that someone who could do such a thing could be cured and then turned loose to walk among us with no further repercussion. Even if this fellow spends fifty years sitting in prison after being cured (again, for the sake of argument) thinking "Man, that was basically somebody else who did all that," for the rest of us it damn well was the same person. Even IF there was zero chance of recurrence (which I don't believe is remotely possible), I still say he pays the price for what he did when he was insane. Sucks to be him, but he's managed to amass a pretty impressive body count anyway.

I think this discussion is interesting, but ultimately purely academic. I'm not sure how often this kind of thing ACTUALLY happens... not just someone going nuts, but someone doing something this heinous and then getting fully cured with no chance at all of relapse. Something's broken in his head and it just isn't going to be fixable to where I'd ever want him out on the street.
 
2013-03-12 05:06:47 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: What if the crazy person deliberately chooses to NOT take their meds and they go off and kill? They made a conscience choice that killed others. What's the difference?


Assuming the medication makes them sane?  And they choose knowingly and sanely to go off the meds?  Then they're just as guilty as someone who gets drunk and gets behind the wheel and kills someone.  I'm actually familiar with at least one case where an epileptic stopped taking his meds because he didn't like the way it made him feel.  Got in the car, seized, and killed someone.  Jail ensued.  And I agree with the outcome.
 
2013-03-12 05:07:57 PM
ANOTHER NO-SH*T SHERLOCK:

i46.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-12 05:11:25 PM

way south: ValisIV: Isn't it quite a bit more expensive to put someone to death rather than keep them in prison for life?

Its expensive because we've made it expensive.Without the appeals, legal finagling, and specialized equipment, doing the deed is pretty cheap.
[dl.dropbox.com image 500x500]
/Its not like you'll find a shortage of volunteer executioners.
/Truth be told, I'm ambivalent about the death penalty.
/Kill him or lock him up forever, just don't dick around with the process.


All that dicking around is supposed to insure that we don't accidentally execute innocent people. Since we manage to fark that up anyway I'd rather keep dicking around.
 
2013-03-12 05:13:40 PM

The Muthaship: bigbabysurfer: The judge didn't enter a "not guilty by reason of insanity" plea; he merely entered a "not guilty" plea due to the fact that S.S.B.'s laywers could not come to a conclusion on a plea.  The clown's still able to plead insanity at trial.

I honestly don't think the clown will be able to pull off an insanity plea.  He was too methodical; there was too much planning involved.  I just don't see it happening.

Still trying to shoehorn that?  And with such vigor!


There are other websites, if you want to stay bitter.
 
2013-03-12 05:15:00 PM

Litig8r: Ow! That was my feelings!: What if the crazy person deliberately chooses to NOT take their meds and they go off and kill? They made a conscience choice that killed others. What's the difference?

Assuming the medication makes them sane?  And they choose knowingly and sanely to go off the meds?  Then they're just as guilty as someone who gets drunk and gets behind the wheel and kills someone.  I'm actually familiar with at least one case where an epileptic stopped taking his meds because he didn't like the way it made him feel.  Got in the car, seized, and killed someone.  Jail ensued.  And I agree with the outcome.


I'd agree too. But in this particular case, there's already a body count trailing this guy. I have precious little desire to give him a second chance that THIS time he'll keep up with things.
 
2013-03-12 05:17:01 PM

Nutsac_Jim: Ahh.. yet another liberal gunman.


0/0. At this point you might as well just be yelling "First!"
 
2013-03-12 05:17:23 PM

Andric: Ned Stark: Andric: Ned Stark: legitimately sick

Is this documented?

No, the trial is still in progress so a determination of whether he's legally insane lies in the future.

But that's totally irrelevant, isn't it?

Not really.  There's apparently something in this story that makes you think he's sick ("legitimately sick and therefore not guilty of any crime," to be precise), and I'm trying to find out what that is that leads you to that conclusion.  This thread isn't dependent on legal determinations; I'm just looking for information here.  Settle down, Beavis.


I have no opinion re:holmes's insanity at all. I am not a mental health professional. The Peron I was replying too said it was unfortunate that insane people can't be executed. I asked for elaboration.
 
2013-03-12 05:18:59 PM
I am impressed that this thread had like 3-4 troll posts in a row. Good baits too.

I always like reading how they should kill em off or how insanity plea shouldn't exist though. Makes me realize how much we should keep the stuff in the system we do have just to at least rile up people who don't understand.
 
2013-03-12 05:19:00 PM

gibbon1: If I ever get that crazy, I hope someone has the decency to shoot me in the off chance I come to my senses and realize what I've done.


Which is why I'm against the death penalty. Someday, this guy may realize what a terrible thing he's done. The dead don't feel regret.
 
2013-03-12 05:20:50 PM

akula: I think this discussion is interesting, but ultimately purely academic. I'm not sure how often this kind of thing ACTUALLY happens... not just someone going nuts, but someone doing something this heinous and then getting fully cured with no chance at all of relapse. Something's broken in his head and it just isn't going to be fixable to where I'd ever want him out on the street.


Yeah, I think we are in agreement.

I think the questions that we're kicking back and forth, though, are going to get a hell of a lot more interesting as medicine improves.  The real thorny issues are going to happen when (more properly, if) it is eventually discovered that there is genuinely something wrong in the mind of certain criminals that makes them unable to control their impulses.  Not that they can't appreciate that their actions are wrong, but that they know that they are wrong and do them anyway because they lack the capacity to stop themselves.  To dangerous to live among us, but not really through any personal failing.  And if we could actually cure them...how radically we'd have to revamp our entire justice system, no?
 
2013-03-12 05:21:07 PM

coachwdb: [img.youtube.com image 480x360]

"GOTTA GO!"



"I WON'T DO IT AGAIN!"

"I KNOW...... YOU WON'T DO IT AGAIN!!!  GOTTA GO!!!  GOTTA GO!!!"
 
2013-03-12 05:21:38 PM

Stone Meadow: Holmes sat silently during the proceedings as defense attorney Dan King said he needs more time to prepare a plea. "We cannot ethically represent that we are ready to proceed," King said. "We're just not ready now."

IOW, King knows Holmes is sane, but needs more time to find a shrink to testify he's not. The downside for him is that as soon as King enters an insanity plead, the Judge can order state examination of Holmes...with presumably unsympathetic shrinks. Holmes and King are definitely walking a tightrope here...one slip and Holmes could be facing the noose.

[good.jpg]


Right now Holmes is already planning his next escape from Arkham, and wondering if they've changed the rules on receiving mail since his last time there. He's probably not too concerned with whatever his lawyers are doing. Then again, since our entire judicial system in the US is a clusterf*ck that needs to be burned to the ground and rebuilt, that's as good a strategy as any.
 
2013-03-12 05:22:15 PM

crazytrain: Litig8r: if someone cannot comprehend or control their act

Just playing devil's advocate, but It seems like that defense, or line of thinking, would also have to apply to drunk drivers. Even more so for the ones completely bombed out of their mind. Obviously, their judgement is impaired and they're not capable of making rational decisions in that state, so why should we punish them so harshly?


That's a negative on that.

Drunk driving first involves a choice to drink. A person who is mentally unstable doesn't exactly choose to be mentally unstable.
 
2013-03-12 05:22:57 PM
Nothing brings out the Fark legal experts like the insanity plea.
 
2013-03-12 05:25:20 PM
treat the families of the victims to a nice buffet with open bar. after they had their fill toss this dipshiat in the room and lock the doors.

/ save a lot of money
 
2013-03-12 05:25:39 PM
 
2013-03-12 05:29:03 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Fail, subby!  Judge entered "not guilty" plea, told Holmes he can change it to "not guilty by reason of insanity."


one and done.
 
2013-03-12 05:30:04 PM
Does it really matter if he was insane at the time and or is insane now? I think the only question that should concern the court is "Did he do it?" We should not care about his mental state even if he is insane he should still be put down for what he did if he is found to have committed the crime.
 
2013-03-12 05:30:09 PM

akula: onyxruby: Sadly the guy probably /is/ bat-shiat insane. Unfortunately that means he probably won't get to face the death penalty if they did have it. Either way this guy is toast, I doubt he'll ever get out of prison.

Either way he shouldn't.

If he knew damn well what he was doing (in other words, he was sane), then he should get the strongest penalty that can be handed out (if you're in favor of the death penalty, then that, if not, then life w/o parole).

If he's nuts, then he should be locked up in perpetuity in the deepest, darkest basement room of an asylum for the criminally insane. Toss him so far back in there he has to be fed with a slingshot. If this act was a result of mental illness, he's so dangerous to society he should never see daylight again.

Either way, to hell with the guy. He should never take one free step again. Ever.


Usually I'm for the death penalty, but not in this case. I like your slingshot feeding idea better.
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report