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  
•       •       •

7888 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 05:32:46 PM  
He is obviously guilty and obviously insane
 
2013-03-12 05:36:00 PM  
In Columbus, Ohio we had a "sniper" a few years ago who shot and killed a woman driving on the Outer belt.  This guy was wandering around the city randomly shooting cars and other objects because he saw them as ravening alien monsters that were coming to kill him.  The woman was killed because while he was shooting at cars, he accidentally hit her.

His attorneys entered an insanity plea and failed.  No insanity plea has succeeded in the state of Ohio in over 50 years.  A guy who shot at the sides of buildings and cars because he thought they were monsters was judged legally sane.  He was found guilty of murder.

I think that matches the common-sense definition of "insanity" -- not the defendant, I mean the criminal justice system.
 
2013-03-12 05:36:00 PM  

Litig8r: 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?


Because the Bible requires it.

It's Xian justice, right? Pretty much revenge in a dress.
 
2013-03-12 05:38:21 PM  

Tee_Many_Martoonies: Discuss.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/12/judge-approves-truth-ser um -james-holmes


The precedent worries me a great deal.
 
2013-03-12 05:40:25 PM  
The accounts thus far of Holmes do not, to me, portray someone who is legally insane. The premeditation involved, the attempts to plan for the possibility that someone would try to stop him, suggest to me someone who was fully capable of realizing that society would deem his actions wrong.

Now, it's still possible that the man suffers from schizophrenia or something akin to it, that prevents him frm giving society's disapproval the weight it should have. Usual disclaimers of not knowing all the facts apply. But it strikes me more that his lawyers' examination of the possibility of having him declared him legally insane just represent the duty of a defense lawyer to look out for the best interest of their vclient and present the best possible case for him, rather than any likelihood that said case is actually plausible.
 
2013-03-12 05:41:46 PM  
His parents could afford to send him to a nice school, so they aren't broke. Offer them the chance to put him in a nice institution. Even if he knew what he did, putting him behind bars for the rest of his life isn't going to do anyone any good.

That said, if they can't/won't pay his way, the death penalty might be the right answer. He's no longer of any use to society.

These nonsense comments about torturing him or putting his head on a pike are pretty sick, by the way.
 
2013-03-12 05:43:05 PM  

Litig8r: 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?


Yeah, that would DEFINITELY kick open a huge can of worms. It seems like it's going to take a great deal more understanding of the brain and how we think before we're to that point, but I fail to see how it couldn't cause some kind of huge shift in criminal punishment. Is our main aim rehabilitation? Punishment? It reminds me of the prison system in Demolition Man.

And now that it's brought us to so-so Stallone movies, it's probably time to let it go...
 
2013-03-12 05:43:24 PM  
Usually a mental incompetence plea does NOT result in the person having a "happily ever after" life.  In many cases they are unable to ever prove competence again (regardless of treatment) and are stuck in a loony-bin forever.
 
2013-03-12 05:47:17 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?


Because they made the choice to achieve such a state. Technically a clever lawyer could try the trick you are proposing by asserting alcoholism as removing the choice however it isn't very advisable. Most people don't exactly understand the plea "Not guilty by reason of insanity/mental defect". Essentially when you enter that plea you are giving up any chance of escaping confinement. At that point you are either going to get the plea rejected and go to jail, or win and go into court ordered mental confinement. A guilty verdict has a definite time limit, court ordered mental confinement can continue indefinitely.

State run criminal mental health facilities aren't club med. Prison obviously sucks but it has rules and a hierarchy and some forms of order. The mental ward is like prison  but the inmates are violent and crazy
 
2013-03-12 05:54:53 PM  
Why is this even a debate?  The guy is never getting out of wherever he is sent for the rest of his life sane or not.  Even if he has a brain tumor like Charles Whitman did, he is not going to get out.  What's this deal about people thinking that one must be incapable of knowing that they are doing something wrong?  That's too old a definition.  There are paranoid schizophrenics that think they are doing things in self defense, and have no problem designing elaborate plans to do so.  Who says this is not the case with Holme's (although I do not believe this to be)?  Does not matter anyway because he's never going to live outside of guarded walls for the rest of his life.  The End.
 
2013-03-12 05:55:20 PM  
This man might be slightly crazy, but he was quite sane when he thoroughly planned his actions. Stockpiling guns and ammo then body armor is not a spur of the moment "insane" action, but pure methodical evil planned over weeks if not months. That's where you draw the line between a padded room and the green mile..
 
2013-03-12 05:55:48 PM  

OhioKnight: In Columbus, Ohio we had a "sniper" a few years ago who shot and killed a woman driving on the Outer belt.  This guy was wandering around the city randomly shooting cars and other objects because he saw them as ravening alien monsters that were coming to kill him.  The woman was killed because while he was shooting at cars, he accidentally hit her.

His attorneys entered an insanity plea and failed.  No insanity plea has succeeded in the state of Ohio in over 50 years.  A guy who shot at the sides of buildings and cars because he thought they were monsters was judged legally sane.  He was found guilty of murder.

I think that matches the common-sense definition of "insanity" -- not the defendant, I mean the criminal justice system.


You've completely missed the point (or were too lazy to read the posts about) how "legally sane" simply means that there is evidence that he knew that what he was doing was wrong. It is not a confirmation of overall mental health. Even if he did think that cars were aliens, at some point he did things that showed that he was aware that to shoot at them was a bad thing to do, and yet he chose to do it anyway.
 
2013-03-12 05:57:18 PM  

cefm: Usually a mental incompetence plea does NOT result in the person having a "happily ever after" life.  In many cases they are unable to ever prove competence again (regardless of treatment) and are stuck in a loony-bin forever.


Yeah, in the exceptionally rare (but often highly-publicized) cases where the insanity defense holds, the person usually stays locked up in a psychiatric hospital for a longer period than they would have served (without proper treatment) in prison.  They're not just set free.  I don't know where people get that idea.
 
2013-03-12 06:01:30 PM  

MBooda: They say he'll be hung.
[www.treygarrison.com image 183x206]


Thank You!  I have nearly called this guy "John Holmes" many a time.
 
2013-03-12 06:04:47 PM  

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?

 

And then, when he's out...and decides to stop taking the medication that makes him 'sane'? Then what?
 
2013-03-12 06:05:55 PM  
He'll go to jail anyway. It's more than he deserves.
 
2013-03-12 06:07:25 PM  
 
2013-03-12 06:09:45 PM  

FARK rebel soldier: There are other websites, if you want to stay bitter.


I'm far from bitter.  I just think it's amusing that people are still trying to make Side Show Bob happen.
 
2013-03-12 06:10:23 PM  

Ned Stark: 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 is it sad that someone legitimately sick and therefore not guilty of any crime won't be executed?


Why is it that someone can't be both legitimately sick AND guilty? Unless you're saying he didn't kill all those people on purpose. Don't get me wrong, the mentally ill need help. But he's still a danger to everyone around him.
 
2013-03-12 06:11:28 PM  

OhioKnight: In Columbus, Ohio we had a "sniper" a few years ago who shot and killed a woman driving on the Outer belt.  This guy was wandering around the city randomly shooting cars and other objects because he saw them as ravening alien monsters that were coming to kill him.  The woman was killed because while he was shooting at cars, he accidentally hit her.

His attorneys entered an insanity plea and failed.  No insanity plea has succeeded in the state of Ohio in over 50 years.  A guy who shot at the sides of buildings and cars because he thought they were monsters was judged legally sane.  He was found guilty of murder.

I think that matches the common-sense definition of "insanity" -- not the defendant, I mean the criminal justice system.


That's just farked up right there.
 
2013-03-12 06:17:34 PM  

Shrugging Atlas: timujin: Crazy?

[i2.listal.com image 200x254]

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


Google holmes on homes or holmes inspection.

Should be sfwn but they are tv shows
 
2013-03-12 06:18:36 PM  

Litig8r: 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?


If for some outlandish reason the judge released him after tests concluded that a something like a tumor made him unstable enough to commit murder he would either:

A) be killed by a victims family member who is too grief ridden to accept or understand the judges decision to release him
B) commit suicide after not being able to find a place to:
1) Live
2) Work
3) Escape the endless waves of harrassment from the victims friends, family, and sympathizers.

All roads lead to death for this guy.
 
2013-03-12 06:20:24 PM  

screwzloos: He's no longer of any use to society.


I always find this attitude disturbing.

I'm reminded of an interview with a old Silicon Valley startup king. He started several successful engineering firms and had retired off to just funding startups. The interviewer asked him what he did to ferret out unproductive employees. And the guy says, everyone asks me that, and the truth is, I don't care. That's his managers problem not mine.  An unproductive engineer just costs me his salary.  The guys I worry about are the guys exhibiting negative productivity. They can cost me the whole company. A bad tech can destroy the work of a couple of engineers. A bad manager can destroy the work of hundreds of engineers.  It's those guys you have to identify and get rid of, often they're right under your nose. Sometimes that guy is you.
 
2013-03-12 06:23:30 PM  

Somaticasual: This man might be slightly crazy, but he was quite sane when he thoroughly planned his actions. Stockpiling guns and ammo then body armor is not a spur of the moment "insane" action, but pure methodical evil planned over weeks if not months. That's where you draw the line between a padded room and the green mile..


In a more general sense, have you considered the case where someone would stockpile guns, ammo, and body armor because he thinks aliens or communists are out to get him? Paranoid schizophrenia doesn't equate to someone mumbling to themselves in a corner or flailing about wildly, but it certainly isn't "quite sane".

Not that I'm implying that was James's case.
 
2013-03-12 06:24:18 PM  

aprentic: 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.




In practice this means more loopholes and oversights, where the guilty squeak out of punishment and the innocent get slammed by the system.
If you want a program to work better then you strive to reduce the amount of code. You reduce the possibility got things going awry in your design by building it properly from the start.

If you've got a death penalty that can't be used because of wasteful appeals, what assurance do I have that lawyers won't appeal life or that this guy won't come back to cause some other future headache?
Instead of pretending its ok to have a mess, maybe we should spend some effort to fix it.
 
2013-03-12 06:25:17 PM  

ReverendJynxed: Begoggle: If you plead "insanity" and the court agrees, that means you're free to go, right?

Free to go to a care facility for the rest of your days.



Not always.

http://www.fark.com/comments/7616341/
"U.S. District Judge Patricia Gaughan freed Meredith Lowell of Cleveland Heights earlier this month based on a psychological report that found her mentally incompetent to stand trial and not capable of being rehabilitated to competency."
If you're a danger to society and sane, go to jail. If you're a danger to society and insane, but capable of being treated, go to an institution. If you're a danger to society and insane, and incapable of being treated, you get a "get out of jail free" card.

Not that I believe Holmes is going to be released, but the legal precedent is there.
 
2013-03-12 06:26:33 PM  

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: He'll go to jail anyway. It's more than he deserves.


Again. It does not serve Justice to tax the victims to pay for his comfort.
 
2013-03-12 06:27:42 PM  

Raging Whore Moans: Because why would we want to know if he was insane  before he got some guns and killed innocent people


This is a valid point. If he was, in fact, being treated for psychosis prior to purchasing his weapons, then we need to identify the failure within the system.
 
2013-03-12 06:28:22 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.


The legal definition of insanity is, if Colorado uses M'Naughten (which I think they do?): Unable at the time of the killing to EITHER 1. unable to distinguish right from wrong OR 2. unable to comprehend the nature and quality of his act. It's a pretty narrow standard. It means that the killer has to either genuinely not know that what he was doing was socially wrong OR genuinely not realize that he was taking human life.

It doesn't mean "Oh my god, only a crazy person would start spraying an assault rifle around in a dark theater." Yeah, that's "crazy" and may be the act of a mentally ill person, but it DOESN'T fit the definition of M'Naughten. The Joker could be shooting up a theater and still know perfectly well it was both socially wrong and would result in many human deaths.

A better way to understand the insanity defense is to consider who it is really intended to benefit. M'Naughten is why, for instance, very young children cannot be charged with murder. A two-year old child might kill another child, but is not capable of understanding that it is socially wrong or that they have permanently deprived another human being of life. So if an adult is suffering a mental defect to the extent they believed all those humans were rosebushes and the AR-15 was a pair of garden shears and all they were doing was pruning the rosebushes, then they'd be in the same situation as that two-year old child.

But you need to be able to prove that the defendant had that mental state, and it's an extremely high bar. And M'Naughten and other defenses shift the burden to the defense; which is why so few of them succeed. A defendant can be completely psychotic and still not meet either prong of M'Naughten, too, if he knew he was killing humans or that it was wrong to do so. If he thought they were space aliens cleverly disguised as human beings and it was his job to kill them so they'd revert to their alien form--he'd still be guilty of murder.
 
2013-03-12 06:33:14 PM  

mooseyfate: Why is it that someone can't be both legitimately sick AND guilty?


What, like the voices in his head were telling him that cars are ravenous aliens, but on an unrelated note he killed all those people just because he's also an asshole?
 
2013-03-12 06:38:23 PM  
There are two areas of health care that should always be free of charge; mental health issues, and serious infectious diseases (TB, etc.)
 
2013-03-12 06:51:03 PM  
Murdering dozens of innocent people is murdering dozens of innocent people, no matter how cracked your teapot is. This guy is beyond redemption even if there was a cure for whatever afflicts him. Lock him up and throw away the key, heck, try some new psychoactive drugs on him so something potentially useful comes from his life for the rest of society. Same goes for the Loughner weirdo.
 
2013-03-12 06:51:23 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.


The question isn't whether he's loony.  The question is whether he understood that his actions were wrong at the time the acts were committed.
 
2013-03-12 06:51:25 PM  

gibbon1: Sometimes that guy is you.


Assuming that was the punchline of your message, I hold no hypocrisy there. When (not if) the day comes that I am no longer of any use to society, I know what I must do.

It's unfortunate that James didn't carry out that duty for himself before July 20. He certainly doesn't have the means to, now.
 
2013-03-12 06:55:54 PM  

Litig8r: 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.


Your line of thought is sound, but I have an issue with calling what this guy did an "impulse," especially when you consider the lengths to which he went to booby-trap his apartment. Then add in the preparation of buying body armor, collecting the weapons and ammunition. And propping open the exit so he could sneak in while the movie was showing.

There was nothing impulsive about this, it was a well-planned, pre-meditated event.

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.

That sentence would seem to describe the vast majority of everyone in prison.

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?

That's a pretty damn huge "if" statement. A monumental obstacle. Big enough to be the jumping-off point for a book -- or an entire series of speculative fiction.
 
2013-03-12 07:03:28 PM  

WhoopAssWayne: [img441.imageshack.us image 310x309]


He wasn't a criminal and he bought the gun legally? That's how.
 
2013-03-12 07:06:00 PM  

Litig8r: 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?


Honest question: If that's the case, then what? I hear what you're saying... but even if it's found that Holmes (for example) had no control over his impulses and/or no knowledge of what he was actually doing, I can't see letting him walk away with zero consequences. He still killed those people. If we could cure people like Holmes, then institutionalization wouldn't be the answer because they'd no longer need that help, but if we can't lock them in prison, do we just let them go free? Do we figure out some third option, and what would that look like?

This has been a really interesting conversation thread (for the most part).
 
2013-03-12 07:08:18 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.


Nah, they will give him enough drugs to make Manson seem normal so they can burn his ass in a Christian way.
 
2013-03-12 07:14:57 PM  
people arguing for or against the insanity defense.  This is what is means in Colorado:

§ 16-8-101.5. Insanity defined - offenses committed on and after July 1, 1995


(1)The applicable test of insanity shall be:(a)A person who is so diseased or defective in mind at the time of the commission of the act as to be incapable of distinguishing right from wrong with respect to that act is not accountable; except that care should be taken not to confuse such mental disease or defect with moral obliquity, mental depravity, or passion growing out of anger, revenge, hatred, or other motives and kindred evil conditions, for, when the act is induced by any of these causes, the person is accountable to the law; or(b)A person who suffered from a condition of mind caused by mental disease or defect that prevented the person from forming a culpable mental state that is an essential element of a crime charged, but care should be taken not to confuse such mental disease or defect with moral obliquity, mental depravity, or passion growing out of anger, revenge, hatred, or other motives and kindred evil conditions because, when the act is induced by any of these causes, the person is accountable to the law.(2)As used in subsection (1) of this section:(a)"Diseased or defective in mind" does not refer to an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.(b)"Mental disease or defect" includes only those severely abnormal mental conditions that grossly and demonstrably impair a person's perception or understanding of reality and that are not attributable to the voluntary ingestion of alcohol or any other psychoactive substance but does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.
 Now that your not arguing directly out of your parts that poop go nuts.
 
2013-03-12 07:19:15 PM  

The Muthaship: 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.


Actually, I think it used to be treated this way; that is, a drunk driver wasn't responsible because of the nature of intoxication. I think (I'm no lawyer, and this is not my branch of history) the way we prosecute dunk drivers is quite recent.
 
2013-03-12 07:25:52 PM  
Wait... I thought the guns did it.
 
2013-03-12 07:38:10 PM  

onyxruby: That being said I'm generally of the opinion that murderers, especially mass murderers should be executed.


The Taliban have much the same idea. They have, of course, a slightly different opinion on what constitutes murder.
 
2013-03-12 07:40:35 PM  

MacWizard: That sentence would seem to describe the vast majority of everyone in prison.


Joe is a decorated war veteran.

He was proud to serve. He was awarded a medal after he unhesitatingly went beyond the call of duty, putting himself in grave danger to successfully assist some comrades pinned down by enemy fire. But three years into his enlistment, he started experiencing psychotic breaks with reality, paranoid delusions, depression, and symptoms of PTSD.

He's faithfully complied with treatment for his conditions ever since he was discharged from the military after a psychotic episode which finally got two members of his unit seriously wounded. But the meds don't stop the symptoms completely. Psychotic episodes still happen from time to time. Especially in conjunction with the various illicit substances he uses to cope with the pain of his post-military life.

One day he uses a drug with hallucinogenic properties, which triggers a psychotic episode. He imagines he's back on the battlefield, and that the people around him are enemies. He feels completely surrounded in enemy territory. Like Holmes, he executes a scheme of mass murder involving body armor, semi-automatic weapons, booby traps, and more. He kills two dozen people, including a little girl and three police officers, before being subdued.

Do you think Joe's actions, heinous as they were, are morally the same as a white supremacist who participates in a lynching? If not, the reason is because when Jim acted, he didn't understand the nature and quality of his actions. But we've no like reason to believe the white supremacist didn't understand his. And though he may disagree with society's view on the wrongness of lynching black teenage boys who date white girls, there's no serious dispute he understood what he did was a crime. He did it. He tried to cover up his involvement. He fully understood if he got caught he'd be prosecuted.

In my view, the white supremacist is much worse morally than Joe. It's not even a close case, even though he killed a lot more people. Joe didn't know what the f*ck he was doing. While he's clearly a danger to society and must be segregated from it, he's not an evil person. His confinement should be treated as a tragic necessity for public safety. But the white supremacist is just an evil prick who should be strapped to a chair and pumped full of electricity until his nuts melt.

Morally speaking, Joe's case is very different from most of those in prison. The question here is whether James Holmes's actions are more like Joe's, or more like the white supremacist's.
 
2013-03-12 07:41:14 PM  
avgenes.files.wordpress.com

Bullshiat.

He wasn't insane, he was just a middle-class, educated, sexually frustrated, juvenile white male who wanted to make a name for himself.  But finding a purpose and working in this world was toooo haarrrrrrd.

But sadly, I honestly believe the "insanity" diagnosis will be ASPERGERS.
 
2013-03-12 07:59:00 PM  
ValisIV: 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.


Serious question, has anyone calculated how much is saved on trials in death penalty states by people taking plea deals to get life sentences instead of facing a death sentence?
 
2013-03-12 08:00:59 PM  
I still think it's awesome that I read this whole thread in Nina Totenburg's voice.

As for insanity, of COURSE he's insane. Duh! didn't you guys hear what he did?
 
2013-03-12 08:11:50 PM  

akula: 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.


So if someone goes into a diabetic coma while driving and plows through a crosswalk full of children, you would be okay with locking them up for life even though we can treat the problem that caused the accident in the first place, since the person could choose not to continue treatment at some point and do it again?  Okay, then.

/You're thinking with your emotions, not your logic
 
2013-03-12 08:17:38 PM  

Chevello: I still think it's awesome that I read this whole thread in Nina Totenburg's voice.

As for insanity, of COURSE he's insane. Duh! didn't you guys hear what he did?


That doesn't work.
 
2013-03-12 08:24:27 PM  

OhioKnight: In Columbus, Ohio we had a "sniper" a few years ago who shot and killed a woman driving on the Outer belt.  This guy was wandering around the city randomly shooting cars and other objects because he saw them as ravening alien monsters that were coming to kill him.  The woman was killed because while he was shooting at cars, he accidentally hit her.


You too, MI had a guy randomly shooting cars on I-696 (or I-96) during his commute last year.  The one person he did hit was on his way to a Tigers' playoff game.  It took awhile to catch him because he was in his car, shooting into opposing lanes.  Another reason to hate left lane campers.

If we ever do set up a hunger games competition, these guys should be the first contestants.
 
2013-03-12 08:30:32 PM  
I *knew* there had to be an explanation why Katie married Tom in the first place...
 
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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report