Colorado Shooter - Life Without Parole

[Ben]

I've pretty much made it known here that my feelings on the death penalty have changed with all the DNA exonerations, etc., but that there are clear cases where it should be swiftly administered - heinous crimes with multiple unbiased witnesses, confession, video, etc. If ever there was a clear case of implementing the death penalty, this is it. One juror stopped it.

It's the way our trial by jury system works, so I guess I can't be too irate, but I can grumble. Don't they ask the potential jurors if they could apply the death penalty if needed? It sounds like this juror was against it from the git-go.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/08/1-juror-firmly-opposed-death-penalty-for-theater-shooter-james-holmes/?intcmp=hpbt1

[SADShooter]

Unfortunate, IMO, but them's the breaks. I assume the prosecution had a dismissal option during voir dire. They gambled, and lost.

[Tallpine]

The trouble is that for some of these crazies prison isn't really a punishment.  They can't cope with the outside world anyway so it's sort of a lifetime meal ticket.

[BlueStarLizzard]

When a dog demonstrates dangerous behavior and is determined to be unsafe, we put it down.
It's just no longer feasible to keep the dog alive, and confinement is not the answer. If anything, the confinement if cruel.
It's not about punishment. It's just what has to be done.

Why do we treat the person that has acted in the manner of a dangerous dog with more value on life (not quality of life, but just life) than a dangerous animal? If anything, we should be quicker to put the human down. The dog doesn't even understand it's actions. The person does.

[French G.]

In general this board supports the idea of nullification of bad laws by jurors. That just happened although in this case we'd probably line up for a chance to shoot the guy.

[vaskidmark]

I am going to take the position of the Loyal Opposition.

The jury has done justice not only for the defendant and the victims of his crimes, but for society as a whole.  Death sentences have not been swift, sure, and certain since somewhere between the last quarter of the 1800s and the first quarter of the 1900s.  My memory is a little fuzzy on the date but somewhere around 1960 or 1970 the average length of time between sentencing and execution became greater than 5 years.

Since the 1980s the cost of appeals of a death sentence, which the taxpayers are obliged to pick up, crossed over the mark of $1Million per year.

The cost of the most secure incarceration publicly known in the US is still under $100K per year.

Life without parole is a savings to the taxpayers of $900K per year, and does not put the families of the victims on a near-perpetual rollercoaster of emotions with appeals and stays and the like.

If it's going to take on average more than 15 years to put down a viscous animal I'd rather just cage it and call it a day.  Especially when many SCOTUS watchers are suggesting that because of the time lag between sentencing and execution the execution has little if any meaning to the defendant by the time it is carried out and that may be the hook on which SCOTUS hangs its decision to end the death penalty.

stay safe.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I am going to take the position of the Loyal Opposition.

The jury has done justice not only for the defendant and the victims of his crimes, but for society as a whole.  Death sentences have not been swift, sure, and certain since somewhere between the last quarter of the 1800s and the first quarter of the 1900s.  My memory is a little fuzzy on the date but somewhere around 1960 or 1970 the average length of time between sentencing and execution became greater than 5 years.

Since the 1980s the cost of appeals of a death sentence, which the taxpayers are obliged to pick up, crossed over the mark of $1Million per year.

The cost of the most secure incarceration publicly known in the US is still under $100K per year.

Life without parole is a savings to the taxpayers of $900K per year, and does not put the families of the victims on a near-perpetual rollercoaster of emotions with appeals and stays and the like.

If it's going to take on average more than 15 years to put down a viscous animal I'd rather just cage it and call it a day.  Especially when many SCOTUS watchers are suggesting that because of the time lag between sentencing and execution the execution has little if any meaning to the defendant by the time it is carried out and that may be the hook on which SCOTUS hangs its decision to end the death penalty.

stay safe.

So, what your saying is we should streamline and expedite the appeals process so that the time between scentancing and execution is more reasonable (and significantly cheaper) in cases where any reasonable doubt isn't even applicable?

[Jamisjockey]

What else is life in prison if not a death sentence?  If you're going to imprison someone for the rest of their natural life....you might as well break out the rope.

[freakazoid]

If it's going to take on average more than 15 years to put down a viscous animal I'd rather just cage it and call it a day.  Especially when many SCOTUS watchers are suggesting that because of the time lag between sentencing and execution the execution has little if any meaning to the defendant by the time it is carried out and that may be the hook on which SCOTUS hangs its decision to end the death penalty.

stay safe.

Is it supposed to have a meaning for the defendant?

[vaskidmark]

So, what your saying is we should streamline and expedite the appeals process so that the time between scentancing and execution is more reasonable (and significantly cheaper) in cases where any reasonable doubt isn't even applicable?

The problem is that once the jury decides, the applicability of "reasonable doubt" is eliminated.

More to the point that I was making is those who plead guilty to a capital offense who then turn around and appeal the carrying out of a death sentence over technical issues such as claiming, for instance, that because nobody can prove that the first drug used in lethal injection actually keeps them from feeling pain there is a chance the method violates the 8th Amendment.

Or perhaps more to the point the SJW lawyers and organizations that use the cases as platforms for their opposition to the death penalty.

IF we are going to have a death penalty it needs to be something that has impact on the convicted while the immediate memory/thoughts of the crime remain in their mind.  When it gets to be a disembodied process at the end of repetitive appeals and reviews I cannot fathom how the convicted can relate the awesomeness of the penalty with the severity of the deed they committed.

I'm not completely convinced any more that the convicted ought to be taken from the courtroom to the gallows so the bars can reopen.  That comes from the uncertainty of the evidence sometimes presented to prove the crime, the political nature of some prosecutions.  (This one currently under discussion is a good example.  The trial was more about gun control than it was about multiple brutal murders.)


stay safe.

[BlueStarLizzard]

The problem is that once the jury decides, the applicability of "reasonable doubt" is eliminated.

More to the point that I was making is those who plead guilty to a capital offense who then turn around and appeal the carrying out of a death sentence over technical issues such as claiming, for instance, that because nobody can prove that the first drug used in lethal injection actually keeps them from feeling pain there is a chance the method violates the 8th Amendment.

Or perhaps more to the point the SJW lawyers and organizations that use the cases as platforms for their opposition to the death penalty.

IF we are going to have a death penalty it needs to be something that has impact on the convicted while the immediate memory/thoughts of the crime remain in their mind.  When it gets to be a disembodied process at the end of repetitive appeals and reviews I cannot fathom how the convicted can relate the awesomeness of the penalty with the severity of the deed they committed.

I'm not completely convinced any more that the convicted ought to be taken from the courtroom to the gallows so the bars can reopen.  That comes from the uncertainty of the evidence sometimes presented to prove the crime, the political nature of some prosecutions.  (This one currently under discussion is a good example.  The trial was more about gun control than it was about multiple brutal murders.)


stay safe.

I agree with needing some appeals process, especially if the "beyond a reasonable doubt" is "proven" because a jury thinks so or because somebody thinks so.

But when evidence is comprised of things like video, DNA and absolute proof that this person did this thing? These mass murderers who've openly killed as a statement of some kind and the question has never been 'who did it?' but 'why did he do it?' and there wasn't even any reasonable doubt to begin with, I don't see why we don't have some legal loophole that just allows the authorities to put them down...
Than again, that's maybe more of a personal view of these kinds of killers than one that can be applicable from a legal standpoint.
Sorry, I'm just rambling at this point.

Personally, I'm not opposed to the death penalty on any moral grounds. My moral hangup is on it being applied without any possibility of a mistake and if that cannot be done, perhaps I shall have to change my stance on it.

[RoadKingLarry]

There have been too many instances of fraud, corruption and politics in our "justice" system for me to be a hardline supporter of capital punishment. The continued improvement in modern forensic science (wizardry?) and DNA testing is helping to prevent mistakes but it's not perfect, probably never will be. However in cases where there is no possibility of convicting the wrong person, no possibility of doubt then I'm all for the swift execution of the condemned. The Aurora theater shooting case and the Ft. Hood terrorist attack are just 2 cases where immediate execution upon conviction would have been appropriate.

[41magsnub]

There have been too many instances of fraud, corruption and politics in our "justice" system for me to be a hardline supporter of capital punishment. The continued improvement in modern forensic science (wizardry?) and DNA testing is helping to prevent mistakes but it's not perfect, probably never will be. However in cases where there is no possibility of convicting the wrong person, no possibility of doubt then I'm all for the swift execution of the condemned. The Aurora theater shooting case and the Ft. Hood terrorist attack are just 2 cases where immediate execution upon conviction would have been appropriate.

Not to mention there have been several scandals of late with state crime labs falsifying results.  That puts a damper on absolutely trusting DNA evidence.

[lupinus]

There have been too many instances of fraud, corruption and politics in our "justice" system for me to be a hardline supporter of capital punishment. The continued improvement in modern forensic science (wizardry?) and DNA testing is helping to prevent mistakes but it's not perfect, probably never will be. However in cases where there is no possibility of convicting the wrong person, no possibility of doubt then I'm all for the swift execution of the condemned. The Aurora theater shooting case and the Ft. Hood terrorist attack are just 2 cases where immediate execution upon conviction would have been appropriate.

This has been my view for a long time. Reasonable doubt isn't enough, imo, for a sentence that is irrevocable. Sure, 20 years behind bars for a crime you didn't commit ain't much better, but at least they can let you go with a good likelihood of a payout if there was colorful prosecution methods employed.

But when there is guilt with NO doubt, such as this, I am all in favor of a swift death penalty. And to be honest, for an even broader range of crimes than we currently use it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hawkmoon]

I am going to take the position of the Loyal Opposition.

The jury has done justice not only for the defendant and the victims of his crimes, but for society as a whole.  Death sentences have not been swift, sure, and certain since somewhere between the last quarter of the 1800s and the first quarter of the 1900s.  My memory is a little fuzzy on the date but somewhere around 1960 or 1970 the average length of time between sentencing and execution became greater than 5 years.

Since the 1980s the cost of appeals of a death sentence, which the taxpayers are obliged to pick up, crossed over the mark of $1Million per year.

The cost of the most secure incarceration publicly known in the US is still under $100K per year.

Life without parole is a savings to the taxpayers of $900K per year, and does not put the families of the victims on a near-perpetual rollercoaster of emotions with appeals and stays and the like.

If it's going to take on average more than 15 years to put down a viscous animal I'd rather just cage it and call it a day.  Especially when many SCOTUS watchers are suggesting that because of the time lag between sentencing and execution the execution has little if any meaning to the defendant by the time it is carried out and that may be the hook on which SCOTUS hangs its decision to end the death penalty.

Your position seems to presuppose that there's something rational and proper over an appeals process that lasts so long and costs so much.

Fact not in evidence.

The solution is to speed up the process and reduce the cost. Frivolous appeals? Fine the lawyers who file them. High cost of maintaining the prisoner? Make prisons more like prisons and less like country clubs or gymnasia.

[Hawkmoon]

The Aurora theater shooting case and the Ft. Hood terrorist attack are just 2 cases where immediate execution upon conviction would have been appropriate.

Except that execution allows the Fort Hood shooter to go out as a martyr, at least in his eyes and in the view of other anti-U.S. terrorist types. For him I favor keeping him alive, under humane but not "comfortable" conditions, so he can spend the rest of his life reflecting on the fact that he failed to achieve martyrdom.

[T.O.M.]

One of  twelve hung things up on the death penalty.  One person out of twelve might believe it isn't right to execute a crazy person, no matter what the crazy person does.

Gotta admit, the more time I spend working in the justice system, the less support I feel for capital punishment.  I believe in our system, but also acknowledge that it is imperfect.

[HankB]

We should tell Mugabe this guy is the dentist who shot Cecil and extradite him to Zimbabwe . . .

[De Selby]

What is the value in executing someone  who is obviously insane?

I also don't see the point in making prisons into medieval dungeons.  Holding people in those conditions is a proven way to make whatever behaviours they had beforehand worse.

Not sure the cost is an issue either - death penalty cases are peanuts in the grand scheme of jailing millions of people every year.  We need to come up with a way of settling neighbourhood mischief and drug abuse that doesn't require rounding up prisoners by the train load.

[Boomhauer]

What is the value in executing someone  who is obviously insane?

One less waste of oxygen...

[zxcvbob]

What is the value in executing someone  who is obviously insane?

I also don't see the point in making prisons into medieval dungeons.  Holding people in those conditions is a proven way to make whatever behaviours they had beforehand worse.

Not sure the cost is an issue either - death penalty cases are peanuts in the grand scheme of jailing millions of people every year.  We need to come up with a way of settling neighbourhood mischief and drug abuse that doesn't require rounding up prisoners by the train load.

The cost to taxpayers (and society in general) is huge, but that's a good thing because that's a lot of money to be directed to politicians' cronies, some of which comes back to the pols as political contributions or just good old fashioned kickbacks and bribes.  Everybody loses, except for those in power.  Often, quite by accident, justice gets done, but that's no longer the point.

[charby]

What else is life in prison if not a death sentence?  If you're going to imprison someone for the rest of their natural life....you might as well break out the rope.

If he goes to prison and put into general population, he will be dead in a few years. He is not the typical criminal that goes to prison.

[vaskidmark]

Hawkmoon -

You got my thoughts on the protracted appeals process 180* off course.

De Selby -

SCOTUS has already ruled (25+ years ago) that executing an insane person is cruel and unusual because they are not able to comprehend why they are being put to death.  Bringing up a distraction such as you did just clutters up the discussion with needing to remind you of facts.

As for the cost issue - come up with a program that will work with American criminals in American society without ever making reference to how anybody anywhere else does anything and I'll listen to you (with one exception discussed below).

The only program I am aware of that has just slightly better than a snowball's chance in hell is the transference of the English MH "therapeutic community" model.  With a huge IF - which is if the model can be sustained on the outside so the released criminal participant can continue uninterrupted  for a minimum of ten years.  (Look  at Delancy Street and Amity - they started out as treatment programs and have morphed over the years into an industrial complex that provides a way for participants to get those uninterrupted 10 years.  Last time I checked with Amity (about 5 years ago) they were struggling to remain non-profit.  Hard to do when you have more money pouring in than you can use to expand and bring in more participants.)

stay safe.

[De Selby]

Skid, it is not a distraction to observe that the legal definition of "insane" both for criminal responsibility and eligibility for punishment bears no relationship to common sense or reality.  It's quite common for people who are literally bat *expletive deleted*it crazy to be convicted and found, legally speaking, sane when they'd otherwise be committed for treatment.

As for American prisons, it's bizarre that you'd require no examination of anywhere else in the world as an option.  But anyway, how about the US before the 90's?  We didn't always imprison millions of people every year.  We still don't have to.

[makattak]

But anyway, how about the US before the 90's?  We didn't always imprison millions of people every year.  We still don't have to.

You're right. We could go back to the crime rate of the 70s. We have that option.

We also could have a revival of the people that results in the citizens of the country actually acting like Christians rather than just calling themselves that.

Those are pretty much the only options. I suppose we could also go back to institutionalizing the insane, but that pretty much only has an effect on the splashy crimes liberals love.

My guess is we are headed for option 1, though. I'll keep praying for option 2, miracles do happen.