backtop


Print 89 comment(s) - last by Florinator.. on Mar 15 at 11:43 AM

The decision to use it has been very controversial

A Colorado judge will allow prosecutors to interrogate theater gunman James Holmes using truth serum if he pleads not guilty by reason of insanity.

Holmes is the suspected gunman involved in the movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado last July. Holmes has been charged with multiple counts of murder for the open shooting, which killed 12 people and injured another 58.

Colorado Judge William Sylvester ruled that prosecutors have the choice to use truth serum on Holmes in a "narcoanalytic interview" to determine whether or not he was legally insane during the July 20 shooting last year. But this is only if Holmes pleads not guilty by reason of insanity.

A plea of not guilty had been entered for Holmes yesterday after his lawyer said that the defendant was not ready to enter his own plea. Holmes can later change it.


Legal experts have questioned Judge Sylvester's ruling, saying that taking away the fifth amendment rights of the defendant because of an authorization to use truth serum drugs will raise a lot of fifth amendment-related issues.

Also, a jury may object to the court forcing truth serum upon the defendant.

Medical experts have weighed in as well, saying that the defendant still has the ability to lie while using truth serum. They also said that truth serum would be effective at determining Holmes' current state of mind, but a short-acting barbiturate like truth serum would not indicate his state of mind during last year's shooting. It will only loosen him up to talk about it.

"First of all, people can still lie under the influence of amytal," said Dr. August Piper, a psychiatrist from Seattle. "More importantly, the person under the influence of the drug is susceptible to outside suggestion. To try and do this would be unlikely to yield useful information, and could pervert the course of justice by rendering the defendant susceptible to pressure."

It's unclear exactly which drug will be used, but experts predict short-acting sodium amytal.

Sources: NPR, CBS News





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Can't accept this
By adrift02 on 3/13/2013 12:33:10 PM , Rating: 5
As much as I'd like to say "go ahead, do anything you want to this pos", I don't think the precedent being set here is worth the trade.

a. The drug isn't perfect. I don't ever want us to depend on something like that over hard evidence.
b. The constitution has taken enough of a beating this last decade as it is. It may not be torture but it's clearly forcing someone to self-incriminate.

Bottom line, this guy is going away for life regardless. We're just deciding where he'll be. The consequences aren't worth it in this instance.




RE: Can't accept this
By mickrussom on 3/13/2013 1:01:47 PM , Rating: 5
The media uses big events, a crisis, to make the police state stronger. It happens every time. They use emotions to get the sheeple to surrender liberty.


RE: Can't accept this
By Azethoth on 3/14/2013 9:40:39 AM , Rating: 2
Meh, this is about in league with a polygraph test. Nobody gets convicted on it.


RE: Can't accept this
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2013 1:11:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bottom line, this guy is going away for life regardless.


And that's the problem. We're doomed as a society and culture if people like this, who have done such unspeakable crimes, do not qualify for capital punishment.

quote:
b. The constitution has taken enough of a beating this last decade as it is. It may not be torture but it's clearly forcing someone to self-incriminate.


How so? His guilt isn't in question. It's an absolute fact he did these crimes. All that's sought here is intent.

We need serious court reform and mandatory death-penalties for mass murderers. The "insanity" defense should be barred in cases like these, it's unacceptable. And anyone who kills that many people shouldn't be sitting in a prison waiting for parole, he should be dead.

quote:
The consequences aren't worth it in this instance.


I wonder if the families of the victims, and those who were wounded and had their lives damaged forever, would agree. To some people this is more than just an Internet debate.


RE: Can't accept this
By Bytre on 3/13/2013 1:21:59 PM , Rating: 5
Capital punishment is to appease the blood lust in the populace. A mass murderer is not going to stay their hand because "oh, I might get capital punishment if I do this".


RE: Can't accept this
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2013 1:36:22 PM , Rating: 3
Hey whatever you want to call it, whatever helps you get through the day, I don't care. Just kill this sick fuck.

It's not "bloodlust", it's compassion.


RE: Can't accept this
By Omega215D on 3/13/2013 2:35:16 PM , Rating: 5
No, I refuse to have my tax dollars supporting this guy in his cell, wherever that may be.


RE: Can't accept this
By Florinator on 3/13/2013 3:01:58 PM , Rating: 2
You know that capital punishment is a lot more expensive than life in prison, right?


RE: Can't accept this
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2013 3:10:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You know that capital punishment is a lot more expensive than life in prison, right?


No, because it's simply not true. Just some BS a Liberal think-tank came up with long ago in California, that is now repeated as if fact for the whole country.


RE: Can't accept this
By Florinator on 3/13/2013 3:42:12 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe the findings of a think-tank from DC might have more weight with you...

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalt...


RE: Can't accept this
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2013 3:47:17 PM , Rating: 1
No doubt a site called "deathpenaltyinfo" is supremely unbiased...

I'm not entertaining such illogical fantasies. It's a matter of cosmic fact that it's easier to destroy than to create. Keeping someone alive is expensive, killing them and throwing the body away, is not.

Yes we've allowed politicians and Liberals to attach a ton of artificial costs and time-wasters to the process, to discourage capital punishment. Solution? Remove them. Problem solved.


RE: Can't accept this
By FaaR on 3/14/2013 7:39:59 AM , Rating: 2
Ah, so you dismiss the link without even having looked at it because of its NAME. That's...logical. *rolls eyes*

Anyhow, great idea that about just taking every convicted murderer out back after the trial's concluded and hanging them on the spot there by the way - because we know everyone convicted of a crime is actually guilty of it, yes?

No, actually not. It is a known fact that a significant percentage of death row inmates are actually innocent. But hell, you want to make omelette, you gotta break some eggs, right?

According to the ACLU (one of those libbrul organizations one can simply dismiss, because they don't favor instant hangings and whatnot), one death row inmate has been released after new evidence proved their innocense for every eight prisoners executed, and that was numbers from back in the early 2000:s, we can expect that ratio to be even more significant today as DNA matching tech has improved and become more commonplace. That's an awful lot of eggs broken just to make omelette, don't you think?

Or do you even think? It seems you are entirely ruled by gut reaction and rightwing propaganda.


RE: Can't accept this
By Adonlude on 3/14/2013 5:02:17 PM , Rating: 2
People who support capital punishment don't care if its cheaper or more expensive. Cost is just a liberal red hearring. There are some crimes that if you commit them society just doesn't need you around any more. I'ts the princple of this thing. You have to pay and society need to forget about you.

Im all for keeping the really crazy ones around for a little while incase the shrinks want to study them and think they can learn something. But when thats done they are still just old meat that need to be tossed away.


RE: Can't accept this
By Florinator on 3/14/2013 8:36:13 PM , Rating: 2
I just can't wrap my head around this. Capital punishment is barbaric... killing people is barbaric... You want to do to them the same thing that got them there in the first place. An eye for an eye, 'cause we all know that's a great philosophy. Saudi Arabia comes to mind, public beheadings...

The way you think, "old meat that needs to be tossed away" makes you just as sick in the head as the Aurora guy. After all, as someone already said on a post here, no one is innocent anyway, right? So it's not like he was killing innocent people... they had it coming anyway...


RE: Can't accept this
By M'n'M on 3/14/2013 10:02:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I just can't wrap my head around this. Capital punishment is barbaric... killing people is barbaric... You want to do to them the same thing that got them there in the first place. An eye for an eye, 'cause we all know that's a great philosophy. Saudi Arabia comes to mind, public beheadings...

Hmmm, I don't know about "barbaric" or whether that's even important. What I do know is not all killings are the same. As I was trying to convey to Reclaimer "Motive matters", or if you will, context does. If you found someone hacking at your wife, daughter, whomever, with a meat cleaver would you hesitate to use any force, even deadly force, to stop them ? I suspect not. If that person dies as a result, I don't see any moral stigma attached to your actions (even if you still consider them barbaric).

When the State executes someone (ideally) it's not in the same context that the murder was. You may argue that it's unnecessary, perhaps that's true, but the point would be what is "just" punishment for the crime committed ? There is no logical answer to this question. There isn't some physical natural law that sets the standard. It's what you, I and everyone else decides is "just". We decide that some crimes are minor and others major and use some rationality to set the punishment proportionally. If murder is the worst crime, then the worst punishment would seem to be justified. Heck, we don't do the worst. You want barbaric, go back to what was done a some hundreds years ago. We don't draw and quarter people nor burn them at the stake.

As for SA, is the problem public executions or that the punishment is disproportional to the crime (by our standards) and the trial, and thus the guilt, very suspect ? If we are to execute people, then it should be public. Let's not hide form the people what's being done in their name and by their will.


RE: Can't accept this
By Florinator on 3/15/2013 11:43:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you found someone hacking at your wife, daughter, whomever, with a meat cleaver would you hesitate to use any force, even deadly force, to stop them ? I suspect not. If that person dies as a result, I don't see any moral stigma attached to your actions (even if you still consider them barbaric).


You are correct on both counts. I'm having quite a hard time dealing with the cognitive dissonance triggered by your example, but hey I never said it was an easy situation to deal with (hypothetically).


RE: Can't accept this
By Stuka on 3/13/2013 4:59:59 PM , Rating: 3
Putting someone to death costs almost nothing. Putting in legal hurdles to prevent the death penalty from being a viable option is what makes it cost a lot of money. It's because of the bleeding hearts which feel they couldn't possibly live with the crushing guilt that one out of one million people might actually be innocent even following a thorough trial in front of a jury of their peers.

I can live with the guilt.

We all have a covenant with each other in this society of ours. You violate another's rights, you lose yours. And it is society's obligation to eliminate you as a possible source of further disruption to the collective harmony.


RE: Can't accept this
By Florinator on 3/13/2013 5:06:59 PM , Rating: 3
It's ridiculous to say that it's ok to slip one innocent person among one million criminals. What if that one person were you?


RE: Can't accept this
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2013 5:23:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What if that one person were you?


I would say that's better odds than you would have being in that theater that night...

No man-made system can be perfect.


RE: Can't accept this
By Samus on 3/14/2013 12:15:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What if that one person were you?


It'd be incredibly selfish of me if I was one of a million people who was innocent, and the system were to collapse because of this.

Not to sound emo, but I'd just bite the bullet, kiss my family goodbye and know the society will have a lot of problems solved (especially monetary) by keeping the capital punishment system in place.

Yes, innocent people are executed. Yes, it could be me. But there are 7 billion people on this planet and we need to think about the big picture and not just some little numbers.


RE: Can't accept this
By FaaR on 3/14/2013 7:47:37 AM , Rating: 3
The US founding fathers would blanch at reading what you just spewed. It's not only diametrically opposed to all the values and ideals of the US constitution and bill of rights, it's also nothing but utter fascist crap. It's apologist claptrap of how the state should be allowed to execute innocent people just for the sake of upholding the system itself. How does that align with any view of what constitutes liberty and justice?

It's utter travesty, that's what it is.


RE: Can't accept this
By Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer on 3/14/2013 10:05:42 AM , Rating: 2
There is seriously something deeply, profoundly wrong with you. Even if your self-preservation instinct has been neutered enough that you'd say, "Hey, no biggie, I might be innocent but most people who get put to death aren't, so it's for the good of my country", I would venture to say that you speak for a very, very small percentage of human beings.

"Hey, I'm in the prime of my life, but sure, inject me with this lethal cocktail of drugs that might or might not be a painless way to die."

There are known cases where a person who was almost certainly wrongly convicted have been put to death. But hey, it's for the greater good, right?


RE: Can't accept this
By Adonlude on 3/14/2013 5:17:57 PM , Rating: 2
Correct.

People die in unfortuante tragedies all the time but we don't stop using cars or airplanes or stop giving cops guns. If there is an occasional tragety taking place in the jail system that is to be expected and is probably orders of magnuitude less common than all the other types of tragedies in our lives.

Some people need death and if you are too stupid to be that innocent guy standing over the body, holding the murder weapon, spraying your DNA all over the place, and talking yourself into handcuffs then maybe you need death too.


RE: Can't accept this
By SlyNine on 3/14/2013 1:33:27 PM , Rating: 2
How noble of you. It's easy to say this now, when you're not faced with such threat, I sure it'd be different if it were really happening, like a nightmare.

Besides what if it wasn't you, what if it was your mom or wife taking the fall for someone else just so a few guilty people don't slip through the cracks.

And where does the line get drawn, pretty soon we'll all be guilty until proven innocent. Than we should catch all the guilty people, how could a guilty person prove his/her innocence?

Please don't reply, just be honest with yourself.


RE: Can't accept this
By V-Money on 3/13/2013 5:23:51 PM , Rating: 3
Then him...or me...or you...or someone else innocent would be dead, but so would a million people who deserve it so who cares. It sucks but the chances of it happening are small. Besides, have you looked around our country lately, nobody is completely innocent and most likely if you end up in that position you did something else that would probably warrant it anyways. If not, then you have terrible luck and it is just your time to go.


RE: Can't accept this
By SlyNine on 3/14/2013 1:36:59 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, well that's not how this county was founded. This argument of, we're all guilty of something, is ridiculous. You're basically saying because I might have broke the speed limit its okay to charge me with murder. Because I'm not completely innocent.


RE: Can't accept this
By bsd228 on 3/14/2013 6:12:21 PM , Rating: 2
> It's ridiculous to say that it's ok to slip one innocent person among one million criminals. What if that one person were you?

The major fault in this question is that the ratio is a hell of a lot higher than 1 in a million. I'm fully in favor of the use of capital punishment where warranted, but I cannot dismiss out of hand the rate of wrongful executions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution#Un...
"Newly-available DNA evidence has allowed the exoneration and release of more than 15 death row inmates since 1992 in the United States,[4] but DNA evidence is available in only a fraction of capital cases." It goes on to note over 100 people in America have been exonerated after being placed on death row since 1976.

So to those who mocked your question - how many more than 15million people were sentenced to death since 1992? It would be surprising it it's less than 1 in 1000 that are falsely killed. And that's really a different game than "are you ok with 1 false killing in a million.'


RE: Can't accept this
By JPForums on 3/14/2013 3:07:52 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, that didn't take long to find the errors. Right at the top of the page:
quote:
$1.94 billion--Pre-Trial and Trial Costs $925 million--Automatic Appeals and State Habeas Corpus Petitions $775 million--Federal Habeas Corpus Appeals $1 billion--Costs of Incarceration
1) Pre-Trial and Trial costs are the same regardless of final sentence.

2) The writ of Habeas Corpus is not a right limited to death row prisoners.

3) Cost of incarceration (1/4 of the cost) is a lot lower for death penalty cases seeing as the cost is a fixed amount per year and they spend fewer years incarcerated. In fact, assuming all other costs are valid, the fact that incarceration is 1/4 the cost of the death penalty in California (according to your link) suggests that once someone is incarcerated 4 times longer than the person who got the death penalty, he has become more costly than the death row prisoner.

I apologize if I'm misunderstanding something, but the page you link seems to make things quite clear right up front.


RE: Can't accept this
By nafhan on 3/13/2013 2:54:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Capital punishment is to appease the blood lust in the populace
wut? I personally think a life sentence for a 20-something is a lot worse for everyone involved. Honestly, who benefits from keeping this guy locked in a cell for 50+ years? Those running the prisons?


RE: Can't accept this
By FaaR on 3/14/2013 7:51:13 AM , Rating: 2
Those who primarily benefit are the masses of those innocently convicted of crimes they did not commit, because you can release an innocent man from jail, but you cannot release an innocent man from death.

...But I suppose such feats of logic and thinking are beyond you.


RE: Can't accept this
By SlyNine on 3/14/2013 1:41:27 PM , Rating: 2
To add to that. It has happened, convicted murderers proved innocent years later. Thank god they didn't kill those people.

It's not that I'm against putting someone to death, but people shouldn't be so f'ing gun-ho about it.


RE: Can't accept this
By bh192012 on 3/13/2013 4:19:14 PM , Rating: 2
He should be executed to help protect the public. There is no reason to keep a risky devil like this alive. Also as a citizen he is entitled to his sixth ammendment rights to a speedy trial (which should include his appeals.) That would also keep the costs down. Get in there, try him, judge all appeals, then shoot him, assuming he's found guilty. Then we could then use the 30,000 dollars a year to help save granny and fund medicare.

There should be no such thing as "prison for life."


RE: Can't accept this
By Schrag4 on 3/14/2013 11:13:05 AM , Rating: 2
It's obvious that a mass murderer has no concern for his own life. If the fear of death will not dissuade someone from carrying out mass murder, what's the point of keeping that person around? After all, I'd hate for someone in an executive position to try to score political points.by using a reduction in the increase of a budget as an excuse to let one of these clowns go 10 years from now.


RE: Can't accept this
By TSS on 3/13/2013 2:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
Lol at you reclaimer. At this rate the US is doomed indeed.

How is the insanity defence in this case unacceptable? Are you willing to argue this person, who killed 12 and wounded so much more in an attempt "just to kill more then brevik", can be sane in any shape manner or form?

And how is putting this guy down any justice to the victems hmm? He doesn't feel sorry because he doesn't know how to. Ending his life ends all possibility for him to ever be able to redeem himself so he might feel the guilt for what he has done. It never happening again is achieved by a life sentance as well as a death sentance so what's the difference?

And if he's really insane beyond repair, well then, is life or death the bigger punishment?

Indeed, you do need serious reform but it should be based on cold hard logic and reason, specifically NOT the emotions of the victems. Because their lifes have been affected by crazy, they're not thinking straight either.

What you will get now is people feeding off this kind of anger to remove all possible rights until it's too late. Now it's a mass murderer. Then it's a murderer. Then it's a rapist, then it's assault. Pretty soon you'll be shooting up that guy who smoked a sticky just to find out where he got it from. Why not? You're already perfectly willing to put those people in jail and ruin their entire life. The incarceration rate in the US is skyhigh (pun intended) because of it.

And hey, when you're already using truth serums might as well give them sedatives. He is a crazy mass murderer after all, better make sure he can't do anything including defending himself. That goes for those agressive prisoners too. Scumbags like him surely don't deserve a lawyer either, you said it yourself there's no question he did it. Hell why are we even bothering with a trail, we should've just sent a drone strike on the theatre while he was shooting!

The US JUSTICE system isn't called the US Revenge system. Justice isn't revenge. Justice is doing right by all. If you take away the ability for the perp to do right by the victems, there can never be justice.


RE: Can't accept this
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2013 3:03:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
How is the insanity defence in this case unacceptable? Are you willing to argue this person, who killed 12 and wounded so much more in an attempt "just to kill more then brevik", can be sane in any shape manner or form?


The "insanity" plea is nothing but a ploy now to get a reduced sentence. He planned this crime for weeks. He carried it out. It was entirely premeditated an deliberate. This isn't someone who just went "insane" and isn't responsible for his actions. Nice try.

quote:
And how is putting this guy down any justice to the victems hmm? He doesn't feel sorry because he doesn't know how to.


I think I'm going to do us both a favor and end this now. I'm clearly talking to an idiot with no concept of right or wrong.

quote:
And hey, when you're already using truth serums might as well give them sedatives. He is a crazy mass murderer after all, better make sure he can't do anything including defending himself. That goes for those agressive prisoners too. Scumbags like him surely don't deserve a lawyer either, you said it yourself there's no question he did it. Hell why are we even bothering with a trail, we should've just sent a drone strike on the theatre while he was shooting!


Nice grandstanding. Hyperbole and melodrama all in one...


RE: Can't accept this
By mindless1 on 3/13/2013 3:25:08 PM , Rating: 2
Yes he had been planning this. It's a sign he wasn't suffering from temporary insanity at the time of the slaughter but rather, insanity for a period of time before it too.

I have no problem with a temporary insanity defense if a permanent insanity plea isn't possible, because it seems to match the crime. The problem I have is the differentiation in punishment, that I don't feel it is any less just to kill an insane person than a sane one.

I'd rather we didn't have capital punishment at all, rather that people guilty by reason of insanity are allowed to visit an in-house shrink once in a while during their normal stay in prison.

At the same time we need a competent shrink in there studying the guy so we can learn more about what makes him tick with the hope this information can be useful in the future.


RE: Can't accept this
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2013 3:35:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd rather we didn't have capital punishment at all


We practically don't already. How many people were executed last year again?

quote:
It's a sign he wasn't suffering from temporary insanity at the time of the slaughter but rather, insanity for a period of time before it too.


That's your opinion. I don't think you're even qualified to make such an assessment anyway.

quote:
At the same time we need a competent shrink in there studying the guy so we can learn more about what makes him tick with the hope this information can be useful in the future.


That's the dumbest thing I've heard today. If he's "insane", then we won't learn any more from studying him than the thousands of other "insane" people available to study. And we certainly won't make any inroads into mental health.

Look it's this simple: When you plan on taking the lives of dozens, even hundreds of people, and carry that plan out you should be executed for it.


RE: Can't accept this
By Florinator on 3/13/2013 3:04:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And that's the problem. We're doomed as a society and culture if people like this, who have done such unspeakable crimes, do not qualify for capital punishment.


Oh yeah, 'cause China is so much better off, executing thousands of people each year... I feel safer already...


RE: Can't accept this
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/13, Rating: -1
RE: Can't accept this
By Florinator on 3/13/2013 3:49:42 PM , Rating: 1
I find your fascination with my asshole a bit odd, but I digress...

So, let me rephrase that, in simpler terms, so you can understand: the assumption that the fear of capital punishment generates less crime is wrong.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2007/06/11/does-the-de...


RE: Can't accept this
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2013 3:54:02 PM , Rating: 2
Who said the only point of capital punishment is to further reduce crime?

Look you'll never dissuade me from my belief that some people need to be killed for what they've done. So keep walking, pal.

p.s. did you just use frekonomics as a source? Wow. Yeah I'm so shocked that an article citing the Liberal Associated Press came to this conclusion...


RE: Can't accept this
By Florinator on 3/13/2013 4:06:27 PM , Rating: 2
I'll use FauxNews for you next time...


RE: Can't accept this
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2013 4:09:14 PM , Rating: 2
Go faux yourself :)


RE: Can't accept this
By JPForums on 3/14/2013 2:39:20 PM , Rating: 2
If Fox released an article that concluded that the fear of capital punishment doesn't generates less crime, I'd find it more believable as it doesn't jive with their agenda.

Likewise, if MSNBC (or frekonomics) released an article that concluded that the fear of capital punishment does generate less crime, I'd find if more believable as it doesn't jive with their agendas.

It's much harder to believe when an agency with an agenda releases an article that supports that agenda.


RE: Can't accept this
By voodoobunny on 3/13/2013 1:38:16 PM , Rating: 2
Um, yeah. IANAL but as far as I can tell this is guaranteed to undermine the whole trial against him - guaranteed grounds for appeal, and there is no way that this would stand in the SCOTUS. And if it did... goodbye Constitution.


RE: Can't accept this
By Bad-Karma on 3/13/2013 5:39:19 PM , Rating: 2
It's called "narcoanalytic interview" and this isn't setting any precedents, It is allowable under Colorado law and has been on the books in many states for several decades.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57573766-50...


RE: Can't accept this
By spamreader1 on 3/13/2013 6:27:19 PM , Rating: 2
I honestly think this is one of those cases where they just go ahead and execute him for the act, never mind the reason. This clearly wasn't someone sending him in to do it for money or other exterior motive. I'm sure reason has nothing to do with in the end.

Fair trial should be given don't get me wrong, but don't they have this guy on camera, as well as arrested him "red handed"?


RE: Can't accept this
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2013 7:33:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I honestly think this is one of those cases where they just go ahead and execute him for the act, never mind the reason.


Exactly! Does the reason make those people any less shot to hell?

quote:
Fair trial should be given don't get me wrong, but don't they have this guy on camera, as well as arrested him "red handed"?


Pretty much. It's a show trial for all intents and purposes. There's a 0% chance his guilt is in question.


RE: Can't accept this
By SlyNine on 3/14/2013 1:48:50 PM , Rating: 2
I'm glad that we all have a right to due process and that no exceptions are made. To me, this shows that the system still stands for something. Other than to pander to those that have knee jerk emotional reactions.


RE: Can't accept this
By inperfectdarkness on 3/14/2013 4:12:36 AM , Rating: 2
I say give him the truth serum...

...and then follow it up with pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride.


RE: Can't accept this
By marvdmartian on 3/14/2013 7:51:37 AM , Rating: 2
We could just BEAT the truth out of him. I'm pretty sure there would be little objection to that form of questioning.


Or...
By Motoman on 3/13/2013 12:12:07 PM , Rating: 4
...you could just shoot him if he pleads guilty-but-insane. Still guilty...don't care.




RE: Or...
By Florinator on 3/13/2013 3:36:16 PM , Rating: 2
You're missing the whole point here. Our entire legal system is based on the concept of "free will". The only reason why you can punish people for a crime they've committed is by proving that they chose to do it.

One of the basic concepts of common law is that "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". So the distinction whether he was sane or not is very important...


RE: Or...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2013 3:42:10 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, that's nonsense. He was plenty sane to carefully plan this action over weeks and weeks.

Also little known fact, but out of the 7 theaters in a 20 mile radius of his home, he chose the one and ONLY one that prohibited moviegoers from carrying concealed defense weapons. Coincidence, I don't think so. He chose that theater, of sound mind and free will, for MAXIMUM carnage and death.

Insane my ass! Get out of here with that bullcrap. What makes someone feel compelled to defend such actions? It's sick. Where is your morals? There is right and wrong you know. Pick one!


RE: Or...
By Florinator on 3/13/2013 3:53:17 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, relax... I wasn't arguing that he was insane, I was just explaining why the difference is important.

You can't just say, sane or insane, he's guilty. There is a big difference and it needs to be taken seriously. For what it's worth, I hope they find that he was sane and knew what he was doing, so he can be punished accordingly.


RE: Or...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2013 3:55:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is a big difference and it needs to be taken seriously.


No it doesn't. Dude, what the hell, ALL THOSE PEOPLE ARE DEAD!!! By his hand! Does this mean nothing to you??


RE: Or...
By Florinator on 3/13/2013 4:10:38 PM , Rating: 3
You seriously need to chill and stay focused, so you can debate what I'm actually saying, not what you THINK I'm saying.


RE: Or...
By JPForums on 3/14/2013 3:30:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can't just say, sane or insane, he's guilty. There is a big difference and it needs to be taken seriously. For what it's worth, I hope they find that he was sane and knew what he was doing, so he can be punished accordingly.
I think the difference between temporary insanity and permanent insanity may be important. If you are sane, and you premeditate and execute a mass murder, you are not fit to be in society and should be removed from it. If you are permanently insane and that insanity causes such action, then by virtue of permanence your insanity could cause such action again. Also, by virtue of insanity, you can't sanely predict when it will happen. As such, you are not fit to be in society and should be removed from it (permanently). I see temporary insanity as similar to crimes of passion and feel they should be treated the same. I'll leave you argue over what removal from society entails. I just wanted to chime in on the insanity plea. If only the U.S.A. could figure out how China, India, and Japan keep their relative incarceration rates so low.


RE: Or...
By M'n'M on 3/13/2013 4:20:08 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think anyone is defending the actions. What makes you say that ? It's why he did what he did that's in question. Was Dahmer nuts or not ? How would you square keeping parts of people you killed in your 'fridge ? Perhaps nibbling on some from day to day. If Berkowitz was really truthful when he said he killed people because the dog commanded him to, was he insane ? That crazy people are so detached from reality doesn't automatically mean they can't function in the real world, at least well enough to go about killing other people. People are strange animals, I don't pretend to be able read the minds, or know the intent, of the strangest.

Whether this guy is insane or not, I can't say. I have to question the judge's grasp on reality if he thinks "truth serum" will elicit the truth. I think he's been watching too many Cold War spy movies.

As for right and wrong ... even you can't believe the world is that simple. I think we can all agree murder is wrong. If I go out and shoot my neighbor while he's having his morning coffee ... that's wrong. If I do that same thing but it's after he's raped my daughter, it's still wrong but it's not quite the same is it ? Motive matters when it comes to the punishment.


RE: Or...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2013 5:04:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's why he did what he did that's in question.


Who cares? The blood on his hands is equal either way. The people are still dead, no matter what the reason.

I'm sorry but I just don't buy into this whole "insane equals not-culpable" attitude that sleazy defense lawyers have cultivated over the years.

It's just amazing to me that people find it easier to feel sorry for the poor "insane" mass murderer than the victims or their families. Every day this man lives is a travesty of justice.


RE: Or...
By Florinator on 3/13/2013 5:13:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I'm sorry but I just don't buy into this whole "insane equals not-culpable" attitude


Well, I'm glad you're not in charge of our legal system then. By the way, the "insane equals not culpable" defense dates back to the Code of Hammurabi, but expecting you to be as reasonable as "primitive" people from 4,000 years ago seems to be a bit too much...


RE: Or...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/13, Rating: -1
RE: Or...
By Florinator on 3/13/2013 11:44:03 PM , Rating: 2
You're just a conservative retard that can't even have a civilized debate. I never argued that the guy was insane, quite the contrary, if you actually READ my posts. So I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.


RE: Or...
By Florinator on 3/13/2013 5:19:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's just amazing to me that people find it easier to feel sorry for the poor "insane" mass murderer than the victims or their families.


Again, you're debating beyond the point, nobody is sorry for him, on the contrary, I hope he gets what he deserves and I hope they don't find him insane, so he can rot in jail or be executed, for what I care.

But that doesn't negate the merits of this legal principle, despite the fact that some lawyers may be abusing it...


RE: Or...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2013 5:34:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again, you're debating beyond the point


No I'm not. You just don't like it because I'm reminding you that this is real, not some theoretical debate.

And they call me a heartless bastard!? I'm glad you can separate this discussion from the carnage this man left behind, but right now I can't.

quote:
But that doesn't negate the merits of this legal principle, despite the fact that some lawyers may be abusing it...


Well I'm not sure where that leaves this conversation. Because obviously in this case, it's being abused. And I would support this legal principle being more...modernized shall we say, for future cases.


RE: Or...
By bsd228 on 3/14/2013 6:24:04 PM , Rating: 2
> And they call me a heartless bastard!? I'm glad you can separate this discussion from the carnage this man left behind, but right now I can't.

This is why we have a legal system - because people in general, and like you, cannot separate their emotions from reason. Mob justice is what would result if those people are the ones making the decision.

You're under the false idea that insane people cannot engage in complex thinking or planning. They can, and this entire situation points to a guy not operating with a full deck. This wasn't politically driven, like the Norway slaughter.

To be clear, even if his client was fully sane, I'd expect his defense to mount the insanity plea because otherwise he's certainly getting the death penalty.


RE: Or...
By M'n'M on 3/13/2013 6:40:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote:
It's why he did what he did that's in question.
Who cares? The blood on his hands is equal either way. The people are still dead, no matter what the reason.

I could use the same "logic" and say the same thing about an elderly who loses control of their car and mows down a crowd (because that never happens). People are dead, off with his/her head ? Or just perhaps the motive (or lack of one) makes a difference.
quote:
The majority of these people are obviously NOT too insane to be punished. How stupid are you to believe that?
While the above wasn't aimed at me, are you saying there are some actual insane criminals ? If so, how is this guy, perhaps, not one of them ? Your equivalence that planning = sanity doesn't make any sense. Mental deficiency comes in various degrees. Like Son of Sam claimed, this guy might really believe the Devil made him do it. Whether that's true or not, is a question for the jury to decide.

Again I don't give a crap about this guy. But I do care about this thing called justice. Then again perhaps justice for you means executing Grandma for her senility should she have a car "accident" and people die as a result.


RE: Or...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2013 7:30:58 PM , Rating: 2
You're comparing accidents to willful mass murder. I'm just stunned that you feel those analogies are appropriate and on-topic.

This wasn't an accident, or a crime of passion.

quote:
If so, how is this guy, perhaps, not one of them ?


Do we care if he is? I certainly don't. Insane or not, he clearly and premeditated set out to kill as many people as he could. What about this aren't you getting?



RE: Or...
By M'n'M on 3/13/2013 10:26:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do we care if he is? I certainly don't. Insane or not, he clearly and premeditated set out to kill as many people as he could. What about this aren't you getting?


Because IF he's actually insane, it's not a willful act. That's the point you don't seem to be able to grasp. The word intent is an important part of the legal concept of criminal intent.

Grandma, who is senile, gets in her car and, because she's lost contact with the real world, plows into a school bus and kills 23 kids onboard. She did the deed but there's no criminal intent. Yes or no ? Execute her or not ? Aren't the kids just as dead ? That was your apparent argument (yes I know there was more to it). Or is there something more than body count that plays into the decision to execute or not ?

You go to the local bar and get blasted. You drive the car home and plow into the school bus, killing 23 kids. Criminal intent ? Certainly there wasn't any intent to hit the bus. Accident ? Nope, any reasonable person knows getting blasted and driving may lead to what happened. The intent happened not at the "accident" but when the drinking went over the limit. You're guilty, off with your head.

Now this guy, and I've not heard his "reason", might say the Devil made him do it. That the barking labrador next door commanded him to kill and he has no will to resist the word of God. Sounds nuts ... because it is. He's insane ! Does a person who truly believes the aforementioned have the capability to form criminal intent ?

I'm stunned you can't see the argument being made. Motive, intent ... matters. Whether this guy is insane has yet to be proven. Whether it's a ploy has yet to be exposed.


RE: Or...
By M'n'M on 3/13/2013 10:39:45 PM , Rating: 2
Let me put one more hypothetical case out there for your consideration and then, perhaps, you'll see the argument being made.

Grandma is senile. All she talks of and thinks of is the good ole days when she was a young woman at the girls boarding school. They all sat around the camp fire and sang songs and toasted marshmallows.

Alas Grandma is out of touch with reality and sets fire to any house she thinks will burn so she can once again "see the camp fire". She gets out one day and does this to a school nearby and kills 23 kids. Arson is a crime. Murder is a crime. 23 kids are dead. Their parents want blood. Time to execute Grandma ?

I'll go one better. Grandma has a history of setting fires prior to the big one that got her caught (and BBQ'ed the kiddies). "We" can't let her roam about because if she can, she will set another fire. There's no curing her. Imprison her or execute her ? What's your choice ?


RE: Or...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2013 11:02:25 PM , Rating: 2
Nice trap you've constructed using the sympathetic grandma. If I stand my ground I'm a heartless bastard. If I give in, I'm a hypocrite.

Sorry but this guy didn't have dementia to the point that he thought a house was a campfire or whatever. Come on this is ridiculous! The guy planned this with almost military-like precision, while ALSO leading a normal life. How can that be the actions of a clinically "insane" person?


RE: Or...
By MadMan007 on 3/14/2013 3:01:37 AM , Rating: 2
Ya, no one who plans things with military precision was ever considered insane.


RE: Or...
By M'n'M on 3/14/2013 5:05:47 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Nice trap you've constructed using the sympathetic grandma. If I stand my ground I'm a heartless bastard. If I give in, I'm a hypocrite.

Then be the heartless bastard you want to be. I have no problem with that. I am a heartless bastard. I admit that right up front. If Grandma was just a mean old bitch instead of being senile, who enjoyed seeing people suffer (Grandma Dearest ?) I'd have no problem sticking her with the needle. But that wasn't the point being made.

quote:
Sorry but this guy didn't have dementia to the point that he thought a house was a campfire or whatever. Come on this is ridiculous! The guy planned this with almost military-like precision, while ALSO leading a normal life. How can that be the actions of a clinically "insane" person?
You may end up being correct. This guy's sanity has yet to be determined. The point being is that there are insane people and they do "insane" things. Does Lanza's shoot 'em up in CT strike you as the work of someone who's in touch with reality ? I'm satisfied to wait for the arguments to be made (in both cases) and will withhold judgement until then.

You can feel good in that the insanity defense rarely works. Dahmer, whom I'm convinced had more than just a few screws loose (and a lifetime of more than bizarre actions to prove it) used that defense. The jury didn't buy it.


RE: Or...
By Ramstark on 3/14/2013 1:17:05 PM , Rating: 2
Because, you know, some people just want o see the world in flames...

That's what you don't get Reclaimer, and never will if you stay as close minded as your are. This guy deserves to die, but FOR THE RIGHT REASONS not just "he's insane, hang him now!"

There are some people out there who are perfectly sane, but their minds are so closed and their convictions so strong, that they would defend them to whatever cost, never minding to analyse if their views are correct. Sounds familiar to you?


This guy is scum, but
By mickrussom on 3/13/2013 12:58:53 PM , Rating: 2
Now we have the police state using chemicals to elicit the truth? Wow. Drones. Shrinking middle class. Chemically induced confessions. Massive debt and deficits. A ruthless banking cabal.

Welcome to police state USSA 2013.




RE: This guy is scum, but
By superstition on 3/13/2013 3:10:14 PM , Rating: 2
We've always been a police state. It's just that it's more obvious now than in the past, especially since our press is once again wholly corporate-owned.

Woodrow Wilson's administration jailed newspaper owners who published articles critical of the decision to become involved in the "War in Europe" (later known as WWI). There was an informant campaign where posters were posted by the government to bribe citizens into ratting out other citizens who said things critical of the government.

American citizens (of Japanese ethnicity) had their businesses and property impounded and were forcibly relocated to concentration camps under FDR's government.

The government poisoned alcohol with methanol during Prohibition, allowed poor kids to be warehoused in places like Fernald (including involuntary sterilization, feeding them radioactive food, et cetera) because the US was big into Eugenics before the Nazis were, and injected black people with syphilis to watch how they sickened and died over decades. That syphilis thing lasted into the 1970s.

In the 1950s, if you didn't follow the status quo, you'd be accused of being a communist and you'd lose your job and possibly end up locked up.

Local, state, and federal government conspired to undermine blacks and other minorities with things like redlining and predatory loans. I'll not even go into the murders of people like MLK.


RE: This guy is scum, but
By Florinator on 3/13/2013 4:26:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We've always been a police state. It's just that it's more obvious now than in the past, especially since our press is once again wholly corporate-owned.


I agree. And it's funny how people think that there is more freedom in the US than, say, (socialist) Europe, but I heard someone say, the difference between (I think it was) France and the US is that in the US the people are afraid of the government and in France the government is afraid of people. If you follow politics in Western Europe at all you will see how many times governments change within one term because people take to the streets for various reasons.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe


Why stop there?
By Cluebat on 3/13/2013 12:24:12 PM , Rating: 2
I say we break out and dust off the waterboard.

I'll break out the popcorn.




RE: Why stop there?
By mickrussom on 3/13/2013 1:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
Torture generally results in people saying whatever it is the tormenters want to hear to stop the torment.

Want to do something? Just have 3 witnesses say this guy killed one or more people and execute him. Although, with the police state being as vile as it is, im not sure I entrust the ability to terminate citizens to something so corrupt.

Nevertheless, justice could be served, but the system is beyond corrupt at this point. How much money is being made "serving justice" over the course of 5-10 years it takes to put down a sociopath.


Wont work right
By KOOLTIME on 3/13/2013 6:58:59 PM , Rating: 2
LOl using drugs, to find out if a guy is insane on a particular date, that's way past tense is simply ridiculous.

1 day your normal, next day you see your wife cheating and you kill her - remember OJ anyone ?? A brain can change instantly based on current situation. Not before and not after the fact point in time.

Drugs now of any kind, will only alter his current state in jail, not his process he took when the event happened.

So any statements, will only reflect a years of jail time abuse and scrutiny, not the events over a year ago.

Not everyone whom is deemed insane is violent, yet that is a trend, in many cases but not all.

Drugs wont make a person change to un-insane on any life event. So its pointless.




RE: Wont work right
By FaaR on 3/14/2013 8:16:40 AM , Rating: 2
...Except, OJ was divorced at that time, so clearly not the situation you're looking for (unless you're one of those aceholes who reason that a woman is forever the property of the man she's been with.)


Justice
By gbk99 on 3/13/2013 4:58:10 PM , Rating: 2

He looks really healthy while many can't afford cold medicine. Torture this waste of air in which ever way the relatives of the victims desire... <-- Justice, a bit of it.




RE: Justice
By FaaR on 3/14/2013 8:12:03 AM , Rating: 1
That's not justice, that's retribution, which does not belong in a just society.

You open up the bible, you'll find that eye-for-an-eye shit that you're longing for, but that was 3000 years ago, and the end result of that path is an entire world full of blind people. Clearly not the right way to go.


sick
By p05esto on 3/13/2013 3:36:50 PM , Rating: 2
What if the guy is mentally sick and some disease like skitso that pretty much takes over a person's reality and actions, it wastes away at the mind. If it's true then this guy could more help himself than you could help yourself stop your toddler from walking into a freeway of traffic.... the urge and belief that you have to do something is that strong and you totally believe what you are doing. You could not fight the urge to save your child from getting hit in traffic, they can't fight their minds either. What was done is horrible, but should he be punished for be crippled and sick??? I don't think so!




Scopolamine
By Lord 666 on 3/13/2013 5:30:30 PM , Rating: 2
Assuming he has already been exposed to scopolamine, administration of thiopental will be pointless.




I saw this coming.
By mike66 on 3/13/2013 6:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
Your military use torture to try to get confessions, rather unsuccessfully I might add. It was only a small jump before that practice enters the civilian courts, now it's drugs ( that won't work anyway ), later it will be " how about a little pain to help the effects of the drug". Capital punishment is considered barbaric in most civilized countries for very good reasons. If you have the evidence then you don't need a confession. Sane or insane is subjective, ever seen inside a government run hospital for the criminally insane, worst torture on the planet apart from Gitmo. Maybe USA and China have more in common than you think.




Unnecessary complication
By brucek2 on 3/14/2013 12:08:15 AM , Rating: 2
Why complicate a straightforward case by adding a controversial 'proof' element that is not needed, probably doesn't prove anything anyway, but may create a new element that could be appealed or could cause problems for a juror.

Even if these drugs had been exhaustively studied on 'normal' people (which they haven't?), it isn't hard to believe this guy has wiring that's somewhat different and any general purpose study won't apply anyway.

Finally, it just sounds icky and prone to abuse. Here we know the guy's the killer in any event. But are we really going to accept this as a regular form of crime investigation? If one effect of the drug is to render people suggestible, could police (even inadvertently) end up suggesting to innocent people that they were in fact guilty when they weren't?




Patrick Stewart says...
By MrBlastman on 3/14/2013 2:21:40 AM , Rating: 2
"Gravy for the brain."




The point is?
By SR81 on 3/14/2013 12:44:43 PM , Rating: 2
If I was in the jury I'd object to the court to not use this serum. Hopefully they do if things go this route.




"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive
Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki