Your statement wasn't emotional, it was nonsensical. A verdict doesn't say anything about a life's worth. Not that you would want to go down that road anyway.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Aurora Shooting Verdict: Life in Prison
- Thread starter brian577
- Start date
- Status
Ron Mexico
Member
I guess it's more think tank kind of stuff. And kudos, communism is another hypothetical along the same lines, with the issue of course being that it will never be instituted in the manner it was designed. Absolute power corrupting absolutely and all.
Maybe it is obfuscating it (not my intent mind you), but I believe the court was right in Gregg vs Georgia. I also believe we'll see the end of capital punishment in the states in our lifetime.
Don't want to sound like I'm straddling the fence here. I guess just thinking philosophically on a Saturday morning with only a half cup of coffee in me.
BertramCooper
Banned
How does killing him improve our planet?
12 people didn't get to keep their lives. Some of the wounded had thiers absolutely ruined.
The man that took it from them gets to keep his.
One less piece of shit on it, I'd say that's an improvement.
Yeah, in prison. Unless you're arguing for killing everyone convicted of murder, I don't see your point, I left this "eye for an eye bullshit" behind me in grade school.
Yeah I think we can do better than fucking Hammurabi
BertramCooper
Banned
And what a glorious life he gets to lead.
It might be considered an improvement if executing someone like Holmes actually deterred others from committing similar crimes. But it doesn't.
I'm sorry your bloodlust wasn't satiated in this particular instance. But thankfully for you, we still execute plenty of other "pieces of shit" in this country. (Oh, and a handful of innocent people, too!)
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
It is not used often. Holmes would have only been the 5th person on our Death Row since the 70s.
CarpeDeezNutz
Member
Wow, I did not know the specifics about the deaths, that's like the absolute worse outcome a person could go through.
If only this man was put to death, she could go back to her merry life once again.
The bloodlust in this thread is staggering. Not surprising, but staggering nonetheless.
If you really feel for the victims, you'd turn to the ones responsible for allowing Holmes to legally purchase the guns and ammo in the first place. A lot of bloodshed could've been prevented if Holmes was denied purchase of a semi automatic rifle, a 12 gauge shotgun and a handgun based on his mental health.
Probably said already, but odds are he's gonna spend his life in solitary confinement (f"or his own safety") which is generally agreed to be worse then death. While everyone wants to get their bloodlust up, if you really want him to suffer this is the way to go.
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/5/9100429/in-solitary-confinement-prison
http://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2015/08/04/solitary-confinement-reporters-notebook/
http://theweek.com/articles/569911/evidence-solitary-confinement-unconstitutional-torture
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/5/9100429/in-solitary-confinement-prison
http://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2015/08/04/solitary-confinement-reporters-notebook/
http://theweek.com/articles/569911/evidence-solitary-confinement-unconstitutional-torture
Please show me where in my post I stated this. But I'll come right out and say that governments should, in the vast majority of cases, have as hard a time of killing people as anyone else. Governments are imperfect actors, especially in a country where many members of mainstream political parties have been shown to be overtly racist, classist, etc.
Justice is not about doling out visceral, emotional responses to criminal acts. Living in a society of laws means that you forfeit the kind of emotional outbursts that cause direct harm to others (yes, even criminals) so that consistent, measured responses to crime can be administered.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
Hm...I'm really not okay with that either.
I don't want the guy to suffer because I'm a human being, not a base animal. All I want is for him to be kept apart from the rest of society.
Hm. Was directed at the following thoughts:
"This culture that justifies the government killing people who "do bad things" is also why America has police/military forces that treat the lives of minorities and foreigners as expendable. It's a form of tribalism."
Can you elaborate further on your thoughts here?
It was inquiring upon if that is where you were driving the conversation; an inference.
Fixed that for ya
My thoughts are that you somehow extrapolated an absolute statement from a post that basically said "justice should be impartial and proportional, yet people die in and because of the US because it isn't". And I have no idea how you did it.
No. "Government killing people" does not distinguish between lawful and unlawful which is what caught my eye; indeed, it was a broad brush to apply hence my inquiry. Perhaps a notion lost in translation, but not aimed at absolute.
Roberto Larcos
Member
This is wrong on so many levels. But addressing it legally, I'm not sure how things are in the US, but in the UK, but murder is not a specific intent crime - it requires direct intent. That means if a person dies at your hands, you're not presumed (in the eyes of the law) to be guilty of murder. Mens rea is needed. There must be an intent for your actions to cause death or grievous bodily harm to another person. Foresight that an action may cause GBH is not sufficient* - there must be an intent to cause harm.
If a person suffering from a serious mental illness (as in this case), and is unable to understand the nature of his conduct, form a rational judgement or exercise control over his actions as 'the man on the Clapham omnibus' would, then they cannot have sufficient mens rea. It's covered in s.2 of the Homicide Act 1957 (since amended by s.52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009).
How you think it's ethical to prosecute someone for murder when they did not know or perhaps even have control over their actions is horrific. Calling for them to be put to death is truly disgusting. I hope I never have to share a continent with you.
Too right.
* Oblique intent is a thing, but doesn't apply in this case, and is fairly complicated to explain to a layman.
Alligatorjandro
Banned
Feed him dog food for the rest of his life
I think this is the worst post I've ever read on GAF.
"government killing people who do bad things"
That's the quote from the post and also the broad brush you were looking for. But still not as broad as "there' s no justification for a government to ever kill" which is what you made it into.
Basically this. Pro death penalty people, if you can show basic science and facts that prove the death penalty is good for society in any way, then let us know. It seems like your only idea to sit back on is that it gives some indescribable and non-measurable closure to the family once you figure out that it doesn't deter crime nor does it prevent the murder of innocents.
I'd also love some science (opinion polls, statements, mental health study all done years later) on the families too, because there are quite a few organizations and papers out there that state the opposite of even this belief.
MmHm. I'm aware of the quote, as I did quote it fully from the start. I was curious at the discontent levied at those who justify such acts under that such guise; I inferred that there was a level of disgruntlement at such a notion of any sanctioned/levied/acted government authority even those which were necessary to the safety of society itself. Am I off my rocker?
Sorcerer
Member
I can imagine some would feel uncomfortable playing God with someone else's life. To decide if someone should die can't be easy. If it's always decided by Jury and it must be unanimous I am surprised that punishment is ever handed out.
I guess the taxpayers will foot the bill for this asshole for the rest of his life.
Apparently, since you're seeing or rather "inferring" things that aren't there at all.
I will say, and I don't mean to speak for Maztorre here, that such "disgruntlement" wouldn't be exactly misplaced when talking about the government of the USA, given its history of military endeavors and policing.
But we're getting too far off topic.
I get why people are against the death penalty, but in cases like this where we are guaranteed to have the right person and know for a fact he's not innocent why not just kill him? Is it any more humane to keep him locked up for the rest of his life in solitary confinement, or locked up for 50 years in any form? Killing him would be more humane than the alternative, honestly.
I mean he's never going to be a part of society again, there is no reforming this person, what's the point?
I mean he's never going to be a part of society again, there is no reforming this person, what's the point?
My position is that governments creating sanctions for only themselves to justify taking the lives of others is a slippery slope to tyranny, and it also devalues human life.
Examples of this include the maddening frequency of killings of minorities which occur from either non-criminal acts or only trivially criminal acts, where killing is a disproportionate response to the crime. Look at the perceived value of young black men's lives as a result of the ease at which government actors can now be justified in using lethal force. Due process rarely occurs for either the victim or those administering lethal force with impunity, therefore the laws of society never get their chance to be applied to these situations.
It should therefore be extremely difficult for governments to justify killing their citizenry unless absolutely necessary (i.e. those in real danger of death/bodily harm acting in self defense). Someone who has been arrested and jailed after due process is no longer posing a threat to society that could justify their death, and ideally the justice system would instead provide some means of either reforming repentant criminals or at least learning something about their actions that could help prevent future crimes.
Pyrrhus
Member
No, they can never go back to their "merry lives" again. What a flip thing to say. But they could have taken some solace in knowing that the killer was properly, proportionally, and definitively punished. And no, I don't believe anything that let him continue to draw breath is adequate punishment.
The father of the woman paralyzed and grandfather of her murdered children said this about the verdict yesterday:
"He's living, he's breathing, and our loved ones are gone for over three years now. And the gaping void, the gaping wound that we have with the loss of our granddaughter, has been replaced by a new abscess of him living."
And for that matter, I am an advocate of gun control and absolutely agree that the reason Holmes was able to hurt and kill so many was because he was able to buy weapons he had no business owning. It's an absurdity and an ongoing tragedy. So I don't fit neatly in the ideological box you tried to place me in. Regardless, the ability of almost anybody to buy needlessly powerful weapons is a separate issue from the killer's guilt and punishment.
There are a lot of smug, disinterested, and frankly inexperienced people in this thread who have never had to deal with loss or injustice on this scale. When you abstract things so heavily that you don't have to look at the specifics of the killer and the harm he did his victims, it's quite easy to be self-righteous and absolutist and make grand pronouncements about reason and barbarism. As ever, the truth and substance of the matter are more nuanced. The trial was fairly conducted but, again, I feel sorry for the victims who were denied the relief and compensation his death would have provided.
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
It's funny, I used to be against the death penalty on principle. But as I grow older I realize that for the cost of keeping certain irredeemable criminals alive and locked up you could buy a whole lot of help for redeemable offenders or for law abiding citizens - people actually worth investing in!
edit: basically, he should have to cover the costs of his own existence.
If you truly cared for those redeemable offenders and law abiding citizens, you would continue to oppose the death penalty as it creates much more unwarranted costs than life in prison. Not to mention some of those redeemable offenders could end up innocent on death row.
There are no economic or ethical benefits to the death penalty. I will never trust the judicial system with a person's life when time and time again it is proven to be a racist and biased institution. Regardless of how certain the crime may be, it only sets a precedent.
RumblingRosco
Member
Doesn't the death penalty cost more on average than life in prison?
The purpose of verdicts isn't to please the victims or their families. If anything is self-righteous it's the notion that you get to dictate what's appropriate punishment after reading the quote of someone. What a ludicrous post.
Velcro Fly
Member
His death would have been something they looked forward to, and then once it happened would have left them as empty and bitter as they ever were.
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
I understand what you're saying, but cases like this are unfortunately common enough that I think they deserve to be handled separately. As far as I know there is no shred of doubt that this man is guilty, and according to the verdict there will be no attempt to reasses his ability to re-enter society.
As it stands, this is already a sentence that should be given with the highest degree of caution and consideration possible in any Judicial system, and saved only for the most extreme cases. This isn't a possible homicide or a person convicted of being a serial killer based only on their confession.
Even then, I'm not saying he should be executed immediately. Have a mandatory waiting period of a few years.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
Let him rot in a cell for the rest of his wasted life
The Janitor
Member
I dont get why people think death is the ultimate punishment, that's a quick way out.
To me life in prison seems much worse, he'll probably suffer for the rest of his life.
To me life in prison seems much worse, he'll probably suffer for the rest of his life.
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
I imagine the actual cost of the procedure changes from country to country... But that seems highly unintuitive to me...
Could you explain how there are no economic benefits? I'm talking on a pure cost level, not accounting for secondary or long term effects which have a speculative element to them as well.
(My reason for this is because there are also plenty of negative secondary effects of not having a death penalty...)
BertramCooper
Banned
What are these negative secondary effects?
And please provide clear examples of them in other first-world countries that lack capital punishment.
gutter_trash
Banned
Life behind bars is a better punishment than the death penalty
the death penalty just grants them their wish to put them out of their misery quicker
the death penalty just grants them their wish to put them out of their misery quicker
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
Basically it all comes down to money. I have no desire to see a person killed, what I find objectionable is a country spending large sums of money on a person that has broken the social contract with his state and his society, not despite of their actions, but because of them.
I've seen too many cases in recent years of lawful and contributing members of society being denied expensive medical treatment or social support from the state, leading to their death. And in all cases the reason for this denial has been lack of funds.
Now I won't deny that properly managing funds is a very complicated and difficult thing to do for any country, and that obviously there was never any intentional decision to cover the costs of living for an irredeemable criminal while refusing to cover the costs for a law abiding citizen in need of help. Obviously there is no such standard in place as that would be a twisted thing indeed. It's something that I completely admit is objectionable to me on a personal level, not just on a logical one.
BertramCooper
Banned
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29552692/.../t/execute-or-not-question-cost/#.VcYxj6gViko
And you're not providing any shred of proof of "secondary consequences" in countries that lack the death penalty, financial or otherwise.
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
The "secondary consequences" I was referring to are the fact that there are people more deserving of that money, in my opinion.
im not excusing his actions at all.. but am i alone in thinking mental health needs to be treated extremely different in general?
Like, i just read that he told a psychologist he had homicidal thoughts... why wasnt more done to maybe prevent this? (if diagnosed with a disorder, forced intervention into a clinic or something...or ban him from buying firearms... )
At this point ive given up talking about firearms because america wont do anything about it but atleast put a ban on mentally unstable people purchasing a firearm ..jeez..
Like, i just read that he told a psychologist he had homicidal thoughts... why wasnt more done to maybe prevent this? (if diagnosed with a disorder, forced intervention into a clinic or something...or ban him from buying firearms... )
At this point ive given up talking about firearms because america wont do anything about it but atleast put a ban on mentally unstable people purchasing a firearm ..jeez..
BertramCooper
Banned
The only way you'd save any money with the death penalty is if you march the condemned directly to the execution chamber after the verdict is read.
Otherwise capital punishment is an exorbitant waste of money - far more wasteful than life in prison.
- Status