James Holmes sentenced to life in prison

It's a difficult moral dilemma for society to address.

I personally view the life in prison option to be the more logical of the two. If evidence later turns up that casts doubt on the official story and this guy's involvement in the actual crime, justice can still prevail to some extent. If he gets executed and evidence comes to light that he didn't do it, there is no way to undo what has been done.

a reply to: darkbake

Most of my life I have been pro death penalty, viewed as the ultimate punishment for the most heinous crimes. That has not been the criteria in some states, and some have gone to the gallows only to have been found not guilty of the crime after the fact. Factoring costs and human error, I have revised my outlook on the matter, but am left with one issue: those that have been sentenced to life terms only to be released later to kill again. Here are some examples:

Charles Crawford -- Missouri. Life term in 1965 for murder. Paroled 1990. Convicted of murder again in 1994.
Michael Lawrence -- Florida. Killed robbery victim. Life term, 1976. Paroled 1985. Killed robbery victim. Condemned 1990.
Dwain Little -- Oregon. Raped/Stabbed 16-year-old girl. Life term 1966. Paroled 1974. Returned as Parole Violator 1975. Again Released 1977. Then shot family of 4. Three consecutive life terms for rape and murder 1980.
Chad Allen Lee -- Convicted of capital murder. Sentenced to other than death. Released and went on murder spree. Murdering Linda Reynolds, a pizza delivery person, and 9 days later robbed and murdered David Lacey, a taxi cab driver. Lee then robbed a mini-market 7 days after than. Shooting the owner, Harold Drury, multiple times without reason
James Erin McKinney -- Convicted of capital murder. Sentenced to other than death. Later released. Then murdered Christine Mertens in a home invasion robbery. Later murdered James McClain in another separate home invasion robbery.

These are a few of those sentenced to life, released, and went on to kill others. If criminals like Holmes, who are devoid of remorse, could serve out a true life sentence at the most secure installation without any future changes in his sentence, the families left behind might see this as justice, not revenge. IMO, it's the victims and survivors sense of justice that should be satisfied.

a reply to: notmyrealname

Not the subject of the thread eh? but nice attempt of a dig at the UK and nice telling me how I think it is cute (BTW playpen everything none British lol opk keep believing fox news eh).
All my comments still stand.
like another poster sais what If it wasn't him down the line. One of the main reasons we got rid was because of this case.

en.wikipedia.org...


It is wrong unless you think vengeance is ok.

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: Rocker2013
I agree 100% with this verdict.

Fine, then how about you 100% pay for his incarceration and treatment (which will not work) and be happy with the so called life you saved.

The cost of execution and the cost of the inevitable appeals is HIGHER than the cost of incarceration.

And you don't get to pick and choose what parts of your society you contribute to through taxation.

Do you have the same opinion of the drug taker? Should they be executed to save you from the terrible cost of paying your 1 cent a year for their imprisonment?

This notion that you are all individually having to pay $100's a year to keep these people in prison is absolutely ridiculous, and the fact that your comment got so many stars is indicative of the rampant idiocy in this debate.

You have hundreds of thousands of prisoners incarcerated for petty crimes, costing your country billions a year, and you're worried about having to individually pay a minuscule amount to not murder someone in revenge?

Please respond to my points with a rational opinion, all you're doing is offering the usual knee-jerk nonsense.

originally posted by: notmyrealname
Look I worked with many brits while in the military; they had sense. What is going on in your side of the pond these days is a joke. Your country is a playpen for everything non-british and you think it is cute. Time will let you know whether my point of view has merit or not.

What the hell are you going on about now?
Is this going to become a xenophobia debate about the "evil Muslims" now?

originally posted by: notmyrealname
It is fine to discuss spiritual enlightenment amongst people that think like that. Some people do not nor will ever understand that and those people need a different set of rules. I am sure you will not agree and I am sure that I will still have my mindset.

And your mindset seems to be about racism, xenophobia, ignorance and completely unrelated to the discussion about this man his punishment.

If you want to start a thread about "white pride" then go elsewhere.

I think that it is better that someone get life imprisonment in a hard prison, rather than to be executed. Execution is the easy way out. I think that they are better rotting away in prison, thinking about what they have done. Rather than getting to move on to wherever we go when we die (which if it is anything like near death experience, it is a much better place). I would rather that they suffer and live without creature comforts in a prison faced by other people who are there to make their stay even more uncomfortable. This gives them time to ponder what they have done, to live out everyday thinking about the people they have caused suffering on.

a reply to: Boscowashisnamo

Although you're making the point that it's better to be safe than sorry, you're really just showing how imperfect the system is. Sure, we can point at released killers who went out and killed again. In the UK we've had a handful of rapists/molesters who do it all again when they get out. Some people are too bad to live in society.

However, for all your released killers, there have been possibly more innocent people executed. Certainly, there have been many life-sentences overturned because of innocence. I've seen many US members celebrate how vicious and hard it is in the American prison system. This makes me wonder what type of person the innocent become after they've spent their time on death row.

Do you agree that the system is imperfect?

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: Rocker2013
I agree 100% with this verdict.

Fine, then how about you 100% pay for his incarceration and treatment (which will not work) and be happy with the so called life you saved.

The cost of execution and the cost of the inevitable appeals is HIGHER than the cost of incarceration.

And you don't get to pick and choose what parts of your society you contribute to through taxation.

Do you have the same opinion of the drug taker? Should they be executed to save you from the terrible cost of paying your 1 cent a year for their imprisonment?

This notion that you are all individually having to pay $100's a year to keep these people in prison is absolutely ridiculous, and the fact that your comment got so many stars is indicative of the rampant idiocy in this debate.

You have hundreds of thousands of prisoners incarcerated for petty crimes, costing your country billions a year, and you're worried about having to individually pay a minuscule amount to not murder someone in revenge?

Please respond to my points with a rational opinion, all you're doing is offering the usual knee-jerk nonsense.

I will ignore the non-relevant parts of you response and stick with the relevant parts:

Man kills innocent people in a pre-meditated fashion.
Man does not deserve to live.

Insane or not, people died and will not be going home to their families and you call my point of view nonsense?!

What if it was your wife/father/mother/sister/brother/daughter/son/friend that died? Still want to pretend that he is just a human and the pennies to support him for his life including medical bills is okay?

It is people who take 'having a heart' to the most extreme degrees that are making society the place we have today Politically correct and perpetually broken.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: notmyrealname
Look I worked with many brits while in the military; they had sense. What is going on in your side of the pond these days is a joke. Your country is a playpen for everything non-british and you think it is cute. Time will let you know whether my point of view has merit or not.

What the hell are you going on about now?
Is this going to become a xenophobia debate about the "evil Muslims" now?

originally posted by: notmyrealname
It is fine to discuss spiritual enlightenment amongst people that think like that. Some people do not nor will ever understand that and those people need a different set of rules. I am sure you will not agree and I am sure that I will still have my mindset.

And your mindset seems to be about racism, xenophobia, ignorance and completely unrelated to the discussion about this man his punishment.

If you want to start a thread about "white pride" then go elsewhere.

I have no idea what makes you think that I am white or my post is xenophobic. Methinks you should check your sarcasm before reality catches up with you. I will state my opinion v e r y c l e a r l y for you:

I think this POS should die an instant death, at the cost of no more than.45 cents.
I am also sure that one of the family members of the deceased would have no problem pulling the trigger; if not call me.

originally posted by: ShadowLink
a reply to: darkbake

It's so expensive to execute people cause they are doing it wrong.

How much would it cost to just take them out back of the prison, make them dig a hole, kneel down and shoot them in the head?

In cases such as this where there really is NO question of guilt or possibility that someone else committed the crime, why do we go through all the BS?
When there is ZERO doubt about ones guilt in such a case nothing more than a small hearing and a quick cheap execution is required.

Wondering what is it that makes you have no doubts about his guilt? Was it that witnesses from inside the cinema reported that someone was on the phone and opened the side exit just before the main shooter came in? Or maybe that people reported more than one source of gunfire? Or that no one actually saw him ( only a masked man) do the shooting and that he was found just standing outside next to the car with a make and gun? Or that witnesses outside saw someone running away? Or the fact there was a second mask found outside at the far end of the building (think there were police pics of that)? Or that the blood splatter just outside the escape exit showed that the people were going into the building not running away from it? Or that in court initially he was so drugged up he could hardly keep his eyes open? Or that a woman at the last section of the hearing stood up and shouted that she was his biological mother and he had been taken from her by the FBI or CIA (can't remember which one, but they do the same bidding) as a baby and raised by a surrogate to train him / brainwash him into being a killer for them when the time suited them? Even as she faced jail for contempt of court, she still stood up for him saying it was not his fault.

So please can you explain what you know what makes you 100% sure he is guilty, and a lone crazy shooter?
Thank you.

originally posted by: mmirror
I think that it is better that someone get life imprisonment in a hard prison, rather than to be executed. Execution is the easy way out.

Isn't torturing a leaving being also an easy way out?

Neuroscience is constantly making more progress about the brain states of killers and it should continue to do so IMO.

originally posted by: CthulhuMythos

originally posted by: ShadowLink
a reply to: darkbake

It's so expensive to execute people cause they are doing it wrong.

How much would it cost to just take them out back of the prison, make them dig a hole, kneel down and shoot them in the head?

In cases such as this where there really is NO question of guilt or possibility that someone else committed the crime, why do we go through all the BS?
When there is ZERO doubt about ones guilt in such a case nothing more than a small hearing and a quick cheap execution is required.

So please can you explain what you know what makes you 100% sure he is guilty, and a lone crazy shooter?

In epistemology terms I can say that we can't state with 100% certainty that James Holmes shot those people.

In probability terms and from watching 10s of hours of the trial live, it is deeply unlikely that Holmes is innocent. The person had over 50 days in a film recorded trial to make a statement and none was made. The other option is that Holmes is mind controlled or a patsy or some such. Possible? Sure. Likely? Not really.

If they have been mind controlling people to mass murder then they've known to do it since the 70s when America started having on average around 20 a year.

a reply to: Pinke
So you don't think it is at all fishy that in all that time in court being filmed he did not make one statement? If he was insane and just wanted to kill or wanted to kill to make a statement would he not be raving like a mad man or standing up for the statement he was killing for, so the whole world gets the point? If he was totally innocent and it was a stitch up job, he would be shouting from the rafters that fact. But, if he was mind controlled, or had been given that scopolamine drug that makes you very compliant with no memory of what you have done (assuming he did do some shooting and was not just placed by the car with a mask on and gun in hand and then doped to the eyeballs in court), that does seem to fit rather well to the observations in court and his silence. Bearing in mind that he was super smart and the subjects he was researching, it all seems well fishy to me.

a reply to: CthulhuMythos

I can see your point. My responses would be:

1. It's not uncommon for defendants to avoid the stand; especially ones lacking visible empathy or charisma
2. It's not uncommon to see the insanity defense from a defendant who has control of themselves after the fact
3. Other similar cases have had defendants who have done both (shouting crazily or being quiet)

Am not certain Holmes was super smart. The person was super smart until they were put around other super smart people. Certainly not a dumb person, but no necessarily huge genius.

If the hypothesis is that the government sets up many mass shootings via results of programs like MKUltra ... I think that might fit what we're seeing. If the hypothesis is that James Holmes case is unique, I don't believe it is.

Somebody needs to put public execution into place.

a reply to: Eye4NeyE

Ah just like ISIS eh?..
Would you be first in line to pay for a ticket?.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Not in agreement with him but "ISIS does it" is not an argument. The Nazis built the autobahns and began strictly regulating smoking but I don't see people protesting highway construction and nobody's letting me light up at the bar.

All these comments and not one mention of the fact he didn't work alone. I don't think we are in the right place to give him a verdict such as this, the whole event was clouded in mystery.

I remember the breaking news thread on this website that followed the very beginning of the event, I was listening to the police scanners while refreshing the thread. I know for a fact that many eye witnesses stated there were 2 people to begin with, with one of the people running away before he opened fire. Even the police scanners were telling officers to look out for another suspect.

And wasn't he found in his car round the back of the cinema? Forgive me if I'm wrong on that, I can't really remember the outcome. But while you're all pitting against eachother it's quite possible another innocent victom of MK ultra styled technique has gone to prison for life, wasn't there mass calls for gun restrictions during and more after this event too?

Call me a skeptic or whatever, but I still think this case had way too many holes to give it a final verdict. But that's just the way it is I suppose.

In relation to the post though, I agree with the few posters that have said the death penalty is a stupid deterrant. How can the state seriously use death and a punishment for death? Not only is it hypocritical it clearly doesn't work as it spurs on the "one rule for them, another for us" state of thinking. I understand the motive of it, as in taking a life because they've done the same - But doesn't Ghandi's famous 'An eye for an eye' quote actually mean anything these days? F*ck revenge it only spurs on more hate and violence, hence why the Middle East is in such a # state

originally posted by: notmyrealname

I think this POS should die an instant death, at the cost of no more than.45 cents.
I am also sure that one of the family members of the deceased would have no problem pulling the trigger; if not call me.

And therein lies one of the reasons why the death penalty needs to be abolished. Too many people have desires to vicariously live out their murderous fantasies by advocating for the public death of others, all the better if they are the ones doing the executing.

Absolutely disgusting. What a backwards and barbaric way to think.

The death penalty isn't about 'retribution' or 'revenge' and those who think it is are misguided in my opinion. The death penalty is about ridding society of a cancer, an individual who has no hope of becoming a functioning member of the community.

Has the death penalty been implemented in ways contrary to this theme in history? Absolutely it has! However, this does not change the fundamental underpinnings of the reasoning for the death penalty.

So, to the Holmes case; Holmes should have been put to death. He should have been put to death because, given the nature of his crimes and his complete lack of care for his fellow man, there is no way society can be assured this monster would not act again (inside of prison or out).

Off with his head!

So now it's justified that we just kill mentally unstable people because they're 'unfit' to live in society.

It's scary when death is the first suggestion ahead of treatment