James Holmes sentenced to life in prison

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
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.

Murdering the murderer to teach others that murdering is wrong. Riiiiight. Great logic there.

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.

And time after time is has been conclusively proven not to work in the manner it apparently was designed for - being to deter others. If it deters others then why are people still being executed on a regular basis?

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!

Murder the murderer to teach the rest of us that murdering is wrong. Simplistic, illogical and barbaric reasoning - I sometimes wonder how humanity progressed out of the Dark Ages......

a reply to: conz1992

In a word, yes.

...for mentally unstable monsters who go into a theater of movie goers and kill and wound scores of people for no apparent reason other than personal satisfaction. Yes.

a reply to: conz1992

Actually, let me ask you a question...would you have James Holmes living next door to you if he were receiving "treatment"????

Yes or no, please.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: conz1992

Actually, let me ask you a question...would you have James Holmes living next door to you if he were receiving "treatment"????

Yes or no, please.

Invalid question because if he was recieving treatment of this sort he wouldn't be living within the community, maybe a hospital or a home.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

In this case though, Holmes didn't say anything in court so wasn't gloating in what he apparently did. I mean we're insinuating a man with this mental disorder managed to obtain a few smoke grenades, AR rifles (Plus more ammunition than he could carry) AND managed to set explosive booby traps in his apartment.

Sorry I just don't buy the 'official' excuse

a reply to: conz1992

I figured as much (i.e. you wouldn't answer the question)

Yes, it is a valid question. And further, what would be the purpose of this individual living in a "hospital or a home". To seek treatment? To what end?

Again, to my question; would you want James Holmes living in a "home" next door to you?

Yes or no, please.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Fine, yes. The hospital/care home he would be residing and getting the proper treatment through therapy SHOULD be gaurded enough and have proper restrictions in place. I wouldn't have a problem with it

a reply to: conz1992

What exactly are you suggesting, that he didn't buy the guns, ammo, smoke grenades and that he didn't rig the explosives???

Are you suggesting he somehow didn't murder those people of his own volition?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I'm just throwing out food for thought. If he really was that unstable, while studying neuroscience at university I may add, would he have been able to get a hold of these items? Just to me the official story seems to contradict itself as always. Refer to my first post in the thread, I know for a fact he didn't act alone.

Whether he had a motive behind the killings, I don't know - But again we're insinuating he did this out of free will, when there's plenty of evidence supporting an MK Ultra styled attack which has political motives behind it. I'm just saying we can't say for certain that he did this because 'he enjoys killing', watch Charles Manson in court compared to James Holmes. As I'm sure any other serial killer acted very different to Holmes too

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

You're framing it as a yes/no question because it favours your position. Not everyone sees the debate in such simple terms. In fact, not many nations see it in such simple terms either.

Some people see death penalties as a negative reflection on society. A nation that kills its killers could be said to be operating a double standard - a poor example to its population?

By extension, a nation that protects its society by removing the threat of killers could be seen as merciful and just. In a way, it's a straw man to ask what purpose is served by keeping a killer alive. The purpose isn't an act of kindness to the killer, its purpose is to show that society at large is better than its lowest denominators. This blends in with the Victorian movements for penal reform. Making prisons humane wasn't so much intended to favour the prisoners as it was meant to reflect a rational, intellectual and compassionate society.

Clearly the opinions being expressed on this thread lean heavily toward the anti-death penalty side. So unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be much balance in the discussion.

The good news is; I cannot think of a better case in recent history around which the death penalty debate could be discussed. This is a prime example.

a reply to: Kandinsky

No, I'm framing it as a yes/no question because that's what it is!

Besides, how could a yes/no answer favor my position? That's just silly. Yes and no are diametrically opposed opposites. You could answer yes, or you could answer no. If one favors my position then the other does not.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

>Prime example of current times

So the police officers that have killed innocent unarmed people (black OR white) deserve the dealth penalty? Yes or no.

Bush and Blair deserve the death penalty for enaging an illegal invasion, killing over 1m people in total? Yes or no.

Obama deserve the dealt penalty for the drone strikes that have killed innocents? Yes or no.

I'm positive you will answer all of the above with no, just to be stubborn. But I hope you see the point, as Kandinsky said a yes/no answer supports whatever you're arguing because you'll have a rebuttle for either answer

Since we defunded the mental institutions in the 80's, this is how our country handles the mentally ill and psychos. And families have no power at all, and the families know when one has gone into a mental crisis.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

If it was 'silly,' why ask that specific question in the first place?

originally posted by: notmyrealname

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.

Whoa! I think you missed your vocation. Man, on that resume, I would give you the position of chief executioner above all other candidates.

I wonder if you could really do it, and for .45 cents? That is less than minimum wage, too.

Like it or not, you can't just keep moving the goal posts when it suits your lust for vengeance.

I agree. I don't like how people love to move those goal posts for mentally ill, or how they also like to move those goal posts and try legal children as adults either. Why have the legal classification, if we just ignore it whenever we feel like it?

a reply to: DeepImpactX
That is called self defense, the only time it is acceptable to take another person's life. Defending your life in that moment, when you are in imminent danger, anything else is vigilantism.

originally posted by: conz1992
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

>Prime example of current times

So the police officers that have killed innocent unarmed people (black OR white) deserve the dealth penalty? Yes or no.

Yes.

Bush and Blair deserve the death penalty for enaging an illegal invasion, killing over 1m people in total? Yes or no.

No. Though I'm inclined to answer yes in one respect; they should stand to answer for their command decisions at an international court of law and if found guilty they should be sentenced accordingly. (whatever that sentence may be). Sadly though, these leaders (obama included) are shielded by 'plausible deniability' which they will use to their advantage in the international community. They will allege their decisions were based on intelligence gathered by others and therefore they hold no personal accountability for those acts.

Obama deserve the dealt penalty for the drone strikes that have killed innocents? Yes or no.

Yes. Inanimate drone strikes are the beginning of a steep and slippery slope.

I'm positive you will answer all of the above with no, just to be stubborn. But I hope you see the point, as Kandinsky said a yes/no answer supports whatever you're arguing because you'll have a rebuttle for either answer

So, you see, your posit was not as easy as you thought. And yes, I did answer the questions with yes or no, contrary to your allegations of supporting a position. Further, my answers, albeit perhaps surprising to you, are not what you speculated they would be either.

In any case, none of the questions you posted are relevant in the context of the Holmes case because in none of your cited cases did the accused pull the trigger...unlike Holmes, and this is not up for debate nor was it disputed in a recognized court of law.

Holmes should have been executed.

Any further questions?

a reply to: darkbake

What happened to the earlier thread?

It's good he got life, especially if he didn't work alone or was a patsy.

More than one witness said the shooting came from multiple directions, that they never saw his face just a masked man, that another man took a phone call and propped open the door and motioned in someone (the shooter?), that another gas mask was found around the corner, that there was another getaway car, that Holmes was found incapacitated in the car right outside the door, that there was no mug shot for DAYS after. Most likely he was targeted, drugged, brainwashed/controlled and used to take the fall. Now why? and why hasn't MSM checked this out better?