James Holmes To Plead Not Guilty

[LSN80]

By virtue of insanity or mental defect, of course. And the judge presiding over the case, Carlos Samour Jr., has scheduled a hearing on May 13th to allow Holmes' attorneys the opportunity to show cause for changing his plea.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/07/justice/colorado-theater-shooting-trial/index.html?iref=allsearch

To reset, Holmes is the 25 year old that shot up the Aurora, Colorado theatre during the July 20th premiere of The Dark Knight Rises. Killing 12 and injuring dozens more, Holmes had offered to plead guilty if sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole, but the prosecution rebuffed, as they would be seeking the death penalty. So now, Holmes gets what's approximated to be a 4 month trial beginning in February of 2014, with the chance of an 'Acquital.'

I don't know Holmes' motivations, but when I heard this on the radio on my drive into work this morning, I immediately thought of Mickey's (Timothy Olyphant)speech to Sidney(Neve Campbell) in Scream 2 as to why he had taken on the persona of the Ghostface killer:

Billy was a sick fuck who tried to get away with it. Mickey is a sick fuck who wants to get caught. Yeah, I got the whole defense planned out. I'm gonna blame the movies. It's pretty cool, huh? This is just a prelude to the trial. Today, it's all about the trial. Can't you just see it? The effects of cinema violence on society. Cochran to represent me. Bob Dole, on the witness stand, in my defense. Hell, the Christian Coalition will probably pay my legal fees. It's air-tight Sid. I'm the innocent victim.

Things didn't turn out so well for Mickey, as he never made it to trial. But screw me I hate the insanity defense. It's a way of saying, 'It's not their fault, they were a slave to their illness.' Or, 'It was their upbringing. Mom and Dad didn't say "I love you" or hug them enough.'

I know that's a vast oversimplification of things, but here's where it gets me. Either one committed the crime they're being charged with, or they didn't. Attorney's parade 'expert witnesses' to the stand to speak to what the state of mind of the accused might have been when they committed their crime, but one never truly knows.

Allow all the witnesses at a trial one wants. Allow them to speak to state of mind. But for God's sakes, either the person did it, or they didn't. That should be the decision of the jury. Did they do it? If so, they're guilty. Allow people with more knowledge of the law and the brain, such as judges and psychiatrists, to make the decisions about where to send the person if they're convicted after that.

Make no mistake, James Holmes would have been convicted here, and he would have gotten the death penalty. Anyone else find it convenient that he changed his plea to not guilty by reason of insanity only after his attempt at plea bargaining away the death penalty was rebuffed?

This to me isn't just about James Holmes, it's about every person who commits a crime and offers up that plea as a defense. Regardless of their state of mind, the heart of the matter of going to trial, and why our justice system was created was to separate the innocent from the guilty. Not Guilty by insanity is not something you see plead when the accused has a chance of getting off. I would imagine to walk into a movie theatre and shoot a bunch of people, one would have to have had something go haywire upstairs. Hell, somewhere, there may have even been a break from reality. But let those who know the law and the mind sort that out, and let's save our trial system for determining guilt and innocence.

I, if anyone, am empathetic and sympathetic to the plight of the mentally ill. It's what I went to school to do, and it's the population I work with on a daily basis. But I've dealt with it enough from small depression to bat-stir crazy to be able to say that there's still a level of responsibility everyone has for their actions, mentally ill or not.

James Holmes destroyed lives, families, and neighborhoods. Life in prison is the best he should do.

Am I off base here?

Thoughts on James Holmes, and the insanity defense in general?

Any other thoughts or discussion surrounding this is encouraged.

 

[Барбоса]

I think the insanity plea has been given far too much weight in modern jurisprudence.

If anything, I think the plea should be "guilty by reason of temporary insanity" or the like rather than not guilty. The defence is not disputing that the defendant committed the crimes, rather the state of mind that caused them to do so. That to me is an admission of guilt full stop.

The mental side of things should only really come in when it comes to sentencing. Holmes planned and executed a cold-blooded and ruthless attack on innocent people and he deserves to be punished, regardless of his mental state.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Anyone else find it convenient that he changed his plea to not guilty by reason of insanity only after his attempt at plea bargaining away the death penalty was rebuffed?

Yes. Not guilty by insanity shouldn't be something the accused pleads to as a tactic after exhausting other pleas. The attorney shouldn't be sifting through possibilities and arriving at insanity as his best chance to get his client off.

And therein lies the problem: In cases like this, the aim of the people defending the accused isn't finding the truth.....it's "winning the case" and "getting him off." If you're a defense attorney, your boss (the district attorney, in most cases) isn't going to be happy if you arrive at the truth; he's going to be happy only if you win the case.....regardless of what, how and why the crime was committed. Who cares if he's guilty as sin? Who cares if we get him acquitted just so he can go out and kill again?

Win the case.....that's all.

Even if the defense succeeds in getting his client off by reason of insanity, what to do with him next? Sometimes, insanity is (I suppose) a valid excuse to not punishing someone for committing a crime.....but the idea of temporary insanity (he was insane when doing the crime but he's okay now) gives me the creeps. It will take people a lot smarter than me to judge whether the accused meets that standard.....yet, look at the ramifications if the guy is judged as ready to rejoin society.....and he kills again.

But the tactics of the Holmes defense are unacceptable: the notion of deciding to use the insanity plea only after other possibilities are probed and discarded flies in the face of what the insanity plea is supposed to be about. Judging whether someone is (or was) insane is too subjective an area for comfort, but if Holmes killed because he's insane, that should have been the first thing his defense attorneys looked at.....not the last.

 

[Rayne]

Looking at end effects........ this really is the best solution. Ugh.

What surprises me is that the prosecution rejected a plea deal. Trials don't help anyone get resolution; it would be a graphic revisiting of the crime for the families of the victims for at least three months, in full view of the media. Life in prison without parole isn't some great release- you're being turned into a vegetable in a box. I'm not one to talk about what someone deserves, but I am one to talk about solving a society problem, and removing this person from society seems to fix this particular case.

Let whatever God there is choose his vengeance. Let us deal with Earth problems.

That being said, the solution of 'not guilty by reason of insanity' is a bit of a misnomer. It doesn't mean 'we've decided to say screw it', it means he's going to spend the rest of his life in prison-style psychiatric hospitals, forcibly drugged at a doctors' whim, surrounded by everyone ELSE that we've said are too crazy for trial.

A trial wouldn't help anything. Worse, some other disaffected idiot will see it and glorify this kid. Shipping him off to some psychic oubliette after a few hours' court appearance seems to be the best solution.

 

[klunderbunker]

So let me make sure I've got this straight.

A man is capable of putting together a Joker costume, acquiring all these weapons over the internet, putting on body armor so he wouldn't be shot down, getting smoke bombs to blind people in the theater, and get all this stuff to the theater undetected and go on a murderous rampage. Also remember that his home was filled with traps and bombs, set to go off if anyone tried to come in.

And he had no control over his actions/no ability to think for himself?

That doesn't hold up whatsoever. You can't do all that stuff and then say "Oh I had no idea what I was doing/my mind is all screwed up to the point that I can't be held responsible." It's the "the devil made me do it" defense, which does not work. At the end of the day, it was Holmes who set all this up and killed all those people, yet we're to believe that he had no idea what he was doing?

That does not work, no matter how you look at it.

 

[Rayne]

So let me make sure I've got this straight.

A man is capable of putting together a Joker costume, acquiring all these weapons over the internet, putting on body armor so he wouldn't be shot down, getting smoke bombs to blind people in the theater, and get all this stuff to the theater undetected and go on a murderous rampage. Also remember that his home was filled with traps and bombs, set to go off if anyone tried to come in.

And he had no control over his actions/no ability to think for himself?

That doesn't hold up whatsoever. You can't do all that stuff and then say "Oh I had no idea what I was doing/my mind is all screwed up to the point that I can't be held responsible." It's the "the devil made me do it" defense, which does not work. At the end of the day, it was Holmes who set all this up and killed all those people, yet we're to believe that he had no idea what he was doing?

That does not work, no matter how you look at it.

This is why I think the major object here is to avoid a trial. Really, what would we gain from having a formal trial in this case? There's been absolutely no argument that he didn't commit the crime, we've just been dicking around about why. The only entity that would benefit would be CNN.

It doesn't have to make sense from a logical, 'let's straighten out the facts formally' point of view. The facts aren't really in doubt; the goal here is to move on.

Of course, the plea hasn't been accepted yet. This is just a defense strategy, and it very well could be a 'look, you don't want a trial' strategy. It could go back to the plea bargain phase from here if it isn't accepted, or to trial.

 

[Fire Marshall Bill]

What surprises me is that the prosecution rejected a plea deal.

In a nationally known incident like this, it's purely political. I guarantee you there's a lot of pressure coming down on the prosecution to seek the death penalty.

His response is pretty typical. "Oh shit they won't let me spend my life in prison? They want to kill me? Well now I have to try and find another way out of this."

So let me make sure I've got this straight.

A man is capable of putting together a Joker costume, acquiring all these weapons over the internet, putting on body armor so he wouldn't be shot down, getting smoke bombs to blind people in the theater, and get all this stuff to the theater undetected and go on a murderous rampage. Also remember that his home was filled with traps and bombs, set to go off if anyone tried to come in.

And he had no control over his actions/no ability to think for himself?

That doesn't hold up whatsoever. You can't do all that stuff and then say "Oh I had no idea what I was doing/my mind is all screwed up to the point that I can't be held responsible." It's the "the devil made me do it" defense, which does not work. At the end of the day, it was Holmes who set all this up and killed all those people, yet we're to believe that he had no idea what he was doing?

That does not work, no matter how you look at it.

And kb hit the nail right on the head for why his defense will not hold up. There's way too much forethought in the whole situation.

 

[Loveless]

That does not work, no matter how you look at it.

It does and should but it's very difficult for me to explain in an understandable way why the insanity defence is very much legitimate. The best way I can try I suppose is this...
You have to imagine essentially that this person is detached from reality. That doesn't mean they aren't capable of thinking or doing regular day-to-day things. What is means are that their thoughts aren't limited or confined by the real world and that they are unable to see it.
Giving the simplest possible example, a lot of people wish they could fly, right? But they're aware of the reality that it's impossible. Someone psychotic would suffer from such a severe case of denial & wishful thinking that not only would they believe it's possible, but that delusion would build up in layers. Eg

"I'm special."

"God made me special, he wants me with him. How do I do that?"

"I can fly to him. Why is it not working?"

"Someone is stopping me"

"God wants me to stop this person, before I can join him"

I know it sounds utterly ridiculous reading back but that's what it's like. I've spent about 7 years looking after a schizophrenic friend and I've heard far crazier stuff from them but to be around them every day, they'd seem pretty normal and quite capable of doing regular things. Under the surface though, they're being bombarded with voices telling them what they want to believe, looking for even the slightest sign to back them up. My friend ignored those voices for a long time, so they turned on her and viciously bullied her for months until she gave in and did something stupid. Of course these voices come from her, they represent the things she represses but as far as she's concerned they're God and you don't ignore God when he say he's going to kill your family.

As far as James Holmes, I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't even know why he did it. If he was psychotic there would have been a purpose, a reward for him for killing those people, and it could be the craziest fucking thing you've ever heard but he wouldn't have been aware it was crazy, he wouldn't even be aware of it being wrong, in all likelihood he probably doesn't even remember it. The guy absolutely should be locked up but if he's insane then it should be in a mental hospital.

Just as an aside, and I said this after that woman got away with her daughters murder, the death penalty is fucking up your justice system. The prosecutors had the chance to lock this guy up for life, but no, instead they choose to gamble and go for the death penalty. It's a simple fact that attaching the death penalty to any case makes a unanimous conviction less likely because the jury take the guilty verdict far more seriously. I don't even want to think about how many murderers have gotten away with "Not guilty" because of a reluctant jury & over-ambitious prosecutors.

 

[LSN80]

That being said, the solution of 'not guilty by reason of insanity' is a bit of a misnomer. It doesn't mean 'we've decided to say screw it', it means he's going to spend the rest of his life in prison-style psychiatric hospitals, forcibly drugged at a doctors' whim, surrounded by everyone ELSE that we've said are too crazy for trial.

Understood well. But a Thorazine cleanse for life and some Halidol in the arm is certainly better then being put to death, no?

A trial wouldn't help anything. Worse, some other disaffected idiot will see it and glorify this kid.

Except this is going to trial. Hell, his lawyers have to show just cause as to why he should be allowed to change his plea to 'this.'

Shipping him off to some psychic oubliette after a few hours' court appearance seems to be the best solution.

That may very well be how this turns out, but not until his lawyers go to court, and he then goes to trial. So this is going to play out on a worldwide stage, next February, estimated at 4 months.

You're right, that would be the best solution. Sadly, that's not how it's going to happen.

It does and should but it's very difficult for me to explain in an understandable way why the insanity defence is very much legitimate. The best way I can try I suppose is this...
You have to imagine essentially that this person is detached from reality.

Sure, it's called DPD, or Depersonalization Disorder. It's a consistent out of body experience and being detached from one's own mental process.

Here's my problem: He offered to plead Guilty in exchange for not receiving the death penalty. He was told no. He changed his plea. That shows a large amount of insight, process thinking. Something people with DPD generally lack.

As far as James Holmes, I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't even know why he did it. If he was psychotic there would have been a purpose, a reward for him for killing those people, and it could be the craziest fucking thing you've ever heard but he wouldn't have been aware it was crazy, he wouldn't even be aware of it being wrong, in all likelihood he probably doesn't even remember it. The guy absolutely should be locked up but if he's insane then it should be in a mental hospital.

My problem with all of this is simple. That shouldn't be on a jury to decide. Granted, not many people are going to want to see anything but James Holmes being executed, but there are going to be the empathetic who have close relations with mental illness(not a bad thing) who want to believe that he has to be not guilty be reason of mental disease.

It's alot easier then believing someone could be purely evil, isn't it?

Just as an aside, and I said this after that woman got away with her daughters murder, the death penalty is fucking up your justice system.
The prosecutors had the chance to lock this guy up for life, but no, instead they choose to gamble and go for the death penalty.

That's why one thing alone should be put before a jury, the twelve people without legal training or expertise in psychiatry: Did he do it, or did he not?

If they say no, let him go. If yes, let the person with the most responsibility in the courtroom, the judge, with council from mental health experts, decide his fate.

Anything else is a farce and a smokescreen.

 

[Loveless]

Here's my problem: He offered to plead Guilty in exchange for not receiving the death penalty. He was told no. He changed his plea. That shows a large amount of insight, process thinking. Something people with DPD generally lack.

It shows he's sane'ish now, it doesn't mean he was sane then. Or he could just be doing what he's told. It really doesn't mean anything.

My problem with all of this is simple. That shouldn't be on a jury to decide. Granted, not many people are going to want to see anything but James Holmes being executed, but there are going to be the empathetic who have close relations with mental illness(not a bad thing) who want to believe that he has to be not guilty be reason of mental disease.

I don't think empathy is relevant, being educated and able to understand the case is though. I don't think it's at all fair on anyone to expect the jury to be able to understand complicated mental illnesses that they've had no experience of. They shouldn't be part of that process.

It's alot easier then believing someone could be purely evil, isn't it?

There is no such thing as evil, it's a concept, an adjective at most. Just an easy label to divide people into good and bad.

 

[HBsam31]

Ehhh I am kinda on the side of the people that say he knew exactly what he was doing. However Loveless makes some very very good points. What gets me is how he was willing to plead guilty if they didn't kill him, and when he said no he changed his mind and decided to go with the insanity plea. To tell you the truth as long as this guy gets locked up forever I don't really care where he is locked up at. I don't believe the death penalty gives anyone any sort of comfort when their family members are killed. It would feel good for a little while, but it sure doesn't bring your family back. If they would let this guy back out on the streets well that is a different story all together. Like I said, I really think the guy knew what he was doing, but that really isn't for me to decide, and lets just hope at the very least he is locked up for good.