‘Justice is death’ for alleged shooter in Batman rampage...

[EnterpriseSovereign]

...prosecutor says Prosecutors said Monday that they will seek the death penalty for James Holmes, the man accused of gunning down 12 people and wounding 70 at a Batman movie last summer in Colorado.


Follow @NBCNewsUS

George Brauchler, the district attorney for Arapahoe County, said he made the decision after speaking with more than 800 victims and family members.

“It’s my determination and my intention that in this case, for James Eagan Holmes, justice is death,” he said at a hearing.

Brauchler had already rejected an offer from the defense to let Holmes plead guilty and serve a life sentence.

Judge William Sylvester of the Colorado circuit court entered a plea of not guilty for Holmes last month after his lawyers said they were not ready to plead. The judge left the door open for lawyers to mount an insanity defense.





Advertise | AdChoices



Sylvester on Monday set Holmes’ trial for Feb. 3, 2014, and said it would last about four months. He handed the case to a new judge, Carlos Samour. The trial had originally been scheduled to begin in August.

“This is not an ordinary case. We ask the judge not to rush,” one of Holmes’ lawyers, Tamara Brady, said, answering prosecution claims that the defense has tried to delay the legal process. “This is the most important matter the court will ever hear.”

The two sides in the case fought in public last week. After the defense made its offer, Brauchler said in a filing that Holmes’ lawyers were only trying to generate sympathy for their client.

The only conclusion, the prosecutor wrote, “is that the defendant knows he is guilty, the defense attorneys know he is guilty and that both of them know that he was not criminally insane.”

Brauchler wrote an Op-Ed in The Denver Post over the weekend defending the death penalty. Colorado legislators have considered banning it. He did not name Holmes but wrote of capital punishment as an important tool of justice.

“Repealing the death penalty would result in acts similar to those in Newtown, Conn., or the acts of Tim McVeigh being punished no differently than a single murder of one gang member by another,” the prosecutor wrote. “Each murder after the first would be a freebie.”

Injection is the method for capital punishment in Colorado. The state has executed only one inmate since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in the United States in 1976, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. That execution was in 1997.


R.J. Sangosti / Pool


Aurora theater shooting suspect James Holmes listens at his arraignment March 12.

Holmes’ lawyers have said that jailers determined he was a danger to himself and needed a mental evaluation, and that he was held for several days in a psychiatric ward, sometimes in restraints.

He surrendered to police within minutes of the July 12 shooting rampage at a midnight screening of the movie “The Dark Knight Rises” in Aurora, Colo., a suburb of Denver.

At his first court appearance, Holmes had stark, red-orange hair and wore a blank stare. He has since appeared more stable and natural-looking. He showed up in court last month with a bushy beard.

The hearing Monday was set to begin at 11 a.m. EDT. Legal observers have pointed out that the two sides could still reach a plea deal later, even as prosecutors seek to put Holmes to death.

NBC News producer John Boxley, Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source

Original thread:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=155847

According to the date it'll be the better part of a year before the actual trial.

[The Xeelee]

Death is not justice.

[Knife]

Not everyone agrees, and as a blanket statement, is therefore untrue. As the US does it, yes I would agree.

[Rogue 9]

Death is not justice.

Of course it is, in several senses of the word. Under law it is the prescribed penalty, so it's just under the law. In the sense of being fair treatment, his offense is murder, so taking his life is fair in the literal sense, if completely without mercy. Justice doesn't equate to being nice.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Judge Samour is solid. Glad to hear he has the case.

[The Xeelee]

Death is not justice.

Of course it is, in several senses of the word. Under law it is the prescribed penalty, so it's just under the law. In the sense of being fair treatment, his offense is murder, so taking his life is fair in the literal sense, if completely without mercy. Justice doesn't equate to being nice.

I view the death penalty as being nice. Instead of being able to eventually develop guilt and suffer it, he will get a painless death.

[Losonti Tokash]

Death is not justice.

Of course it is, in several senses of the word. Under law it is the prescribed penalty, so it's just under the law. In the sense of being fair treatment, his offense is murder, so taking his life is fair in the literal sense, if completely without mercy. Justice doesn't equate to being nice.

You understand that justice and the law are not the same thing, right ?

[Rogue 9]

Death is not justice.

Of course it is, in several senses of the word. Under law it is the prescribed penalty, so it's just under the law. In the sense of being fair treatment, his offense is murder, so taking his life is fair in the literal sense, if completely without mercy. Justice doesn't equate to being nice.

You understand that justice and the law are not the same thing, right ?

Yes I do, but their not being synonyms doesn't mean they're unrelated.

jus·tice: noun
1
a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments
b : judge
c : the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity
2
a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair
b (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to this principle or ideal : righteousness
c : the quality of conforming to law
3
: conformity to truth, fact, or reason : correctness

Which is why I also covered fairness in addition to accordance with the law. I'd have been remiss to leave the law out of it, in fact.

[Stark]

Did you just quote the fucking dictionary when someone called you up on your legalism?

If justice is conformity to truth ( a terrible definition, but lets go with it ) how can it change, as laws do? How can there be more than one body of law? How congruent do you believe laws and justice to be?

Is what is legal just by definition? Use small words.

[KlavoHunter]

I prefer having a live subject to study to figure out what the FUCK went wrong with him. Of course, if they want to proceed straight to "Dissect his brain"... *Shrug*

[Rogue 9]

Did you just quote the fucking dictionary when someone called you up on your legalism?

If justice is conformity to truth ( a terrible definition, but lets go with it ) how can it change, as laws do? How can there be more than one body of law? How congruent do you believe laws and justice to be?

Is what is legal just by definition? Use small words.

Of course I did, since he didn't call me up on legalism; he asked if I knew what the word meant. Demonstrating that I do know what it means is the correct response. Try to pay attention.

Since the word does, in fact, relate to law (in the legal sense it would be unjust to sentence someone to death for petty theft, for instance, since it isn't a legal sentence), it would have been foolish of me to leave it out. The death of a murderer is just in the sense that it is a fair penalty separate from the law, which I also said. There's nothing legalistic about it.

[Losonti Tokash]

I didn't ask for any definitions, but gotta love "it's not legalism if I think something is just or unjust depending on what the law says!"

[Rogue 9]

I didn't ask for any definitions, but gotta love "it's not legalism if I think something is just or unjust depending on what the law says!"

Strawman. The original question was whether or not death is justice in this case, a question that hinges on what justice is, that is to say, the definition of the word. Said definition includes "conforming to the law," which it does. It also includes the quality of being just, impartial, or fair, which again, it is considering the offense to be punished. It isn't my fault that the legality of the thing is intrinsic to the question. It has nothing to do with whether or not "I think" anything.

I also submit that none of this has bearing on whether or not executing Holmes is the right thing to do, which is a different question entirely and one I haven't weighed in on.

Edit: Also, you questioned if I understood what the word meant. It's right there upthread; you can't pretend you didn't.

[Esquire]

<Snip>

What would you call a good definition of justice?

[Losonti Tokash]

You're right, it is just up there, where anyone can see I didn't ask for the definition of a word, I asked if you realized justice and the law do not always coincide. You apparently thought quoting the dictionary would be an effective dodge if you chose a definition that clearly did not fit the context, all while ignoring one that actually did:

b (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to this principle or ideal : righteousness

[General Mung Beans]

While I'm sceptical and opposed to the death penalty in most cases because of the risk of executing an innocent person and its costs, I'm definitely for it in a case like this for Holmes.

[The Romulan Republic]

I oppose the death penalty. My position is due to both moral and pragmatic reasons. The nature of Holmes' alleged crimes does not change my position (I said alleged because, no matter how obvious it seems that he did it, legally he is innocent until proven guilty and I believe in respecting that principle).

Edited.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Death is not justice.

Of course it is, in several senses of the word. Under law it is the prescribed penalty, so it's just under the law. In the sense of being fair treatment, his offense is murder, so taking his life is fair in the literal sense, if completely without mercy. Justice doesn't equate to being nice.

I view the death penalty as being nice. Instead of being able to eventually develop guilt and suffer it, he will get a painless death.

So the death penalty will be too lenient according to you? Well, I guess it's nice when people express these views early on before they become frequent posters.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Holmes is the kind of person the death penalty remains perfect for. There's no doubt that he was the perpetrator and the amount of evidence is ludicrous, and the crime itself particularly odious. If we could move toward using it exclusively for people like him instead of every random gangbanger who shot a rival in Houston we'd have a much more fair application of it. If Lanza had lived he should have gotten it too, but alas Connecticut had abolished it, which was ridiculous considering their last death-penalty case.

[The Xeelee]

So the death penalty will be too lenient according to you? Well, I guess it's nice when people express these views early on before they become frequent posters.

What is wrong with the way I stated it? I don't support torture or anything like that, and I don't support the death penalty under any circumstance. What a you trying to infer?

[Simon_Jester]

Not everyone agrees, and as a blanket statement, is therefore untrue. As the US does it, yes I would agree.

If we were talking about a typical murder case where there was realistic doubt about his guilt, fine, agree.

This is not a case where there's realistic doubt about his having decided to kill dozens of people, and then acted on that decision.

I prefer having a live subject to study to figure out what the FUCK went wrong with him. Of course, if they want to proceed straight to "Dissect his brain"... *Shrug*

Unfortunately, the state of mental science is such that we're not going to be able to easily figure that out from looking at him afterwards. What we really need is data from psychiatric assessments taken before he went mad and started murdering. But we don't have those, all we have are the usual trumped-up media reports of "he seemed like such a nice man" or whatever.

I oppose the death penalty. My position is due to both moral and pragmatic reasons. The nature of Holmes' alleged crimes does not change my position (I said alleged because, no matter how obvious it seems that he did it, legally he is innocent until proven guilty and I believe in respecting that principle).

Edited.

Could you expand on why, exactly, you maintain that executions are always wrong, and not merely usually wrong? I am curious about your opinions.

[Broomstick]

I, too, am opposed to the death penalty on principal, regardless of crime. As a general rule I don't think we're justified in taking a human life except in self defense or defense of another. Therefore, if we can safely and reliably contain a dangerous human so that he can not harm others then we have no justification for killing him.

On the other hand, if someone like Holmes should happen to escape from confinement I would have no problem with him being shot like a rabid dog in order to protect the rest of society from him.

The remaining problem would be how to confine him in a manner that is humane as well as secure.

[Knife]

Not everyone agrees, and as a blanket statement, is therefore untrue. As the US does it, yes I would agree.

If we were talking about a typical murder case where there was realistic doubt about his guilt, fine, agree.

This is not a case where there's realistic doubt about his having decided to kill dozens of people, and then acted on that decision.

Allow me to clarify, as a principle, I have no problem with the death penalty. Mr. Holmes, in my opinion, is the perfect example of who should be erased from this earth. My objections to the death penalty stem more from the use of it, the unfair application of it in many demographics, and the problem with evidence in a lot of cases. Mr Holmes doesn't represent any of that, and if he got the death penalty, I would not shed one tear.

My view on the OP, is that death CAN be justice, but not necessarily all the time. I know, it is kind of a no brainier, but the original stance was kind of dumb and absolutist in itself.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

What is wrong with the way I stated it? I don't support torture or anything like that, and I don't support the death penalty under any circumstance. What a you trying to infer?

It depends. When you said that executing Holmes would be nice, you meant nice as in neat and orderly, or nice as in too soft?

[UnderAGreySky]

Holmes is the kind of person the death penalty remains perfect for. There's no doubt that he was the perpetrator and the amount of evidence is ludicrous, and the crime itself particularly odious. If we could move toward using it exclusively for people like him instead of every random gangbanger who shot a rival in Houston we'd have a much more fair application of it.

What the Indian Supreme Court calls the "rarest of rare" cases and is the yardstick death penalty judgements are held to. I concur with you.