The Batman killer, the Joker, whatever the hell you want to call him (I don’t think he should be dignified by speaking his real name).
Anyway what really interests me about this case is that Colorado is one of those states that technically still has the death penalty on the books but it hasn’t been invoked in ~35 years. I heard/read a commentator saying that if they don’t execute this guy, they may as well repeal their death penalty law because, who the hell else are you saving it for? Seriously.
Well personally I’m all for it. I consider myself mostly liberal, but I ain’t no bleedin’ heart.
I wouldn’t support it for him anyway, as I think occasions that call for the death penalty are vanishingly rare (perhaps the Afghanistan massacre guy would qualify)–but even if I supported the death penalty, this guy really comes across as the poster child for the insanity defense. I’ll wait and see, but I’m expecting him to get locked up in a padded cell the rest of his life.
No way. An insane person can’t get into a PhD program, meticulously booby-trap an apartment, obtain a bunch of weapons, etc. Generally if a defendant is considered competent to stand trial then the insanity defense is rejected outright.
I think the fact that his shrink notified her chain of command about his instability before he did this is going to lead to him getting an insanity defense fairly easily.
I wonder if his attorneys have instructed him to not shave or dye his hair to get rid of the orange because it makes him look crazier.
My sentiments exactly. I think the accused probably has a few storage lockers full of mental problems, but was mentally competent enough to understand that his actions would result in murder.
Really? I think giving him a nickname venerates him more. People do this kind of stuff for attention, and I’m sure he’d love nothing more than to be given some badass moniker to be spoken of in hushed whispers long after his death, like Jack the Ripper or the Zodiac Killer. No, just call him by his mundane name, because that’s all he is, some schmuck who went berserk and killed people for no reason.
I don’t like the idea of giving him the death penalty. I think he should have to live with what he’s done for the rest of his life.
I oppose the death penalty because i don’t trust cops judges or lawyers, not because i think all life has some inherent value. In clear cut cases like this i am all for frying the bastard.
Other: I think the death penalty is appropriate in some circumstances, but not this one. I think the death penalty should be reserved for those who commit serious crimes in prison and possibly a few other aggravated types of murder such a terrorism, murder-rape, or murder by torture.
Generally opposed to the death penalty, and wouldn’t want to vote for it on the Jury if it’s something they get to decide (usually is, separate from guilt, right?). But I wouldn’t be too sad if he ends up getting the lethal injection.
I think it’s weak. I mean, either you’re for the death penalty or you aren’t. It’s like people who would allow abortion “in the case of rape or incest”. So murder (if you call it that) is only okay sometimes?
It’s the same with the death penalty. Either you are for it or you aren’t. I’m not, so that means even the crazy killer who shot up my hometown should rot in jail or a mental facility.
I am in favour of the death penalty - I just think the US sucks at it. If it’s going to get bogged down in appeals for years, you might as well not bother. If it needs to get bogged down in appeals for years, you shouldn’t be using the death penalty in the first place.
No, you are wrong. The requirements of proving an insanity defense vary by jurisdiction obviously, and there are different tests that can be used. But the common thread between them is that the defense has to prove that the accused did not know what he was doing was wrong. Here’s how they word it in the “Moral Penal Code” from the American Law Institute:
(emphasis in original)
There’s no chance in hell that would ever fly in this case. I think it can be established quite easily that he knew what he was doing was wrong and had the capacity to conform with the law, but he just didn’t give a shit. That’s not insanity by its legal definition.
Thing is, that’s the burden of proof in every criminal case - beyond any reasonable doubt. I think where the death penalty is involved, convictions of true innocents are exceedingly rare. Especially now thanks to huge advances in forensic technology, there’s all kinds of tricks they can use to produce absolutely irrefutable DNA evidence (and other types of physical evidence that can be used to link a person to their crimes). And in most such cases, there are mountains of it.
Not my area of expertise, but I think the insanity defense requires proof that at the time of the crime, the defendant was unable to understand the wrongful nature of his conduct. It’s a difficult standard to meet. The guy can be batshit insane, but still not qualify for that defense.
I don’t really like the insanity defense. We put down rabid dogs, and this guy is far more dangerous to society.