This. He planned it out. He knew what he was doing, he knew it was wrong to do it…and he did it anyway.
Given the length of the appeals process, if studying Holmes would be useful there is plenty of time to do it. There are probably many other people to study who haven’t gotten around to killing anyone yet.
This is not a great argument against the death penalty. It sounds a lot like the stereotypical clueless scientist from old sci-fi movies who doesn’t want to kill the monster, just study it. And winds up dead. Not all monsters are Hortas.
I live around the corner from the theatre in question, and Holmes’ state of mind and the definition of crazy is a popular coffee machine conversation topic hereabouts these days.
Thing is: a court of law is not a shrink, and vice versa. Based on Holmes’ own writings, it’s a pretty safe bet that he knew that he was killing human beings, and his writings AND his actions make it pretty feasible that he not only knew this was illegal, AND morally wrong, but stood a good chance of getting him shot and/or arrested.
He did it anyway.
I am not surprised, given the evidence I have seen, that he was not found legally insane. The only real difference between this and a liquor store holdup is MOTIVE. Admittedly, this can sometimes be a deciding factor, but by Colorado law… it ain’t.
If Tom Cruise suddenly decides to give up acting and make a living robbing liquor stores, he might well decide aloud that NOT killing the clerk will lead to his exposure as a crook, and shoot the poor clerk.
We have therefore established that Cruise’s motivation for the robbery was money. His motivation for the murder was to avoid getting caught. The fact that he wished to avoid getting caught is strong evidence that he knew damn good and well that robbing liquor stores and murdering clerks is strongly frowned upon by society, and could lead to consequence and loss of privilege!
I understand this motive. It’s not something I’d do myself, but I like money as much as the next guy, and I understand that dead men tell no tales, even if video surveillance systems do.
Holmes, on the other hand, according to the prosecution’s presentations of his own writings, shot a bunch of people because he had some screwed up theory that taking a person’s life increased the value of his own, and therefore killing twelve people would increase his own life value score up to 13 – his own, plus that of his victims.
It is quite clear that he understood the danger of what he was doing, both to his victims and himself, and took precautions to protect himself for when the cops came for him. Ergo: not crazy.
I don’t understand his motive, because his life points idea makes no sense to me. Perhaps
he thought he could take the points to some counter somewhere and trade them for a Pixy Stix or a secret decoder ring, like at Chuck E. Cheese, or whatever. Certainly, this would make him delusional.
Thing is, the whole legal fiction of “telling wrong from right” is just that: a fiction. The REAL question is “If you weren’t crazy, would you have committed this crime? Did your crazy cause you to do this?”
…which is a question of motive. And questions of motive are much hated by lawyers, because unless your defendant was dumb enough to write it all down, motive is a bear to PROVE. Hence, insanity defenses don’t often INVOLVE motive. They want an easier question to address, like “did he know right from wrong,” or “is he able to take care of himself, because if he can’t he might be crazy or mentally impaired,” or questions like that.
Would Holmes have murdered those people if not for his life points theory? I dunno. But without that, he doesn’t seem to have had a motive. And it’s already been said that his motive doesn’t matter: only his actions.
I believe this was part of the reason he was found guilty and not insane. I don’t think he is insane , I think he is evil and try to get away with mass murder by pretending to be insane. I would had voted ‘guilty’ too.’
So if you’re crazy for money - and I mean pathologically obsessed with having the stuff, way beyond greed - and you go out killing store clerks to get it… what’s the answer to your question?
ETA: Substitute any item of value for money, if you like. Gold. Art. Sex. Whatever it is, you are gibbering Joker crazy for it, and it alone.
Exactly. If I murder a crazy cat lady because I think cats are worth millions of dollars each, and I want all her cats, then certainly my sanity is in question.
…hence the question of knowing right from wrong. It’s wrong to murder someone for material gain. Or even spiritual gain. Therefore, I am sane enough to comprehend that I am a murderer and morally and legally wrong, and therefore prosecutable.
Like I said, the “knowing right from wrong” defense/prosecution is way more legally manageable than the “thinks cats are currency” angle.
(post shortened)
Legal fiction? Are you suggesting that the laws of the various states do not address the legal issue of insanity (individual state statutes may use different terms to define a defendants inability to stand trial for the crime they’ve been charged with)?
If you remove the various insanity defenses from state laws, the defendant will be tried for the crime they allegedly committed. And they will face the same penalties as any other convicted criminal, assuming they are found guilty. It’s not fiction that laws addressing legal insanity exist.
The courts do not determine if a defendant is legally insane. That job is left to the experts. Of course, both sides are entitled to have the defendant examined by their own experts. The court will then decide which expert testimony is more compelling.
insanity -
[in-san´ĭ-te]
a medically obsolete term for mental derangement or disorder. Insanity is now a purely legal term, denoting a condition due to which a person lacks criminal responsibility for a crime and therefore cannot be convicted of it. adj., insane´.
*Not guilty by reason of insanity is a plea by a criminal defendant who admits the criminal act, but claims he/she was so mentally disturbed at the time of the crime that he/she lacked the mental capacity necessary to commit a crime.
In this context, “not guilty” does not mean the person did not commit the criminal act for which he or she is charged. It means that when the person committed the crime, he or she could not tell right from wrong or could not control his or her behavior because of severe mental defect or illness. Such a person, the law holds, should not be held criminally responsible for his or her behavior. The legal test for insanity varies from state to state.*
*Insanity is a mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot manage his/her own affairs, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior. In criminal cases, a plea of “not guilty by reason of insanity” will require a trial on the issue of the defendant’s insanity (or sanity) at the time the crime was committed.
In this context, “not guilty” does not mean the person did not commit the criminal act for which he or she is charged. It means that when the person committed the crime, he or she could not tell right from wrong or could not control his or her behavior because of severe mental defect or illness. Such a person, the law holds, should not be held criminally responsible for his or her behavior. The legal test for insanity varies from state to state.*
Your definitions are accurate, but I don’t think I made myself clear.
If Holmes had shot up the theatre thinking it was full of ravenous velociraptors, and that he was saving the citizens of Aurora from seething dino death, this would be a prime example of “he did not know right from wrong,” i.e., he did not realize he was killing human beings, and therefore met the legal requirement of “right from wrong.”
Regrettably, the playing field is almost never so unmuddled.
For one thing, defendants have a BAD habit of lying about things. “Sure, I thought they were dinosaurs, man.” At this point, it’s up to the defense to bolster that story and the prosecution to tear it apart. And when it comes to delusions, it’s mighty hard to PROVE, objectively, to a jury, that I know what was in YOUR head that night, and it WASN’T DINOSAURS!
A handier attack might be, “Mr. Holmes, did you think the dinosaurs were likely to shoot back? If not, why were you wearing bulletproof armor?” The first attack on an insanity plea is ALWAYS to look for any inconsistencies in the so called delusion, and question them.
Your definitions are quite acceptable. But proving actual insanity, as you have defined it, is a bear of a thing, and not always feasible. Hence, “legal definitions,” things that can be objectively proven in court. Okay, maybe he was listening to machine elves preaching the gospel of Elvis, but did he know that what he was doing was wrong?
This is why the “right or wrong” definition is so popular and widespread in individual state laws. What WAS he doing wearing bulletproof armor if he thought he was shooting velociraptors? Their claws will cut through ballistic cloth like butter! Are you sure you weren’t worried about getting shot by cops who did not share your … unique viewpoint? Which would indicate that you knew damn good and well you were shooting HUMAN BEINGS?
This thread has already addressed a lot of the issues in question – how crazy is crazy? We almost always agree that killing people for money or material gain isn’t crazy at all, and therefore perfectly prosecutable under the same laws that apply to everyone.
Killing people because you thought they were velociraptors, on the other hand, is as crazy as a football bat, and most of us would agree this guy needs a different kind of lockup.
…but what do you do about guys like Holmes, who knew quite well he was killing human beings… and that murder is a crime, and will get you prosecuted… and simply wrote it off as “meh, more life points for me”?
That’s where you need a legal standard. And all this wordage flying around in court is all well and good, but at the end of the day, you need something that SANE people can QUANTIFY, is all.
(post shortened)
The confusing wordage seems to be coming from the internet, pundits, and the media, not from the court or the court approved medical examiners.
States already have legal standards in place. This isn’t a new issue. The Century Aurora 16 movie theater monster was examined by medical experts. It was decided that the Aurora monster was legally sane. That decision meant that the Aurora monster would stand trial just like any other mass murderer.
*CENTENNIAL — The psychiatrist called it " schizotypal personality disorder."
If not for it, the Aurora movie theater shooting probably would have never happened, Dr. William Reid testified Thursday. But, despite it, James Holmes was capable of knowing that opening fire on innocent moviegoers was wrong, he said.
…Was Holmes, Brauchler asked Reid, capable of intending to kill the 12 people he did inside the Century Aurora 16 movie theater on July 20, 2012?
“It’s very clear to me that he had the capacity to form that kind of intent,” Reid said.
Did Holmes meet the definition for legal sanity?
“Without meaning to usurp the jury’s job, and it’s a tough job,” Reid replied, “I believe so.”
Earlier Thursday, Reid, who had been appointed by the judge to do an independent evaluation of Holmes, ticked through his reasoning. There was evidence that Holmes knew the shootings were illegal and immoral by society’s standards. He knew the victims would suffer when they were shot. He practiced for the shootings and kept his planning secret.
*.
If Holmes had no concept of what he did, why does it matter if it is punishment or not? Why do we place any value on Holmes’ continued existence if he is no more a sapient being than a rabid dog or broken toaster?
Because that is not what we as a civilized society has decided determines a persons right to live. We don’t have a litmus test as to when a person is “sapient” enough to be allowed to live.
More’s the pity.
So you’re a fan of eugenics? That’s pretty horrific. I’m not willing to lose my humanity just to engage in blood lust.
At first I thought I was arguing with Doorhinge, but now I kinda think we’re actually approaching the same point from two different angles.
If Holmes was crazy, then it ceases to be about punishment, and then becomes about two priorities:
- Protecting the public from this dangerous lunatic, and
- Attempting to cure the dangerous lunatic.
I also hasten to point out that just being crazy doesn’t make you non-sapient. I’ve read some schizophrenic writings that take complexity to a whole new level. Sometimes they even make sense. This does not make them accurate, or sane.
Judging from the mutterings I’m hearing, though, it wouldn’t make much difference for Holmes. If he was found legally insane, he’d never see freedom again; no shrink or administrator would want to take responsibility for letting him out where he might do something crazy again or get shot by any number of people for any number of reasons.
Since he’s legally sane, he will at best get life without parole, and at worst, sentenced to death, and probably spend the rest of his life on Death Row, since Gov. Hickenlooper isn’t a fan of the death penalty, and Colorado in general tends to be kind of down on that, politically speaking. I suppose we could get a Killumall! type, but not soon.