[Tycho]

(Original post by Dalek1099)
It costs so much because they don't execute them straight away-this man could be executed straight away because we know he is guilty.

Do we? The last I checked people were considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This legal system is the only way of preventing miscarriages of justice. It wouldn't be the first time an innocent person was executed. What makes our legal system better than the likes of China is that we do not make assumptions and rash decisions about peoples' guilt.

The due process must prevail.

[A level Az]

(Original post by Joeman560)
Would you personally torture him? If given the chance?

Yes.

[SilverArch]

If (probably a when in this case actually) found guilty, he should be sent to prison or to a secure psychiatric facility depending on the outcome of mental health assessments

I'm against murder except in self defense. That means I hate what he did and believe the public need protecting from him, but that he should not be murdered as well. You can't be against the death penalty for everyone except so and so.

On a side note - I hate how the media are dubbing him like 'the joker' because he dyed his hair. No, he isn't. The Joker has green hair not red fgs!!

[rmpr97]

(Original post by didgeridoo12uk)
but ideally he should someday be released. It's impossible to tell what he's going to be like in 10 or 20 years time, he may well be a reformed member of society

He doesn't have the right to be a reformed citizen.

How the hell are you defending a guy who killed 12 people and a little baby.

How can you advocate someone unlawfully taking innocent peoples lives and them being able to live normal lives?

If his victims can never go into a shop again, or breathe in fresh air, then he shouldn't.

I doubt you said 'Oh but what if Bin Laden quits Al-Qaeda and becomes a good person in 10 or 20 years time? You know, he might not bomb us next time.'

[rmpr97]

(Original post by Bulbasaur)
This is the problem. We're going about the justice system all wrong. It shouldn't be done by emotion but by morality.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Letting people take your eyes makes the world blind anways.

[didgeridoo12uk]

(Original post by rmpr97)
He doesn't have the right to be a reformed citizen.

How the hell are you defending a guy who killed 12 people and a little baby.

How can you advocate someone unlawfully taking innocent peoples lives and them being able to live normal lives?

If his victims can never go into a shop again, or breathe in fresh air, then he shouldn't.

I doubt you said 'Oh but what if Bin Laden quits Al-Qaeda and becomes a good person in 10 or 20 years time? You know, he might not bomb us next time.'

most of these people have mental issues or have had seriously screwed up childhoods, society has obviously failed them, killing them solves nothing.

i really think bin laden should have been taken alive and tried in an international court. if in 20 years time he has truly has changed and can be safely released into society i don't see a problem with that

[.eXe]

If it is deemed that he was criminally responsible, then yes. Otherwise no, he could use some psychiatric help though.

[rmpr97]

(Original post by didgeridoo12uk)
most of these people have mental issues or have had seriously screwed up childhoods, society has obviously failed them, killing them solves nothing.

i really think bin laden should have been taken alive and tried in an international court. if in 20 years time he has truly has changed and can be safely released into society i don't see a problem with that

How can someone have the right to roam free after killing people? Isn't that unfair to the victim and their family/friends?

[Bellissima]

no... i completely disagree with the death penalty it is disgusting. it is not a deterrant and it is just revenge which is wrong.

[justanotherposter]

I've never understood why capital punishment is seen as the ultimate punishment. You execute someone then they get what they want, the guy knew he'd get caught, he probably thought the police would kill him in the theatre, he isn't going to care that he could be given the death penalty. If you ask me telling him he's spending the rest of his life in a cell is a much greater punishment. People hang themselves in prison, it clearly isn't a nice place to be and the guy doesn't look like the type who'd make friends inside. I don't really care about revenge but for the people who do I don't see why killing him would be the best way to make him suffer for what he's done.

[madders94]

I think the views of the families of his victims should be taken into account; personally I'd say lock him away for life and make him suffer. Why should he be rehabilitated; why should anyone put any effort into trying to make him a good person (nailing jelly to a tree) when there's 12 people whose lives he's taken for no reason, and a dozen families and so many friends who will never have their original lives back.

[didgeridoo12uk]

(Original post by rmpr97)
How can someone have the right to roam free after killing people? Isn't that unfair to the victim and their family/friends?

the four main types/reasons for punishment (roughly taken from wikipedia)

retribution: When an offender breaks the law, s/he thereby forfeits or suspends her/his right to something of equal value, and justice requires that this forfeit be enacted
rehabilitation: To restore to useful life, as through therapy and education or To restore to good condition, operation, or capacity.
deterrence: The concept of deterrence has two key assumptions the first is that specific punishments imposed on offenders will 'deter' or prevent them from committing further crimes; the second is that fear of punishment will prevent others from committing similar crimes
incapacitations: physically stop the person committing more crime.

retribution doesn't really solve much other than making the victims temporarily feel better.
deterrence only really works with petty things: shoplifting, speeding, etc.
incapacitation is obviously a ket part to punishment but by itself leads to infinitely long jail terms
rehabilitation actually solves the problem in the long term.

its not about the victims right to revenge, its how to solve the problem of criminals and destructive people in society

[WhatsHisFace]

(Original post by didgeridoo12uk)
No.

the point of sentencing somebody to prison/community service/etc is rehabilitation. sentencing somebody to death is you saying that they'll never ever be able to contribute positively to society

While I agree that rehabilitation should be the main goal of our judicial system, acts such as makes one wonder what doesn't deserve rehabilitation. Yes, he was on track to a promising career, but the fact of the matter is that he knew he has going to do this shooting one day. To plan/ romanticize (he had asked I think his gf, or at least someone of importance if they would visit him in prison, before committing the offense) committing such an act as shooting up a movie theatre, in my opinion, shouldn't be given a second chance.

He went in expecting no survivors. He ended up killing 12 people, injuring 58 more, and not to mention causing unimaginable emotional pain to hundreds more. If he made the decision that every person in that theatre doesn't deserve to live, why should we be more merciful?

[didgeridoo12uk]

(Original post by WhatsHisFace)
While I agree that rehabilitation should be the main goal of our judicial system, acts such as makes one wonder what doesn't deserve rehabilitation. Yes, he was on track to a promising career, but the fact of the matter is that he knew he has going to do this shooting one day. To plan/ romanticize (he had asked I think his gf, or at least someone of importance if they would visit him in prison, before committing the offense) committing such an act as shooting up a movie theatre, in my opinion, shouldn't be given a second chance.

He went in expecting no survivors. He ended up killing 12 people, injuring 58 more, and not to mention causing unimaginable emotional pain to hundreds more. If he made the decision that every person in that theatre doesn't deserve to live, why should we be more merciful?

but WHY did he make those decisions, he is most likely mentally ill and dropped through societys safety net. why does that then give us the right to kill him. surely as a society we should try and fix people like that rather than sweep them under the rug

[Xotol]

Since we don't know what mental state he is in, there's no way we should be sentencing him to death at the current moment. Even if he was mentally sound, I'd be hesitant to kill him immediately (I'm against the death penalty for a number of reasons - not least because it leads to a slippery slope).

Life imprisonment would probably be the best course of action even if he was mentally fine. For those interested in revenge, he'd suffer a lot more than just immediately dying (assuming he isn't put on death row for decades). And, if he was genuinely mentally ill, mental rehabilation could make him a somewhat productive member of society. It's easy to get emotionally sucked in to ending his life here and now, but this case needs to be looked in a lot more before any decision is made.

[Charlottie93]

I don't agree with the death penalty, I can understand why people though do. Personally I think he should be made to suffer in prison, even prisoners have a code of conduct and when they find out he killed a child it's not going to go down well.

Also where has this story come from that he killed a baby? The youngest audience member who died was 6 years old. Her mother was pregnant and was also shot but she survived and so did her unborn child.

[WhatsHisFace]

(Original post by didgeridoo12uk)
but WHY did he make those decisions, he is most likely mentally ill and dropped through societys safety net. why does that then give us the right to kill him. surely as a society we should try and fix people like that rather than sweep them under the rug

I can only work off of my speculation as to why he did it, and to me the only reason I can see why someone would shoot up the premiere of a highly successful movie series film is for fame. Unfortunately, the media LOVES falling into this trap, and he's getting exactly what he wants. So in my opinion, I would agree (and this is rare for me) that he is deserving of a death penalty.

Besides, is there any long- term, objective proof of rehabilitating these kind of people?

But in a world where we throw away people's lives over non- violent drug crimes, yet give pedophiles less prison time in comparison, I guess it makes sense for people to be divided here.

[bengalisoldier]

Yes he should be dead and burn in hell.

[didgeridoo12uk]

(Original post by WhatsHisFace)
I can only work off of my speculation as to why he did it, and to me the only reason I can see why someone would shoot up the premiere of a highly successful movie series film is for fame. Unfortunately, the media LOVES falling into this trap, and he's getting exactly what he wants. So in my opinion, I would agree (and this is rare for me) that he is deserving of a death penalty.

Besides, is there any long- term, objective proof of rehabilitating these kind of people?

But in a world where we throw away people's lives over non- violent drug crimes, yet give pedophiles less prison time in comparison, I guess it makes sense for people to be divided here.

i've got no idea if there's any proof. i doubt many prison systems bother trying to rehabilitate these people. and yes i agree the sentencing is totally screwed up.

my point is killing him or putting him in jail for the rest of his life will do nothing of any use. it's not going to deter somebody else from doing this.

[High VOLTAGE]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
What do you think as this question has sparked some debate.

I think yes he most certainly should.

The man is a monster.. he shot a baby and killed a 6 year old and continued to shoot people as they begged for him to stop.. He is evil.

Am interested to hear the arguments for both sides.

Please make sure before you debate on here you are familiar with the case, I don't support the death penalty but after reading reports on this from witnesses about what he did I think he should be killed.

Unless there is some sort of mental health problem then Yes they should.
Holmes will receive 3 meals a day, he will be able to see his family again, he will have his medical care taken care of and be able to live.
Whereas many victims and their families will be paying millions in healthcare costs, some have lost eyes, some lost their lives. If he has no mental health condition then yes he deserves the death penalty. What good is it to keep him in prison for life?