Should James Holmes (Batman killing) get the death penalty?

It's a bit of an odd situation.

If he's given the death penalty, that's it. But he'd be quickly sped through it and wouldn't have a chance to think about what he's done.

If he's given life with the chance of parole, he'd probably be murdered by someone upon his release. Life without parole he'd eventually be killed by the prisoners, or by himself if he's stuck in solitary confinement (he'd get so lonely he'd go crazy enough that he'd either do that or create a situation where the prison guards would have to kill him).

If he's found insane and sent to an asylum or whatever it's called in the USA, not much would change. He'd eventually be killed or kill himself. Especially if it's part of a prison. All in all, it depends on how quick the state wants him to die. Whatever the judge sentences him to, someone or some group's going to complain. They'll just have to decide which group has the least influence on the public's view.

Reply 161

Bulbasaur

17

Original post by InternetGangster

I can't think of anybody more deserving of the death penalty. Kill the bastard.

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.

Reply 162

Joeman560

10

Original post by A level Az

Neither. He should be tortured.

Would you personally torture him? If given the chance?

Reply 163

InternetGangster

15

Original post by Aoide

What positive effect does killing him have?

It prevents wasting money keeping him locked up for the rest of his life. What negative effects does killing him have?

Reply 164

InternetGangster

15

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.

What do you propose?

Reply 165

didgeridoo12uk

16

Original post by InternetGangster

The man deserves to be killed. Anyway, the guy is a psychopath, you can't simply 'fix' him.

revenge is never a healthy quality in a society, which is why the people affected by a crime aren't the ones who decide the punishment. nobody deserves to die.

and you can fix a wide range of mental health issues, why not a psychopath.

Reply 166

Americaniamh

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.

For the most part though, morality is dictated by emotion.

And emotion is dictated by prejudice.

Reply 167

ForKicks

12

Original post by InternetGangster

The man deserves to be killed. Anyway, the guy is a psychopath, you can't simply 'fix' him.

Soo, you say he deserves to be killed AND that he has a mental illness? Not a fan of diminished responsibility then? :tongue:

Reply 168

Aoide

11

It prevents wasting money keeping him locked up for the rest of his life. What negative effects does killing him have?

Killing a criminal costs as much as locing them up.
If we lock him away for life in top security the chance of escape is tiny.
Do I really need to give you a reason not to kill someone? Is it fine to kill unless we have a reason not to?

Reply 169

Joeman560

10

Original post by InternetGangster

It prevents wasting money keeping him locked up for the rest of his life. What negative effects does killing him have?

You realise keeping a man on death row is more expensive than in the regular prison right?

Reply 170

InternetGangster

15

Original post by ForKicks

Soo, you say he deserves to be killed AND that he has a mental illness? Not a fan of diminished responsibility then? :tongue:

On second thought, I take that back.

Reply 171

InternetGangster

15

Original post by Joeman560

You realise keeping a man on death row is more expensive than in the regular prison right?

Apparently so. I take back what I said :smile:

Reply 172

InternetGangster

15

Original post by Aoide

Killing a criminal costs as much as locing them up.
If we lock him away for life in top security the chance of escape is tiny.
Do I really need to give you a reason not to kill someone? Is it fine to kill unless we have a reason not to?

Fair play.

Reply 173

InternetGangster

15

Original post by didgeridoo12uk

revenge is never a healthy quality in a society, which is why the people affected by a crime aren't the ones who decide the punishment. nobody deserves to die.

and you can fix a wide range of mental health issues, why not a psychopath.

On that thought, what do you think about killing animals? I agree that many people with mental illnesses can be rehabilitated, however it would be too much of a risk to release this man back into society.

Reply 174

didgeridoo12uk

16

Original post by InternetGangster

On that thought, what do you think about killing animals? I agree that many people with mental illnesses can be rehabilitated, however it would be too much of a risk to release this man back into society.

if you kill them for food and treat them with respect when they're alive i don't see a problem with killing animals

if it were a risk to release him back into society, he wouldn't be classed as rehabilitated...

Reply 175

Liquidise.

8

Nah, killing him would be a sign of weakness and an act of revenge. His mental health is also yet to be determined I think, therefore there may be other people who need to be held responsible, ie. the doctors who were supposed to monitor him. Until this case is resolved and it is proven whether everything could have been prevented, there's no need to jump to conclusions. But in the end, I say lock him up for life in a maximum security penitentiary or a lunatic asylum.

Reply 176

Charzhino

19

No he shouldnt. He should be tortured instead

Reply 177

cl_steele

2

I dont think he should be killed but in my opinion he is way beyond rehabilitation, either way this scum will never see the light of day again so its fairly academic what is done with him...
Let the victims decide.

Reply 178

Tycho

14

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.