AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Isn't an execution even more expensive anyway?

I was actually relieved when I heard about it yesterday because death penalty is an unethical relic from the past.

He'd probably be stuck on death row for years anyway

Otherwise if you consider what the rest of James Holmes life will be like is some manner of mercy or simply a glorified version of putting him up in a shithole appartment with some roudy neighbors then you should reflect more on the horrors of maximum security prison AND the mental health institutions in our country reserved for criminals. There are forms of retribution beyond the ending of human life.

I'm reminded of a line from Batman Forever, when The Riddler stops Two-Face from killing Bruce Wayne:

"If you kill him... He don't learn nothing."

Not really sure if it matters if he learns or not, since he's gonna be put away for the rest of his life. Given the nature of his crime, he might be in solitary confinement, but I don't actually know. I only know you get put there if you prove to be a danger to the other inmates and/or staff.

He's mentally unstable so it's unlikely he'll feel any regret, even after years of prison

Killing him would never be the solution, though

I've been told death penalties are unethical (Because mass murder isn't? Cheap shot, I know). Been told he wouldn't have a great life in prison, wouldn't last ten years, etc.

All I can think is that whatever form of existence he'll have from now on is still more than twelve people will get because of him, on top of the numerous other lives he's wrecked. I don't care if he ever learns from what he did, I don't really care if he ever comes to regret it. I might care if, by some miracle, he were to come to genuine sorrow for his actions, give the survivors some degree of closure, but when I read about him smiling as the verdict is read and thanking his lawyers...well, let's just say there's a good reason I'd never qualify for the jury.

Talk to me about ethics where parties involved retain the right to ethical consideration via their actions/lack thereof. This piece of scum forfeited his three years ago.

Again, mentally unstable
I mean all murderers are to some degree but this guy did in fact have severe mental health issues



He also tried to kill himself several times while awaiting trial

He is not a sane man

Well here's hoping he succeeds soon.

I don't think revenge should be the point of the justice system, which I feel like the majority of the death penalty cases end up being. Our focus should be rehabilitation instead of just lashing out at people that have hurt others. Punishment just for he sake of punishment is pointless at best and counter-productive at worst.

Now, I'm not saying that what his person did isn't horrible. He did one of the worst things I could possibly imagine. That being said though, I'm not a big fan of the death penalty. Even if this case is pretty clear-cut, there's a hell of a lot of false convictions that get sent to death row either through mistakes of willful ignorance. I don't see keeping it around as being worth it just for those very few cases that both meet the criteria for putting them to death and also indicate a perpetrator beyond the shadow of a doubt.

I hope I don't sound like I'm slamming you down because that's not my intent. You have the right to have and express and retain your opinions and I respect that.

I don't think anyone is saying what he did was not very wrong and completely unethical.
To be fair I think everybody would be thankful to the people who effectively save your life and learning that you're not going to be put to death at some point would elicit at least a smile.
I personally think ethics is universal and the right to an ethical treatment is non-forfeitable. No matter what a person does, it's still a person. Also I don't know the details and I haven't kept up with the case as much as you so I'm not sure, but if he is mentally unstable, his malicious intent is questionable.

edit: Oh, Aquabat beat me to it. Mentally unstable, therefore cannot be held entirely responsible for his actions.

That's a horrible thing to say.

Bit on the side here, but it might not be. It's possible he's suffering tremendously.

True, but the guy has no regard for human life. Maybe he can get on some kind of medicine to help his mental illness.

Here's the thing, people rightfully want to form a mob and lynch the bastard in public, but a justice system founded on revenge is... well, you end up with an enormous amounts of miscarriages of justice like the U.S has. Individual revenge is one thing, but its not the states job to sate your bloodlust. You want him dead, do your own dirty work.

Like I said, it was a cheap shot.


Yeah...the problem I see with that kind of statement is the image it brings up. Courtroom full of people barely able to contain their emotions, his parents unbelievably torn between trying to process the mixture of chaos with the shock of the event and the horror of their own kid at the trigger end - his reaction just says "Whew, at least I'm not going to bite it like those schmucks in Aurora". It's probably tacky to say and likely not entirely accurate, but holy shit if that's not what it screams.


Which, to me, buys him the right not to be beaten to a pulp in the parking lot where he was caught, or abused while he was detained, or denied trial. I don't see how paying with your life for one you took is unethical.


I'm shaky on the subject, but I think that kind of argument lost when he lost the "not guilty by reason of insanity" verdict. Supposing this is true, though, and since people are talking about rehabilitation being the goal, not revenge - because somehow wanting a consequence equal to the crime automatically stems from feelings of personal retribution and couldn't possibly be related to justice (and, dare I point out, if revenge was really the point there are a lot of methods that don't involve lengthy, painful trials with five million dollar price tags) - I'm compelled to ask why rehabilitation is a better option. Even assuming he's successfully rehabilitated, what happens then? What good does it do?

Excerpt from this article:


Mentally unstable, sure, but that sounds like a far cry from a lack of malicious intent.

The expected answer to "this guy is suffering and suicidal" isn't "I hope he successfully kills himself then" but "I hope he gets better".

This reminds me: the current Canadian prime minister wants Canada to become a second Texas in every way, so a few years ago he sent out one of his puppets, a man whose daughter was raped and murdered in 2002, to try and convince us with his pity-cred that we should provide slip knots to prisoners so they can commit suicide whenever they feel like it.

I agree completely.
The other day I watched part of an interview with a prison chaplain who went on to host restorative justice meetings between prisoners who murdered people during the Rwandan genocide and the family of their victims. It seemed to help both parties heal and move on. The prisoners and the victims discuss about what exactly happened and how so the survivors can get answers and be at peace, and the prisoners can ask for forgiveness. The chaplain talked about one instance where a mother asked the guy who killed her three children in what order he did it and if they were asking for her before he killed them etc. The woman forgave him and they ended up hugging.
The punishment itself doesn't do much for the victims and doesn't make criminals understand the wrong they did. Death penalty in itself is just a (state-sanctioned) murder, it doesn't repair the wrong done to the victims, hurts one more person from the get-go and it makes sure the criminal will not learn anything.

It depends on one's definition of ethics. But I do think that if killing someone is wrong, then killing the killer is no different.
For one thing one guy doesn't die, which is always a plus in my opinion. If his rehabilitation succeeds, he just goes back to a semi-normal life and doesn't hurt anyone anymore. I think that's also a win.