PDA

View Full Version : 1 juror firmly opposed death penalty for theater shooter James Holmes



Teh One Who Knocks
08-08-2015, 11:32 AM
FOX News and The Associated Press


http://i.imgur.com/UIeQtaA.jpg

Nine of the 12 jurors in the Colorado theater shooting trial wanted to execute James Holmes, but one was steadfastly against the death penalty and two others wavering, a juror told reporters after the verdict was announced.

Because the 12 jurors failed to unanimously agree that Holmes should be executed, he will be sentenced to life in prison without parole for the 2012 attack on a midnight screening of a Batman movie in Aurora that also left 70 injured.

"Mental illness played into the decision more than anything else," said the woman, who would not give her name. "All the jurors feel so much empathy for the victims. It's a tragedy."

The verdict came as a surprise. The same jury rejected Holmes' insanity defense, finding him capable of understanding right from wrong when he carried out the attack. It also quickly determined the heinousness of Holmes' crimes outweighed his mental illness in a prior step that brought them closer to the death penalty.

There were gasps and tears in the courtroom as the verdict was read. One man from the victim side got up and stormed out after the first one.

Bob and Arlene Holmes stood up with their son, arms around each other, and as the judge read the verdicts, she put her head down and started crying.

Holmes himself stood staring straight ahead as the verdicts were read, showing little emotion, but when he returned to his seat he leaned over to defense attorney Tamara Brady, grabbed her hand with a smile, and said "thank you."

Loud sobbing could be heard from the family section, where some sat with their heads in their hands.

The courtroom was also full of first responders, including Aurora police department officers -- some of whom cried along with the families as the verdicts were read.

Sandy Phillips, whose daughter Jessica Ghawi was killed by Holmes, shook her head no and then held it in her hands.

Ashley Moser, whose 6-year-old daughter died in the attack and who was herself paralyzed by Holmes' bullets, also shook her head and then slowly leaned it against the wheelchair of another paralyzed victim, Caleb Medley.

The sentencing hearing was scheduled for August 24, 25 and 26.

The defense had argued that Holmes' schizophrenia led to a psychotic break, and that powerful delusions drove him to carry out one of the nation's deadliest mass shootings. At least one juror agreed — a verdict of death must be unanimous.

Jurors deliberated for about six and a half hours over two days before deciding on Holmes' sentence.

They reached their decision after the judge granted their request earlier Friday to re-watch a graphic crime scene video taken immediately after the massacre. The 45 minutes of footage, played during the trial, shows 10 bodies lying amid spent shell casings, popcorn and blood.

There was never any question during the grueling, four-month trial as to whether Holmes was the killer. Holmes meekly surrendered outside the theater, where police found him clad head-to-toe in combat gear.

The trial hinged instead on the question of whether a mentally ill person should be held legally and morally culpable for an act of unspeakable violence.

It took jurors only about 12 hours of deliberations to decide the first part — they rejected his insanity defense and found him guilty of 165 felony counts.

The defense then conceded his guilt, but insisted during the sentencing phase that his crimes were caused by the psychotic breakdown of a mentally ill young man, reducing his moral culpability and making a life sentence appropriate.

The jury's final decision came after days of tearful testimony from relatives of the slain.

The case could have ended the same way more than two years ago, when Holmes offered to plead guilty if he could avoid the death penalty. Prosecutors rejected the offer. But the victims and the public might not have ever learned in detail what was behind the shootings had the plea deal been accepted.

The trial provided a rare look inside the mind of a mass shooter. Most are killed by police, kill themselves or plead guilty. By pleading insanity, he dropped his privacy rights and agreed to be examined by court-ordered psychiatrists. Holmes told one that he had been secretly obsessed with thoughts of killing since he was 10.

His parents testified that he seemed a normal, affectionate child who withdrew socially in adolescence and became fascinated with science but did not seem abnormal. Holmes studied neuroscience hoping to understand what was happening to his mind. But it was when he moved from San Diego to Colorado to attend graduate school that his meltdown accelerated.

Holmes flunked out of his prestigious doctoral program at the University of Colorado and broke up with a fellow graduate student, the only girlfriend he'd ever had. He began to buy guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition and scouted out The Century 16 theater complex to learn which auditorium would offer the highest number of victims.

Holmes also constructed an elaborate booby-trap in his apartment a few miles away. It failed to explode, but it was designed to blow up and divert police and firefighters at the precise moment of his calculated attack.

He kept his mounting homicidal thoughts from a university psychiatrist he was seeing. Instead, he described his plans in a notebook that he kept secret until hours before the attack, when he mailed it to the psychiatrist. In it, Holmes diagnosed himself with a litany of mental problems and methodically laid out his plans, even calculating police response times.

Four mental health experts testified that the shooting wouldn't have happened if Holmes weren't severely mentally ill. He was having increasingly palpable delusions that killing others would increase his own self-worth, forensic psychiatrist Jeffrey Metzner said.

Shortly after midnight on July 20, 2012, he slipped into the premiere of "The Dark Knight Rises," stood before the capacity crowd of more than 400 people, threw gas canisters, and then opened fire with a shotgun, assault rifle and semi-automatic pistol.

deebakes
08-08-2015, 04:09 PM
:facepalm:

Hal-9000
08-09-2015, 06:52 AM
stood before the capacity crowd of more than 400 people, threw gas canisters, and then opened fire with a shotgun, assault rifle and semi-automatic pistol

found guilty of 165 felony counts








and ya still don't think this person should pay with his life?

deebakes
08-09-2015, 12:36 PM
apparently not :shrug:

Goofy
08-09-2015, 12:58 PM
stood before the capacity crowd of more than 400 people, threw gas canisters, and then opened fire with a shotgun, assault rifle and semi-automatic pistol

found guilty of 165 felony counts








and ya still don't think this person should pay with his life?

He has rights [-(

HyperV12
08-09-2015, 01:15 PM
He has rights [-(

Yea, the right to a blindfold.

RBP
08-09-2015, 01:50 PM
My opinions have evolved to be generally anti-death penalty. We haven't demonstrated the capacity to manage it wisely. Besides, we have a blind spot for homicide as the only eye-for-an-eye we seem to want. I am not sure why that is.

Hal-9000
08-10-2015, 07:16 PM
My opinions have evolved to be generally anti-death penalty. We haven't demonstrated the capacity to manage it wisely. Besides, we have a blind spot for homicide as the only eye-for-an-eye we seem to want. I am not sure why that is.

I was you, then changed over the other way.

If a person is unequivocally guilty of murder, witnesses, self admission...then why spend money and time to keep him alive? As John Douglas the profiler said - Some people are just wired wrong and can never be fixed.

I'm of the camp that says if people break our most sacred rule (no killing other folks) and are not mentally unfit to understand that rule, they forfeit all previous rights.

RBP
08-10-2015, 07:52 PM
I was you, then changed over the other way.

If a person is unequivocally guilty of murder, witnesses, self admission...then why spend money and time to keep him alive? As John Douglas the profiler said - Some people are just wired wrong and can never be fixed.

I'm of the camp that says if people break our most sacred rule (no killing other folks) and are not mentally unfit to understand that rule, they forfeit all previous rights.

I'm not activist against, and do not begrudge anyone having the opinion I have stepped away from.

The standard has fairly consistently been clear and convincing with aggravating circumstances to warrant the death penalty. But if all cases fit that or your definition, we wouldn't have released hundreds of innocent people off of death row. Many of those sent to death row were convicted with witnesses that lied, self-admissions that was coerced, and exculpatory evidence that was hidden or destroyed. And if our most sacred rule is no killing other folks, then why would we do exactly that?

There is also some racial history tied to the death penalty for southern states. Aggressively perusing death penalties was seen as a substitution for ending lynch mobs - you can check that part yourself and I encourage you to do so. That is partially why the systems are more apt to result in death row in southern states than northern states.

Just explaining my own position, not trying to sway yours.

Hal-9000
08-10-2015, 08:07 PM
Yes and you bring up good points. The sacred rule one caught my eye in particular.

I don't have an answer to that. Maybe sacred isn't the best descriptor for the rule. Most valued? Nope, I'll never get it into a category without it being affected/mirrored on the other side (death penalty).

The death row missteps, bad witnesses, bad science, coerced statements are all real and valid, ongoing reasons not to support the death penalty. I guess the 100 per centers are the only ones that can fall into the 'comfortable' category. Meaning, the people who admit and revel in their crimes.

I wish I still had Douglas's book. He articulates the reasoning behind his support of the death penalty in a concise way.

RBP
08-10-2015, 08:56 PM
Yes and you bring up good points. The sacred rule one caught my eye in particular.

I don't have an answer to that. Maybe sacred isn't the best descriptor for the rule. Most valued? Nope, I'll never get it into a category without it being affected/mirrored on the other side (death penalty).

The death row missteps, bad witnesses, bad science, coerced statements are all real and valid, ongoing reasons not to support the death penalty. I guess the 100 per centers are the only ones that can fall into the 'comfortable' category. Meaning, the people who admit and revel in their crimes.

I wish I still had Douglas's book. He articulates the reasoning behind his support of the death penalty in a concise way.

anything here?
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/54208.John_E_Douglas

Hal-9000
08-11-2015, 12:10 AM
anything here?
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/54208.John_E_Douglas

Looks like three books there, I believe I read Mindhunter. He was the guy who created the FBI profiling unit at Quantico. Had to prove it was legit science. He also got very sick after working nonstop for months trying to catch serial killers. If I'm remembering the correct book (read it years ago), he lists some of his cases and he has worked on almost all of the famous high profile killer cases.

That site has some great quotes, good find :thumbsup:

He's not the most eloquent writer. After reading about some of his cases, as a reader you start to understand that there are two types of people in this world. I recall more than once putting the book down and going - wow, he walked into that (crime scene) and then later caught the person responsible based on forensic evidence, when other police departments had no clue where to start.

RBP
08-11-2015, 12:45 AM
Looks like three books there, I believe I read Mindhunter. He was the guy who created the FBI profiling unit at Quantico. Had to prove it was legit science. He also got very sick after working nonstop for months trying to catch serial killers. If I'm remembering the correct book (read it years ago), he lists some of his cases and he has worked on almost all of the famous high profile killer cases.

That site has some great quotes, good find :thumbsup:

He's not the most eloquent writer. After reading about some of his cases, as a reader you start to understand that there are two types of people in this world. I recall more than once putting the book down and going - wow, he walked into that (crime scene) and then later caught the person responsible based on forensic evidence, when other police departments had no clue where to start.

Malcolm Gladwell wrote a pretty brutal critique of profilers, including Douglas, you might find interesting.


http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/11/12/dangerous-minds

Pony
08-11-2015, 03:13 AM
If they don't keep him separate from the rest of the prison population "life" in prison may not be for very long.

RBP
08-11-2015, 03:18 AM
If they don't keep him separate from the rest of the prison population "life" in prison may not be for very long.

I had that same thought about a guy I was working on helping today. Wow.