Early morning, July 20 - shot rings out in Aurora Colorado

[anitram]

No, how about just mandatory screenings every year for those that choose to own a firearm.

Who is going to pay for these? The government is essentially broke so unless you want the gun owners themselves funding a large scale bureacratic process, not sure how feasible it is.

Furthermore, what if somebody fails? You don't renew their licence but they get to keep their 7 assault rifles?

 

[INDY500]

If such a law were passed in the US, it would be struck down. Any real change in gun ownership policy would require a constitutional amendment.

Or 5 liberal justices appointed by a president who is "so over" a constitution that limits the powers and scope of government.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Yeah, the guns can't be taken away when the permit is

Don't think a mentally ill person is going to stop and say "oops, I can't use this gun because they took my permit away".

 

[financeguy]

If he is deemed to be severely mental ill, for example a paranoid schizophrenic, and if a clear link between the illness and the cause of the shootings is established, then the morally correct punishment is basically zero time in jail and court mandated pyschiatric treatment, followed by carefully controlled release into the community with perhaps a government assisted identity change to lessen the chance of vigilantism.

Unfortunately, this probably won't happen - as a society, we are in the dark ages regarding treatment of severe mental illness. I am looking at this from the point of view of preaching to Americans - Europe really isn't any better, though it's probably more difficult in most countries, to access weaponry of the type that this guy was able to, seemingly with relative ease.

 

[cobl04]

He killed a dozen people and ruined the lives of many more. Mental illness doesn't excuse that, for me.

 

[financeguy]

He killed a dozen people and ruined the lives of many more. Mental illness doesn't excuse that, for me.

Habe you ever considered a career as a tabloid media headline writer?

 

[cobl04]

I hate the tabloids, and I agree the way we care for those with mental illnesses is way behind what it should be, but I don't have sympathy for someone who murdered 12 people in cold blood, I'm sorry.

 

[Diemen]

I hate the tabloids, and I agree the way we care for those with mental illnesses is way behind what it should be, but I don't have sympathy for someone who murdered 12 people in cold blood, I'm sorry.

That's a different scenario than the one financeguy was presenting, though. If fg's hypothetical is accurate, and it was indeed mental illness that caused Holmes to go on this rampage, and the illness is such that it essentially removed his ability to rationally judge right from wrong, then I think it would be difficult to say that he murdered these people "in cold blood."

Granted that's a big if, and this is all a hypothetical outcome as of now. But perhaps the reason we as a society don't care for those with mental illness all that well is due to responses like this, where, even if we're aware that mentall illness played a part, our gut instinct is to forget that and make the "cold-blooded" killer pay, tossing out any attempt at addressing the actual root causes.

 

[Pearl]

From what I understand, sometimes the mentally ill are aware of what they are doing but can't control the madness in their minds. That madness then takes over their rationale and the lose touch with reality. If that was the case with Holmes, then personally I could only wish he had gotten help before whatever illness he might have had ruined him.

 

[financeguy]

I am looking at this from the point of view of preaching to Americans - Europe really isn't any better, though it's probably more difficult in most countries, to access weaponry of the type that this guy was able to, seemingly with relative ease.

Just to clarify, what I meant to post was, I am not looking at this point of view of preaching to Americans, etc.

 

[anitram]

I hate the tabloids, and I agree the way we care for those with mental illnesses is way behind what it should be, but I don't have sympathy for someone who murdered 12 people in cold blood, I'm sorry.

Paranoid schizophrenics don't kill in cold blood. They are deeply, seriously mentally ill.

I had an aunt who was a violent paranoid schizophrenic. She had to attempt suicide 4 times before she succeeded. You have no idea how ill these people are.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

A lot of people, especially the victims' families, insist that the shooter should be given zero media attention.

However, shouldn't there be some focus on Holmes in order to make an attempt to study and understand what's going on in these killers' minds?

This way, we may be able to detect red flags and become more proactive to intervene before someone else does something stupid.

I know I'm really reaching here. But I find it disturbing how "mental health issues" are often placed on the back burner in tragedies like this.

Absolutely we should try and get to the root of what caused this. No argument that alongside the gun control discussion, we also desperately need to talk more about mental illness and the factors that lead people to commit such crimes.

And I do think there can be a way for the media to talk about such an issue. The problem is, with our current media landscape, it won't turn out so well. We'll sensationalize it, it'll seem like if you want attention on a grand scale, this is how you go about doing it. That's not to say I blame the media for people going on rampages-people that messed up in the head would do it no matter what. But I do think that the excessive attention we give criminals in the press doesn't help matters, either-they turn them into celebrities of sorts, and they shouldn't be.

We need to be able to discuss empathy and concern for people who are mentally ill while at the same time making it clear just how horrible any crimes they've committed are. I feel for people who are mentally ill. I do. I think they deserve all the help and therapy and such that they need. But the guy still brutally killed a bunch of innocent people, and he does need to answer for that crime.

Also, for what it's worth, I heard this site mentioned on TV the other night-worth a look if you're interested:
We Are Better Than This

 

[corianderstem]

I think it's important to identify (as best as possible) when mental illness is a factor. I personally don't think it should mean they aren't punished for the crimes they commit, but it should factor in to the punishment given.

Not that I have any idea what the "right" punishment would be - is it like jail that's actually treatment? I don't know. I don't think the death penalty or "lock 'em up and throw away the key" are good options.

 

[notsomadLisa]

What irritates me though, is when someone that is really sane, goes to trial, and they start using the mental illness excuse.

It makes it harder for people with a genuine mental illness.

 

[Dfit00]

I wonder if Holmes will receive the death penalty due to the number of victims murdered.

The death penalty has been so vaguely interpreted and applied, like in the Troy Davis case, in which he supposedly murdered only one man even though he remained innocent, a trial that lasted for over 20 years until he was finally executed.

 

[Angel617]

Who is going to pay for these? The government is essentially broke so unless you want the gun owners themselves funding a large scale bureacratic process, not sure how feasible it is.

Furthermore, what if somebody fails? You don't renew their licence but they get to keep their 7 assault rifles?

The top 10% of income earners will pay for it. They earn more than half of the income in this country every year and are sometimes paying taxes that are actually a much smaller percentage of their gross income than the middle class and lower class. Its time to raise the top tax rate back to 70%, capital gains back to 35% and shut down the BS loopholes the rich use to avoid paying taxes.

In addition, as long as the government is able to effectively borrow money, its never broke. So with increased tax rates on the rich, and continuing borrowing of money, the government has what it needs to mount any number of projects.

Oh and if someone fails their evaluation, they lose their weapons, period, not just their licence.

As someone in here mentioned before, Japan has the right policy on guns.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Oh and if someone fails their evaluation, they lose their weapons, period, not just their licence.

There's no way that type of legislation could ever get passed, not with the political power the NRA has. Can't take a gun out of cold dead hands, or the hands of the mentally ill either.

Not to mention there'd probably be all kinds of lawsuits regarding confiscating personal property. And regarding alleged discrimination against the mentally ill.

 

[notsomadLisa]

I wonder if Holmes will receive the death penalty due to the number of victims murdered.

The death penalty has been so vaguely interpreted and applied, like in the Troy Davis case, in which he supposedly murdered only one man even though he remained innocent, a trial that lasted for over 20 years until he was finally executed.

He better. But I can guaran-fuckin-tee that the trial won't be held here. Just like the OKC bombing, that trial was held in Denver since there's no chance he would have been given a fair trial in OKC, there's no way Holmes is gonna get a fair trial here in Denver.

We've currently got three people on death row in CO last I heard. Most people here are wanting him to get the death penalty with a lot wanting expedited execution.

 

[AchtungBono]

He better. But I can guaran-fuckin-tee that the trial won't be held here. Just like the OKC bombing, that trial was held in Denver since there's no chance he would have been given a fair trial in OKC, there's no way Holmes is gonna get a fair trial here in Denver.

We've currently got three people on death row in CO last I heard. Most people here are wanting him to get the death penalty with a lot wanting expedited execution.

Two questions:

1. Why is he still a "suspect" if he's been already identified as the shooter and the entire world knows he did it and he's guilty? There's no way he's going to be aquitted.....is there?

2. Venue - Apparently there is evidence against him from here to kingdom come so I guess that anywhere he went on trial the outcome would be the same - conviction and death sentence. So what does it matter where the trial is held?

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

he is still called suspect because it's innocent until proven guilty. even though there's loads of people who know he did it, he's still given the same rights as anyone else accused of a crime.

if he's found guilty, then the press can start calling him the shooter rather than just the suspect. until then his lawyers could sue any media outlet for slander.

 

[PhilsFan]

There is no method in the American justice system for measuring how "certain" we are of someone's guilt.

 

[anitram]

Apparently there is evidence against him from here to kingdom come so I guess that anywhere he went on trial the outcome would be the same - conviction and death sentence.

I think it's becoming patently obvious that this was a seriously mentally ill individual - wouldn't be holding my breath for a murder conviction or the death penalty. He'll surely be locked away for the rest of his life, but more likely in a secure psychiatric facility.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

James Holmes' Psychiatrist Was on School's Threat Assessment Team - ABC News

No further action was taken because he left the school, and they are only responsible for the school. If you leave the school aren't you still a possible threat to the general population? Uh, yes. So maybe take it beyond that.

 

[corianderstem]

I heard something interesting on the news the other day - I think I have this right.

If he is found to be "not sane," it won't even go to trial. Apparently the unusual part is that the burden of proof is on the state of CO - they have to show that the suspect IS sane and able to stand trial. His attorneys don't have to prove that he's NOT sane.

I thought that was interesting.

 

[Steved1998]

Who cares if he's mentally ill, the deed is done. FRY HIM!

 

[yolland]

James Holmes' Psychiatrist Was on School's Threat Assessment Team - ABC News

No further action was taken because he left the school, and they are only responsible for the school. If you leave the school aren't you still a possible threat to the general population? Uh, yes. So maybe take it beyond that.

Assuming what these anonymous sources had to say was true, I'd find it hard to believe this was just a matter of the involved faculty basically shrugging "Oh well, out of sight out of mind"--after all, a potentially violent student who withdraws could just as easily return to campus to commit violence as go somewhere else, and they would've been well aware of that. More likely they (rightly or wrongly) believed that whatever evidence they had--and we have absolutely no idea what the nature of it might've been--didn't meet the standards prescribed by Colorado law for involuntary commitment and/or forcible detention for further evaluation. By contrast, if we're talking them in their capacity as university officials imposing certain treatment-related conditions on his status as a student, often the bar there is considerably lower (though universities can be, and not infrequently are, sued for discrimination against mentally ill students for doing so).

I think it's becoming patently obvious that this was a seriously mentally ill individual - wouldn't be holding my breath for a murder conviction or the death penalty. He'll surely be locked away for the rest of his life, but more likely in a secure psychiatric facility.

What do you think of the argument that his seemingly meticulous planning (granted, the alleged 'notebook' evidence might get thrown out) poses major problems for an insanity defense? I've seen numerous quotes both supporting and attacking that argument from CO-based purported experts, and I really have no idea what to think.

 

[corianderstem]

I don't get that - can't someone who has a mental illness (say, schizophrenia) plan things? Could he be declared "sane" even if he has an actual diagnosis? Does having planned this attack automatically mean he will meet the legal definition of sane, despite a mental illness that effects one's thinking, judgment and actions?

(I suppose that's my own poor showing there - I obviously automatically equated "insanity" with "mental illness." Way to keep the stigma going, cori!)

Anyway! But I am curious about the question in my first rambling paragraph.

 

[anitram]

What do you think of the argument that his seemingly meticulous planning (granted, the alleged 'notebook' evidence might get thrown out) poses major problems for an insanity defense? I've seen numerous quotes both supporting and attacking that argument from CO-based purported experts, and I really have no idea what to think.

I think that's probably a question for the psychiatrists who would be familiar with his diagnosis.

I can tell you, however, from having a severely mentally ill relative (an aunt was a paranoid schizophrenic) that to me this doesn't really raise eyebrows. My aunt was capable of planning out her suicide attempts meticulously (including scoping out public buildings which had unrestricted access to the roof), and though she did fail on several occasions, she eventually succeeded. She also managed to travel extensively through southern Europe and northern Africa all the while being off her meds - keep in mind this involved purchasing train or plane tickets, sometimes obtaining entry visas, etc. You have to remember that these people function on a premise of voices in their heads instructing them on what to do and sometimes those voices can be extremely lucid and sensical. Obviously I don't know if he would share that diagnosis but if he did, I could buy that the planning isn't necessarily a counter-indicator.

 

[maycocksean]

^Agreed. My brother has schizophrenia and even when he was off his meds and really out of touch with reality he was still one of the smartest people I know.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

What do you think of the argument that his seemingly meticulous planning (granted, the alleged 'notebook' evidence might get thrown out) poses major problems for an insanity defense? I've seen numerous quotes both supporting and attacking that argument from CO-based purported experts, and I really have no idea what to think.

Yeah, I've seen that debate occur in quite a few murder trials. It's a very interesting discussion.

I can see where people think that if you're able to plot out every detail of a crime that clearly means you have some level of sanity-you're aware of what you're doing, you're thinking logically, etc.

But then again, I'd argue that the fact that someone is obsessively plotting out something as horrific as a mass murder suggests something is clearly off with their brain to begin with, 'cause, y'know, most people don't spend their lives plotting such things. Most mentally ill people also do not commit violent crimes, so I think with someone who does, there's something deeper there with them, something that goes beyond your typical mental illness into an insane state of some kind. If that makes sense (and hopefully I'm not stepping on any toes here with that. If I'm wrong in my assumptions, please, anyone, feel free to correct me).

Cori's question is a good one, I'd be interested in the answer to that, too. Personally, I'd honestly be surprised if he were found to be sane, mainly because I think most people will see this whole situation in pretty black and white terms.