http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/20/colorado-theater-shooting-trial/22068585/
James Holmes is just now being put on trial for the massacre at the Aurora movie theater in Colorado in 2012. He is being charged with the murder of 12 people and faces either life in prison or the death penalty. The prosecutor is trying to get the sentence to be death but the mans parents insist he is insane and doesn't deserve it. He is pleading insanity to get a lighter sentence but it is widely believed that the plea will have little effect on the 12 jurors. The trial is expected to be very lengthy and possibly last into October.
I was actually really surprised to see this pop back up because the actual event took place so long ago. I personally think this is a very tricky subject because there is not only constant debate as to whether or not the death penalty is constitutionally legal, but also the debate if insanity is a valid plea and if so, does it excuse certain crimes. I mean killing 12 people is an awful crime by anyone's standards and should obviously be punished no matter what the person has to say but to what degree should said person be punished? On one hand the person is a menace to society and his death would perhaps "pay" for the crimes, but on the other hand how does adding another person to the body count help anyone? Not to mention the poor jurors who will have to deal with all the court time. The deed of carrying out justice has been a part of American society since its very founding and well known cases like Miranda vs. Madison and Roe vs. Wade show us how the courts function even today.
Well if he continues to live in a prison or asylum then he is not working or benefiting the economy and American tax payers are paying for his meals and housing etc. and i do not know about you but most americans do not wanna pay for a 12 time murderer to eat three meals a day and not work etc. so in that regard the death penalty makes sense its not that killing him benefits us as much as it costs us money as taxpayers to restrict his freedoms but allow him to live
ReplyDeleteBut then again - by saying that American tax-payers are really going to be effected by another person in prison is a little dramatic, as there are so very many people that are supported already. Adding one more does not increase taxes all that much, however, saying that that very thing excuses another execution is essentially killing that person, because by agreeing and justifying the fact that we have the right to kill another being, one makes it 'okay,' and makes those carrying out the decisions feel better about taking another person's life.
ReplyDeleteBut does that really help? As you said Harrison, it's just adding another to the 'body count', and allowing for more of the same crime committed occur within our system - 'legally'.
- Sophia Davison
Sorry - long rant
ReplyDelete- Sophia Davison
To add to what Sophia said, the criminal justice system is incredibly flawed and many people who were put to death have later been found to be innocent so while I'm not happy about him essentially living for free off taxpayer dollars either and while this is not the case in this instance, using the death penalty freely makes it easier for that to happen. Also, if you are so upset about taxpayer money being wasted on prisoners you should look at the US's incarceration rates and the stupid reasons some people end up in prison and the amount of innocent people in prison and the long term sentences for low level crimes before you talk about this one person.
ReplyDelete