Verdict reached in theatre shootings case in Colorado
16 Jul 2015, 5:10 pm
A verdict has been reached and will be read at 1615 local time (2215 UTC), which is 5 minutes away.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
16 Jul 2015, 5:18 pm
Verdict: GUILTY of first-degree murder charges. Some convictions are of "murder in the first-degree: extreme indifference." Jury rejects insanity defense.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
16 Jul 2015, 7:51 pm
blauSamstag wrote:
He's obviously insane but that doesn't mean he's not dangerous and/or didn't know what he was doing.
And it's not like we have a system for the criminally insane anyway. Other than the regular penal system i mean.
And it's not like we have a system for the criminally insane anyway. Other than the regular penal system i mean.
According to the jury, he was NOT insane at the time he shot up the movie theatre.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
16 Jul 2015, 7:56 pm
beneficii wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
He's obviously insane but that doesn't mean he's not dangerous and/or didn't know what he was doing.
And it's not like we have a system for the criminally insane anyway. Other than the regular penal system i mean.
And it's not like we have a system for the criminally insane anyway. Other than the regular penal system i mean.
According to the jury, he was NOT insane at the time he shot up the movie theatre.
The insanity defense isn't as cut and dried as it sounds.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... story.html
16 Jul 2015, 8:03 pm
beneficii wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
He's obviously insane but that doesn't mean he's not dangerous and/or didn't know what he was doing.
And it's not like we have a system for the criminally insane anyway. Other than the regular penal system i mean.
And it's not like we have a system for the criminally insane anyway. Other than the regular penal system i mean.
According to the jury, he was NOT insane at the time he shot up the movie theatre.
"Legally insane", and "clinically insane", are not the same thing. Not that the two categories are mutually exclusive, but they aren't the same.
To be legally insane you have to be mentally impaired in a way that you don't know right from wrong. If you're psychotic, but know that what you're doing is wrong then you're not "legally insane".
Or that's the theory.
To do what he did he would pretty much have to be "clinically insane". But he still might have known that what he was doing was wrong. So he would not necessarily be "legally insane".
16 Jul 2015, 8:04 pm
blauSamstag wrote:
beneficii wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
He's obviously insane but that doesn't mean he's not dangerous and/or didn't know what he was doing.
And it's not like we have a system for the criminally insane anyway. Other than the regular penal system i mean.
And it's not like we have a system for the criminally insane anyway. Other than the regular penal system i mean.
According to the jury, he was NOT insane at the time he shot up the movie theatre.
The insanity defense isn't as cut and dried as it sounds.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... story.html
You said he was "obviously insane." The jury disagreed, so it's hard to see how his insanity was obvious.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
16 Jul 2015, 8:06 pm
naturalplastic wrote:
beneficii wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
He's obviously insane but that doesn't mean he's not dangerous and/or didn't know what he was doing.
And it's not like we have a system for the criminally insane anyway. Other than the regular penal system i mean.
And it's not like we have a system for the criminally insane anyway. Other than the regular penal system i mean.
According to the jury, he was NOT insane at the time he shot up the movie theatre.
"Legally insane", and "clinically insane", are not the same thing. Not that the two categories are mutually exclusive, but they aren't the same.
To be legally insane you have to be mentally impaired in a way that you don't know right from wrong. If you're psychotic, but know that what you're doing is wrong then you're not "legally insane".
Or that's the theory.
To do what he did he would pretty much have to be "clinically insane". But he still might have known that what he was doing was wrong. So he would not necessarily be "legally insane".
Why in this thread, about a criminal case in which an insanity plea was made, would we use any definition of insanity other than the legal definition? Wouldn't that put us in danger of making the fallacy of equivocation?
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
16 Jul 2015, 8:12 pm
beneficii wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
beneficii wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
He's obviously insane but that doesn't mean he's not dangerous and/or didn't know what he was doing.
And it's not like we have a system for the criminally insane anyway. Other than the regular penal system i mean.
And it's not like we have a system for the criminally insane anyway. Other than the regular penal system i mean.
According to the jury, he was NOT insane at the time he shot up the movie theatre.
"Legally insane", and "clinically insane", are not the same thing. Not that the two categories are mutually exclusive, but they aren't the same.
To be legally insane you have to be mentally impaired in a way that you don't know right from wrong. If you're psychotic, but know that what you're doing is wrong then you're not "legally insane".
Or that's the theory.
To do what he did he would pretty much have to be "clinically insane". But he still might have known that what he was doing was wrong. So he would not necessarily be "legally insane".
Why in this thread, about a criminal case in which an insanity plea was made, would we use any definition of insanity other than the legal definition? Wouldn't that put us in danger of making the fallacy of equivocation?
Like i said it's not that simple.
But what is simple is that the jury didn't buy it.
Whether that'll hold up in appeals is another question.
This is probably just his first round.
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
16 Jul 2015, 8:19 pm
I don't know about Holmes, we never really heard from him. I think Jared Loughner was clearly insane, they had to get a court order to medicate him "for his own safety" in order for him to be competent enough to plead guilty. I'm not sure how I feel about it, I've actually had a family member murdered by someone that got off pleading insanity and got out in less than 5 years probably, they said he was already "remission" at the trial actually. This was in the 70s long before I was born FWIW, cases like that were the reason why they've made the insanity plea a lot harder or even got rid of it entirely. You can be insane and guilty, everybody should be accountable for their actions and when you murder somebody then you should never be able to be free to go free and have a life and kids.
16 Jul 2015, 9:24 pm
Jacoby wrote:
I don't know about Holmes, we never really heard from him. I think Jared Loughner was clearly insane, they had to get a court order to medicate him "for his own safety" in order for him to be competent enough to plead guilty. I'm not sure how I feel about it, I've actually had a family member murdered by someone that got off pleading insanity and got out in less than 5 years probably, they said he was already "remission" at the trial actually. This was in the 70s long before I was born FWIW, cases like that were the reason why they've made the insanity plea a lot harder or even got rid of it entirely. You can be insane and guilty, everybody should be accountable for their actions and when you murder somebody then you should never be able to be free to go free and have a life and kids.
Holmes doesn't appear to be right in the head. For example when someone asked him why he dyed his hair that color, he said it was to be "like the joker".
The joker's hair is not orange.
I don't think he has a clear perception of reality. I'm no doctor but he sounds to me like he has schizoid features.
http://www.denverpost.com/theater-shoot ... -testimony
16 Jul 2015, 9:34 pm
beneficii wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
beneficii wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
He's obviously insane but that doesn't mean he's not dangerous and/or didn't know what he was doing.
And it's not like we have a system for the criminally insane anyway. Other than the regular penal system i mean.
And it's not like we have a system for the criminally insane anyway. Other than the regular penal system i mean.
According to the jury, he was NOT insane at the time he shot up the movie theatre.
"Legally insane", and "clinically insane", are not the same thing. Not that the two categories are mutually exclusive, but they aren't the same.
To be legally insane you have to be mentally impaired in a way that you don't know right from wrong. If you're psychotic, but know that what you're doing is wrong then you're not "legally insane".
Or that's the theory.
To do what he did he would pretty much have to be "clinically insane". But he still might have known that what he was doing was wrong. So he would not necessarily be "legally insane".
Why in this thread, about a criminal case in which an insanity plea was made, would we use any definition of insanity other than the legal definition? Wouldn't that put us in danger of making the fallacy of equivocation?
Why do you ask a dumb irrelevant question like this?
That's a serious question.
Why did you post this when you know the answer is:
That there is a difference between different kinds of insane, and maybe you didn't know that there was difference.
I was simply making the point that "insane" people aren't necessarily "legally insane", and vice versa to clarify the issue.
Folks who are sane can use the "temporary insanity" defense (crimes of passion-finding your spouse cheating).
Holmes could have been "insane" without being "legally insane".
Last edited by naturalplastic on 16 Jul 2015, 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
16 Jul 2015, 9:35 pm
blauSamstag wrote:
beneficii wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
beneficii wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
He's obviously insane but that doesn't mean he's not dangerous and/or didn't know what he was doing.
And it's not like we have a system for the criminally insane anyway. Other than the regular penal system i mean.
And it's not like we have a system for the criminally insane anyway. Other than the regular penal system i mean.
According to the jury, he was NOT insane at the time he shot up the movie theatre.
"Legally insane", and "clinically insane", are not the same thing. Not that the two categories are mutually exclusive, but they aren't the same.
To be legally insane you have to be mentally impaired in a way that you don't know right from wrong. If you're psychotic, but know that what you're doing is wrong then you're not "legally insane".
Or that's the theory.
To do what he did he would pretty much have to be "clinically insane". But he still might have known that what he was doing was wrong. So he would not necessarily be "legally insane".
Why in this thread, about a criminal case in which an insanity plea was made, would we use any definition of insanity other than the legal definition? Wouldn't that put us in danger of making the fallacy of equivocation?
Like i said it's not that simple.
But what is simple is that the jury didn't buy it.
Whether that'll hold up in appeals is another question.
This is probably just his first round.
And this too.
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
16 Jul 2015, 9:58 pm
Jacoby wrote:
Holmes is clearly guilty in my opinion, it wasn't an impulse but a plan that he spent a lot time forming. Hair does not make a crazy person, there has to be more than that. Obviously, I don't think he's well but he's still guilty.
No, the hair is just an anecdote. But everyone who has spoken to him seems to think he's more than a little off.
16 Jul 2015, 10:03 pm
naturalplastic wrote:
beneficii wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
beneficii wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
He's obviously insane but that doesn't mean he's not dangerous and/or didn't know what he was doing.
And it's not like we have a system for the criminally insane anyway. Other than the regular penal system i mean.
And it's not like we have a system for the criminally insane anyway. Other than the regular penal system i mean.
According to the jury, he was NOT insane at the time he shot up the movie theatre.
"Legally insane", and "clinically insane", are not the same thing. Not that the two categories are mutually exclusive, but they aren't the same.
To be legally insane you have to be mentally impaired in a way that you don't know right from wrong. If you're psychotic, but know that what you're doing is wrong then you're not "legally insane".
Or that's the theory.
To do what he did he would pretty much have to be "clinically insane". But he still might have known that what he was doing was wrong. So he would not necessarily be "legally insane".
Why in this thread, about a criminal case in which an insanity plea was made, would we use any definition of insanity other than the legal definition? Wouldn't that put us in danger of making the fallacy of equivocation?
Why do you ask a dumb irrelevant question like this?
That's a serious question.
Why did you post this when you know the answer is:
That there is a difference between different kinds of insane, and maybe you didn't know that there was difference.
I was simply making the point that "insane" people aren't necessarily "legally insane", and vice versa to clarify the issue.
Folks who are sane can use the "temporary insanity" defense (crimes of passion-finding your spouse cheating).
Holmes could have been "insane" without being "legally insane".
The term insanity is no longer used in a clinical context:
Quote:
That word, of course, is “insanity.” I am sure it would come as no surprise to most of you that, in 2004, insanity is considered a legal term. The Concise Medical Dictionary declares that insanity refers to, “A degree of mental illness such that the affected individual is not responsible for his actions or is not capable of entering into a legal contract. The term is a legal rather than a medical one.”11 Similar definitions can be found in other standard medical dictionaries as well as in dictionaries that are compiled for the general public. The more scholarly of these publications occasionally mention that the term once had a medical meaning, but quickly point out that such usage is obsolete. Legal dictionaries contain no such disclaimer. They embrace the word with little or no comment about its origins and often provide voluminous lists of cases and legislative pronouncements in which the meaning of insanity is made manifest.12–14
http://www.jaapl.org/content/33/2/252.f ... type=HWCIT
Nowadays, more specific terms are used in clinical practice. Insanity, in medicine, is an outdated and vague term.
So, pray tell, why would someone in this kind of conversation, about a criminal case in which the defendant made a plea of insanity, want to use the word insanity in any defintion other than the legal one, instead of more specific and up-to-date terms like severe mental illness, schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar diorder, or mania?
IMO, there is no good reason, and the only thing that can come out of it is confusion as to what definition of insanity you are using at a particular point in a particular post. It does no good to have 2 definitions of the same word being used interchangeably in a discussion; it can only confuse things. It can also lead to the fallacy of equivocation.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| School bus assault by aide in Colorado |
15 Apr 2024, 1:59 pm |
| SCOTUS Begins Hearing Arguments In OR Homelessness Case |
22 Apr 2024, 6:59 pm |
| Judge tosses out Trump's Georgia election interference case |
13 Mar 2024, 11:48 am |
