Justice for Jim Holmes

oldsoldier wrote: Just a simple thought that you have after you see a part of society try and 'justify' the actions of one individual who truely commits an act of violence towards his fellow man, and then the legal games begin to find any cause but the true nature of the crime. Constitutionally he has the right of fair trial, that is given, but does he truely get judged by a jury of his peers? Because normal members of a jury can not fashion or concieve a thought as he did to commit these acts. It was not a spontainious act, it was a well planned out exercise in violence directed toward innocent members of our society. As stated the 'victims' of this exercise in violence will soon be forgotten and not the prime focus of the 'trial', it will be how our society failed Mr. Holmes. That is how our system of justice has mutated into a form unrecognizable to what the Penal Law was devised to accomplish. Our system will now spend near $1million to protect his rights and he spent $.49 to violate each of his victimes rights, and 12 can no longer defend themselves in a court of law, nor see justice prevail. There are just times where civilized man needs to thin the herd, and having worked law enforcement, my inner most being would see no problem having him tried by a real jury of his peers, on the prison yard, where he can defend his actions to those who, as he, have no problem violating the rights of others. Not that I am advocating it is right, but I think we all know what the outcome of this potential media driven 'trial' is going to be. Not guilty due to mental illness, and we will coddle this man in some mental institution, be it for life, while the victims families also live in some form of 'prison' within thier minds, always asking why. Closure sometimes mends more than what society tends to call justice. If one of my kids were killed or injured in this scenario, a hilltop, a .418, and Mr. Holmes in the rec yard....nough said.

State sponsored murder does not create closure. Ever read The Executioner's Song?

Has anyone said anything to the contrary?

A defense of insanity supposes that the perpetrator was incapable of appreciating the nature or quality of his actions. You don't get off scott free simply for being nuts- you have to be so nuts that you're unable to understand that what you're doing is wrong.

choopie911 wrote: brihard wrote: A defense of insanity supposes that the perpetrator was incapable of appreciating the nature or quality of his actions. You don't get off scott free simply for being nuts- you have to be so nuts that you're unable to understand that what you're doing is wrong. You do not typically see that in crimes demonstrating this much deliberation and planning. You see it when someone decapitates someone on a bus and eats some of it.