The jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on the death penalty, so the result was a sentence of life in prison.

I was hoping for a death sentence. If anyone ever deserved it, he did.

Agreed!

I expected the death penalty.

I was hoping for the death penalty too. Why should our tax dollars have to pay to support his kind of evil?

Life in prison is okay with me. If he ever gets out (which I hope not) he'll be very old.

I don't think killing him would be near as barbaric as how he killed and maimed all those people, and I don't think he was mentally ill at all. Even if he is, I really don't want my tax dollars used to support him or others like him. It's like the public is being victimized all over again by having to care for him forever and that money sure could be used for better things, like aid for schools and college.

graywings - you raise a very interesting point, and one I've struggled with myself. I think we can all probably agree that Holmes certainly suffered from some mental malady. Indeed, there's statistical evidence that nearly everyone who engages in criminal behavior suffers from one or more mental disorders (I've read numbers as high as 10:1). But our legal system does not automatically relieve people suffering from mental illness of responsibility for their actions. The standard is - was the individual capable of knowing right from wrong? In Holmes' case, I believe he did know his actions were criminal, evil. For that reason, in this case, I would have been fine with his receiving the death penalty. There are many instances in which I agree that the decision to execute is barbaric - particularly in cases where the individual has the IQ of a 5 year old. That to me is unacceptable and cruel.

hey lukkiirish - I agree with your sentiment that it's difficult to see our tax dollars going to support this individual for the rest of his life. However, as a matter of clarification, it is far more expensive to fund the prosecution of death penalty cases, more expensive to house inmates on death row vs. general population, and the amount spent on funding the appeal process can reach into the multiple millions. I'm not saying that the cost may or may not be worth it, only that it is much more expensive to execute someone vs give them life in prison.

I am with you, Graywings.

Very valid point AJ, thank you.

Up until recent years and especially after having gone through a nightmare of our own, my sentiments regarding the death penalty and the justice system as a whole have really morphed into an area I could never see myself being in. However, with cases like these where there is so much suffering and no question of guilt, I believe execution would have been just and do not loose sleep at night for feeling that way. What I find to be more and more disappointing is that victims of most crimes rarely walk away feeling like they received justice and I suspect that is what many if not all of the victims probably feel here.

You could easily say that anyone who commits mass murder is insane. Yes, he was crazy but he knew exactly what he was doing. For example, the intricate way he rigged his apartment to cause more death and mayhem when anyone came to search. So many lives destroyed. I would say put him down like a rabid dog. No sympathy from me.

He received life in prison without the possibility of parole.

If you were given a choice between spending the next 40 or 50 years until you died of old age in a cage being told what you could do, when you could do it, what to eat, when to exercise and when to sleep, etc, wouldn't you rather die?

I know I would. I'm perfectly fine with life in prison. As someone else already mentioned, if your only arguement is tax dollars than you should be aware that it costs MORE to put someone to death than it does to give a life sentence.

lukkiirish - I'm so sorry your family has been affected by tragedy. I appreciate more your position on this issue having come with that unfortunate first-hand experience. I hope I am never in your shoes.

I suppose the thought of life in prison is bleak, and may be a fate worse than death. But I don't share that opinion. He will still be fed. He will still be able to read books. He'll be able to continue his education, watch tv, see his family. The men, women and children he slaughtered do not have that privilege. Their lives were taken without any due process - unlike Holmes who has received a very fair chance at fighting for his life.

That said, I in no way endorse the current state of the death penalty in this country. It has been proven time and again that -- aside from executing the innocent -- we are executing minorities at a disproportionate rate. We are not using humane methods of execution. Those things need to be addressed, if they can be at all. But from a theoretical standpoint, in a case like Holmes' where there is 100% certainty that he committed the atrocious crimes, no doubt in my mind that he knew what he was doing was wrong, I would have no problem as a juror issuing a death sentence.

I'd rather die than be locked away in a cage, that is for sure. I make sure I don't do anything where I could possibly end up like that, but I have known several people who have been to prison and believe me, they adjust just fine and it is a whole separate culture in there. I can't imagine a worse hell.....however, he will most likely be segregated because even among convicts there is a sense of morality and if he isn't, and even if he is, there is a very good chance that he will receive some type of "justice" and will forever have to be kept separate. Some may see this as cruel. To borrow a much over used phrase......"it is what it is."

AJ- I can certainly understand what you are saying and I agree, the current system does need a major overhaul.

If even one person is wrongly excecuted, that's too many.

I just don't see any justice in taking the life of someone who is not an imminent threat to the safety of others.

I might feel differently if a friend or family member of mine were the victim and to me, that's the problem. It's not justice, its vengenence.

Taking his life doesn't bring back the people he killed, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't serve as a deterrent to others who would commit heinous crimes like this.

So what exactly does it accomplish? It helps people feel better knowing that the person who killed their family also gets killed. But justice should not be about emotions and feelings, it should be about doing what's right.

Thanks AJ and yes, I have to agree with you and you've articulated it perfectly.

What does it accomplish? I would think that it brings closure to the families. and allows them more peace to heal. They don't have to worry that he might get out due to a change in the laws, they don't have to read about him in the news when something happens to him in the prison, they don't have to think about him having a life reading and educating himself or most importantly having a relationship with his family or anyone for that matter. They can focus on healing and keeping the memory of their loved ones alive. Letting go of the anger would be a lot harder to do knowing he was living his life still, because no matter how meagre it may be, it's still more of a life than their loved ones have. And I do think that a person's perspective changes once they experience the "justice system" as a victim.

Texas_Gem: If even one person is wrongly excecuted, that's too many.

Absolutely. For executions, I believe the standard should not be beyond a reasonable doubt, but absolute certainty.

So what exactly does it accomplish? It helps people feel better knowing that the person who killed their family also gets killed. But justice should not be about emotions and feelings, it should be about doing what's right.

To me, the purpose of "justice" is to try and make people whole again. If the family would feel better knowing that the criminal is sentenced to death, I'm OK with that. If it will help them move on from the tragedy, I'm OK with that, too. I think those are proper considerations when determining what is "just" under the circumstances. As for doing what's right - whose right are we talking about? Doing what's right by the criminal or by the victim?

One more comment re: "knowing" that a person will be behind bars for the rest of their lives, isn't always true. I'll point to an example with which I am highly familiar. In 1986, the then-governor of New Mexico, Toney Anaya, as one of his last acts in office, commuted the sentences of five death row inmates to life in prison. He assured the public that the five would never see the light of day. Until one of them did. That is because "life in prison" doesn't necessarily mean "for the life of the convicted." Under the NM law, individuals who were sentenced to "life in prison" and who served at least 30 years, could then petition the parole board for release. A cop killer named Joel Lee Compton met these conditions and first petitioned for parole in 2014, and for a second time in 2015. Although not yet released, the impossible has become possible. And the cop's family has had to dig up those old memories and re-live their harrowing experiences to convince the parole board to deny his release. They described it as being victimized for a second time.

AJ- there is a difference between life and life without the possibility of parole. When Toney Anaya commuted the sentence in 1986, New Mexico did not have LWOP. In 2009 they abolished the death penalty and replaced it with life without parole. A sentence of life can be eligible for parole.

As to closure for the families, there have been studies which have shown that while people think an execution will bring closure, it usually does not. It is one of the reasons that Bill and Denise Richard, who lost a son in the Boston bombings ask that he NOT be given a death sentence.

In giving a death sentence, they and their family will have to go through years of appeals, continually having it drug up instead of being allowed to move on and heal.

Another study followed survivors for years in Minnesota (no death penalty, only LWOP) and Texas (death penalty) and found that people in Minnesota reported better psychological health and more satisfaction with the criminal justice system than those families in Texas who had to go through the appeals process.

As to what's right? I wasn't referring to victims rights or criminals rights but rather what is morally right. IMHO, it is not morally right to end the life of another unless it is to protect your own or others.

I find these situations sad for two reasons. First, there are people running around who have screws loose or otherwise can't live or deal with the world as others can. They unfortunately aren't always identified and/or given the help they need. Second, the availability of guns in our country means that such people have easy access to means of causing great tragedies for innocent victims and their families.

Other than third world countries or places where there's ongoing warfare or civil unrest, no industrialized country has anywhere near the rate of deaths by gunfire that the US has. These incidents can be greatly reduced. The solution is obvious but one we can't seem to bring public opinion around to understanding.

TG: I like talking with you.

I understand there is a difference, the point of the story was only that what you think is certain isn't always so. The Governor or Supreme Court of Colorado may one day decide that it is unconstitutional to forever hold a person in jail, who at age 18 committed a horrible act, but has since rehabilitated himself, for example. Laws change at the whim of a legislature.

I don't know if this happened in the Holmes case, but let's say a psychologist testifies that the accused will always have homicidal ideation and lacks sufficient self restraint. Would that meet your standard of threat to the life of yourself or others? Would you be OK with putting this person in prison where he could kill other inmates or guards? Or are you speaking more to instances where there is an imminent, known threat - an armed home invasion, for example?

And, one last question for you - if you were ever chosen to serve on a jury for a death penalty case, during voir dire would you openly state your opposition to the DP or would you say you could keep an open mind and follow the law?

Snidely - I had a feeling this might eventually lead to a gun debate.

AJ- I was referring to imminent known threat and I do keep weapons in my home for self protection, sorry Snidely.

I feel you are either a lawyer or friends with one, I'm enjoying discussing as well. In voir dire I would openly state my position of being against the death penalty and as such, being in Texas, I would probably be immediately struck.

TG, you caught me. I am one of those dreaded beings. Although I do not practice criminal law, I do enjoy a good discussion about the issues. You likely would be automatically disqualified from serving as a juror on a DP case if you informed the court that you could/would not sentence anyone to death under any circumstances.

So, what's next for James Holmes? Sentencing toward the end of September, then what?

Lol, my best friend is a felony prosecutor, you can imagine the discussions WE have!!! Voir dire gave it away, I don't think I've ever heard someone outside the criminal justice system use the term.

I am not a complete opponent of the death penalty. If I had been on the jury of lukkiirish's husband's physician and the death penalty had been on the table, from what I have read about the case, I would have voted to fry him.

Reducing gun ownership reduces gun deaths and injuries. What's there to debate?

The question is - what kind of society do we want to have to
live in?

Texas, I've lived over 40 years as an adult, there hasn't been a period of 5 seconds in that stretch when I wished I had a gun. Why is it different for you, what do you feel you need protection from?

What's there to debate: maybe this: Violence: the American Way of Life

Does anyone know of an apolitical, non-advocacy source that gives reliable gun statistics? Everything I've found online is so contrived to fit the argument. Does US have more guns than any other country in the world? Absolutely. Does US have more gun deaths than anywhere else in the world? Yes again. But, our murder rate isn't even in the top 100 ranking by country. So does that mean people in other countries just decide to kill by other means? I really would love to find an unbiased resource for information about guns and gun control.

Snidley, I agree with you on a lot of issues, but not the gun debate. My biggest disagreement, make that disappointment with the stated position is that it's as far to the one end of the pendulum as the NRA is to the other end, and I happen to find both positions offensive. You're certainly entitled to your positions and opinions, but really, does it have to be dragged into discussions at every chance? I'd suggest starting a thread and have at it. I'm sure there's polar opposites to join in the the fun.

Ironically, both ends of the (refusal to even discuss or) debate have become clichéd bedfellows in their own way apparently unbeknownst to either. Neither end finds room for debate or discussion so it's not even a topic that can be discussed in a reasonably civil manner, resulting only in rhetorical ranting of the mantras du jour, foot stamping, fist pounding and chest beating. I have to wonder how long before someone would take off a shoe and beat it on the table! LOL I firmly believe there's rational middle ground but both ends have their blinders and earmuffs epoxied on when they should be looking for some common ground if they were sincere in resolving something.

The ultimate irony on this topic IMO? When the pendulum swings far enough it joins the opposite end's territory! All because when emotion comes in, common sense all too often goes out.

I enjoy a good discussion. I enjoy a good debate, even when it gets a little hot as long as people are keeping some common sense. But there's a few topics, including guns, where some are so adamant in their position they can't even allow the possibility for a differing view. Therefore it's not a discussion I care to join. Not intended as a lecture, just a view of my own.

Sorry the post is off topic, but as already said, it's not a surprise the thread went that way. So back to the OT. My humble opinion is too many juries are trying to give justice to society for their personal views of "ill". Give a break to this one because society has (allegedly) been bad to others. Go at this one because they made too much money in their life. I don't believe in punishment "A" so I'll get on the jury and it won't happen. And on and on.

cynic, likewise I enjoy many of your comments while not always agreeing with them. That's what (to me) makes reading them more interesting. If I'm guilty of singing one song repeatedly ("does it have to be dragged into discussions at every chance?"), my reply is that that is unintentional.

I mentioned that perspective because I think discussions concerning how to punish murderers, or discussions about the predictable public shock when each of these (regularly recurring) massacres occur, seem to ignore any thought toward how these events might be prevented. Other countries that don't have widespread gun ownership as we have also don't have frequently occurring gunshot murders and massacre incidents that we have. That's all, I suggested it's a societal choice because one facilitates the others. What happens now is predicable, not shocking.

I also agree with your comment that we all lose with the current popularity of people having polarized, non-discussable opinions. The two major parties are like that now as are far too many people. I believe, and have often said, that both truth and desirable approaches can usually be found somewhere with a compromise to the middle from extreme views on both sides of most topics. It rarely happens anymore.

AJ- your comment just showed up for me but to answer you, I have not been able to find one.

I've tried sifting through the EU and UN reports on crime, violence, murder, etc but frankly, it is a LOT of raw data.

The bottom line is IMHO you can't look purely at gun statistics but rather, overall violent crimes because that's really what the arguement is about isn't it?

I know Switzerland has an extremely high rate of gun ownership due to their laws surrounding every man has to serve etc. but they have lower rates of homicide and other violent crimes than the US.

What's the answer? I don't know but I do suspect that culture has a lot to do with it.

Guns are not legal here, except for hunters. Yet there have been more and more shootings in Toronto in recent years. Every couple of weeks there are shootings, mostly by youths. Smuggled or otherwise bought underground.

TG - I think you have found the true cause of our high crime rate - our culture. This discussion is timely, as I happened across an article on Buzzfeed or some such website where it listed what the state departments of other countries advise when coming to the U.S. While we did receive high marks for being friendly, foreign tourists were warned about robbery, high crime, and an armed US citizenry (one country said don't get in a fight with an American because they are likely to be armed with a gun). I thought to myself, oh please, the United States has to be one of the safest places in the world for tourists. But as I read more about the crime problem here as compared to other countries, I'm starting to see why those warnings are issued.

Jas - I support gun ownership, with limitations. I support background checks, including mental health screening. I support regulation of the type of gun you are permitted to own. I see no need for an AR-15 in the home, for example. These are the weapons that can take out an entire office/classroom/movie theater in a matter of seconds. But, as is true with most things political in America, politicians won't meet in the middle. The only two acceptable views are anybody can own anything or guns should be plainly outlawed. Any politician who strays too far from those party lines is swiftly reprimanded.

I thought this was an interesting comparison:

US State to Country Firepower

Is gun-ownership legal across U.S., or only select states?

Jasdip- ownership is legal and protected by the 2nd amendment to the Constitution.

Each state and some local governments have different restrictions and requirements but the right to keep and bears arms is constitutionally protected nationwide.

As an addendum, some cities, Washington DC and Chicago being the most notable, had handgun bans but the US Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the DC ban was unconstitutional.

Chicago attempted to keep their ban until, once again in 2010 the US Supreme Court ruled that their handgun ban was unconstitutional.

Polarity is a long time thing snidely (your nostalgia is showing ;) But it sounds like you're in good company.

Rob, the Buckley/Gore programs were a wolf in sheep's clothing, entertainment deliberately disguised as news. Both individuals were chosen because they were flamboyant. I heard an interview with producers of the documentary. One commented that the network that put on these shows (maybe ABC) couldn't afford gavel to gavel coverage that the other two (NBC and CBS?) would have, and that they had nothing to lose. It was a Hail Mary pass that worked, and so was a forerunner of false news shows like Crossfire and the whole Fox "News" operation, etc.

And is now deeply entrenched into Americana. Sad!