Colorado Shooting at Dark Knight Rises Opening

[Solkia]

Yeah, we're just trying to keep the guy away from society. Not stoop to, if not beyond, his level.

[The Weeb with No Name]

You know, if these insane murders could somehow be completely rewired into functionally normal human beings, I think I would rather opt for that than lethal vengeance.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Jayhawker30

[-Mark-]

Revenge fantasies like this make me sick, not because it's an inappropriately intense punishment even for this guy's crime (which it is), but because it was conceived by a person who's sane for the sole sake of vengeance toward someone who wasn't. Even if unending mental and physical torture for the rest of your life was a feasible sentence, what end would that serve beyond simple selfish gratification for everyone else? Why make a guy's life hell if he has nothing to learn from it? Nobody CHOOSES to be a psychopath, nobody WANTS to make the world a worse place; all that stands between homicidal lunatics and decent citizens is a healthy upbringing and stable brain chemistry, so why punish a man for the sake of punishment alone? The only reason not every sentence is a life sentence is because most criminals are correctable. And though we can't cure evil yet, we can treat it, so when I see people act like something as primitive and barbaric as " an eye for an eye" is a relevant form of justice for our modern era, I'm really just saddened by it. Only when we accept that incarceration is something a criminal requires and not something one deserves can the penal system actually be used to help people rather than just contain them.

Edited July 23, 2012 by -Mark-

[Stacy]

I'm still skeptical on how effective gun control laws can ultimately be. I don't want to sound like some kind of NRA Second Amendment apologist, but while weapons may not be as easy to smuggle as, say, drugs, people who would use guns to kill are usually the kind of people who would go out of their way to circumvent the law to attain them anyway.

[SuperStingray]

You make a good argument there, actually. I'll admit, I didn't factor in the insane/ psychopath angle. I guess I got caught up under the assumption of people doing bad things knowingly, willingly and completely of their own accord- people like that are certainly out there; not all murderers are off-their-nut psychos, after all.

In those cases, I'll stand by my aforementioned opinion if someone can knowingly and willingly kill somebody in cold blood under perfect sanity. In this case though, I guess it's not quite the same.

But then, where's the line between malicious acts and crazy ones? Similarly, with my previous statement, when does justice become revenge? Aren't they just the same thing from different perspectives? This is why morals are such a tricky topic, because outside of the base obvious, everyone has their own interpretations and limits. Personally, I don't really have enough faith in humanity to believe that the majority of violent criminals can be fixed or reformed. I guess that's why I have such extreme views on punishing them.

Even if a criminal reforms, you can't change the past. A murderer will always be a murderer, regardless of what they might become after that. Become as good a person as you want afterwards, it won't erase previous wrongdoing. This guy could serve his time and become the greatest humanitarian saint the world has ever known. Would that make what he's done now okay?

As much as I might want to, I guess I really struggle with the concept of 'forgive and forget'. I really just can't see the logic behind it. If this man had killed your mother for example, and thirty years from now you ran into him in the street, how would you feel?

Sanity's a rather subjective idea. Any set of actions will seem rational if you understand enough about the person behind them. Again, no one actively TRIES to make the world a worse place; Osama bin Laden wouldn't have gone through with 9/11 if he didn't genuinely believe it was in the world's best interest, and he only believed as much because of his upbringing and basic brain chemistry. Likewise, Holmes probably had a strange, messed-up line of reasoning behind his actions but at the end of the day, accountability is irrelevant because all actions are merely the sum of one's outside influences, and you can't control your influences.

The purpose of justice isn't to avenge the wronged, it's to make sure no one is wronged at all by ensuring that acting upon your id isn't always in your best interest. Of course, laws and sentences need to be set with the assumption that they will be broken; i.e. you can't just give any general punishment to any crime; if you give someone 25 to life for vandalism or 6 months for serial rape and murder, that's as unjust as the crimes in question. The issue with sanity is that people like Holmes are unmoved by the threat of incarceration, so an absolute absence of crime is impossible to guarantee with any reasonable set of laws. All we can do with such people is try to isolate them from society so others can feel safe to go about their daily lives. After that, further harshness is unnecessary because if the role of justice is to protect people from others, gratuitous torment towards transgressors accomplishes nothing towards that goal, and more likely would motivate them to become even more crazy.

I understand why people want to punish such killers so harshly; they believe justice entails a balance of karma, and there's no punishment great enough to balance against unjustly taking a human life. But as far as I'm concerned, nature's already cursed him with a sick mind, so any action beyond the necessity of removing him from society is more than needed.

Edited July 23, 2012 by SuperStingray

[Stacy]

Sanity's a rather subjective idea. Any set of actions will seem rational if you understand enough about the person behind them. Again, no one actively TRIES to make the world a worse place; Osama bin Laden wouldn't have gone through with 9/11 if he didn't genuinely believe it was in the world's best interest, and he only believed as much because of his upbringing and basic brain chemistry. Likewise, Holmes probably had a strange, messed-up line of reasoning behind his actions but at the end of the day, accountability is irrelevant because all actions are merely the sum of one's outside influences, and you can't control your influences.

The purpose of justice isn't to avenge the wronged, it's to make sure no one is wronged at all by ensuring that acting upon your id isn't always in your best interest. Of course, laws and sentences need to be set with the assumption that they will be broken; i.e. you can't just give any general punishment to any crime; if you give someone 25 to life for vandalism or 6 months for serial rape and murder, that's as unjust as the crimes in question. The issue with sanity is that people like Holmes are unmoved by the threat of incarceration, so an absolute absence of crime is impossible to guarantee with any reasonable set of laws. All we can do with such people is try to isolate them from society so others can feel safe to go about their daily lives. After that, further harshness is unnecessary because if the role of justice is to protect people from others, gratuitous torment towards transgressors accomplishes nothing towards that goal, and more likely would motivate them to become even more crazy.

I understand why people want to punish such killers so harshly; they believe justice entails a balance of karma, and there's no punishment great enough to balance against unjustly taking a human life. But as far as I'm concerned, nature's already cursed him with a sick mind, so any action beyond the necessity of removing him from society is more than needed.

I wouldn't say just their upbringing because peoples mindsets can change, not all people stick to what they were raised by.

[Patticus]

I didn't see anyone make the "Eye for an eye" argument.

It seemed to me that the gist of several peoples' posts was "He killed people, so his life should therefore be forfeit," which is exactly an eye for an eye. But perhaps I simply misunderstood..?

You're making the argument that capital punishment is an eye for an eye response to crimes. The words highlighted is why that isn't the case, and why it is never the case.

A man kills several people, and is punished for his actions by being killed. In what way is that not an eye for an eye?

While I do believe gun control should be taken more seriously, the fact that the guy was loaded with highly illegal explosives just goes to show that it wouldn't have made much of a difference either way, in this case.

Do we know yet how he obtained those explosives? Were they illegally made at home, bought legitimately from a gun store, or obtained illegitimately on the black market?

[Tornado]

A man kills several people, and is punished for his actions by being killed. In what way is that not an eye for an eye?

Because executing someone as punishment for the crime of killing a dozen people is not the same thing as killing a dozen people for shits and giggles. Even in Texas, it isn't as if they kill people for the lulz. You outright said having him punished by killing him would be the same thing as when he was punishing the people in the theater. What crime did any of those people do?

What about the people in his apartment, where the goal was to kill whoever was unlucky enough to open his door? What did that person do? We know what he did, and we know why people are calling for the death penalty for him, but if we are truly "sinking down to his level" by killing him, we better figure out the crimes of all of those people first.

And they don't put people on death row for any murder-based crimes besides first degree unless there are extreme outstanding circumstances, so it isn't as if there is a situation where eye for an eye ever fits.

Do we know yet how he obtained those explosives? Were they illegally made at home, bought legitimately from a gun store, or obtained illegitimately on the black market?

You can't buy explosives legitimately from a gun store, unless you want to count gunpowder, which we already know isn't what he used to do this and is pretty far down the list in terms of effective materials to make a bomb out of anyway.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Gilda

[Yoko/葉子]

This jerk needs to be decapitated, remaining organs ripped out, then have all the organs, tendens, cartiledge and flesh tossed in a blender, his cruel over attraction to The Joker would be be given its fair punishment with all the above. (do mean things, mean things happen to you, the killer gave cruelty, and should receive it all back! ∞ fold!)

Needless to say, I feel sad about this would be an understatement.

[Winston]

Just saw Holmes in the live court, he still has the orange color hair. I can tell he's going to plead insanity, just like nearly everyone else does.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Winston

[VO.SUPER]

I want him dead, not for what he did, but what he can do. The past is the past at this point, and petty revenge won't bring those people back. However, I don't trust Holmes; he is far too intelligent, and I fear of what he has planned in the future.

I know it isnt fair to assume such negative things, but it's the same if one were to assume he wouldn't do something disasterous.

[TheGerkuman]

Do people not realise that mentally ill patients a) spend much longer in asylums than most prisoners and b ) get put in much worse conditions. That's why few people attempt it!

Edited July 23, 2012 by Gerkuman

[SuperStingray]

I wouldn't say just their upbringing because peoples mindsets can change, not all people stick to what they were raised by.

I said upbringing AND brain chemistry.

[-Mark-]

A man kills several people, and is punished for his actions by being killed. In what way is that not an eye for an eye?

Because he killed several people. He only has one life. His death =/= the number of deaths he caused. He'd have to be killed multiple times in order for it to be 'an eye for an eye'.

It's not only the lives he took, but the lives of their families and friends that he's ruined. Sane or not, there's literally nothing he can do to redeem himself.

Edited July 23, 2012 by -Mark-

[PaddyFancy]

So death penalty isn't good. Being in prison whilst under constant torture from other prisoners isn't good either. Why are people wanting this 42-carat scumbag to get an easy ride for the terror he undertook?

[Ekaje]

Why do you think that if one does not want to kill him or torture him (which is illegal) means that they want to let him off easy?

Edited July 23, 2012 by Ekaje

[PaddyFancy]

I don't know what prisons are like, but I'm seeing him relaxing in there watching satellite TV with this fellow inmates.

[Stacy]

I don't know what prisons are like, but I'm seeing him relaxing in there watching satellite TV with this fellow inmates.

I would like to think the prison he is going to is not like that, I don't think they are like some of our crappy prisons were its like a summer camp, were the criminals actually prefer to be inside.

I said upbringing AND brain chemistry.

Sorry, I thought you meant they had to have both of these conditions.

[Patticus]

Because he killed several people. He only has one life. His death =/= the number of deaths he caused. He'd have to be killed multiple times in order for it to be 'an eye for an eye'.

He made people die. If he suffers the same thing they did (death), that makes it an eye for an eye. The number of people he killed and their relative innocence doesn't factor into it.

If he had killed a dozen murderers and wounded dozens more, the crime would be the same and the punishment would probably be the same too. Murder is murder, regardless of who carries it out and who the victim is.

[Tornado]

He made people die. If he suffers the same thing they did (death), that makes it an eye for an eye. The number of people he killed and their relative innocence doesn't factor into it.

Yeah it does, or it isn't an eye for an eye.

If he had killed a dozen murderers and wounded dozens more, the crime would be the same and the punishment would probably be the same too. Murder is murder, regardless of who carries it out and who the victim is.

No, that doesn't ring true under any legal system that I know of; since justifiable homicide is absolutely a thing that exists (most commonly, but not always, used under the guise of self-defense). Police officers aren't convicted of murder every time they are forced to kill someone, as an example.

Urm.... yeah...

Before they change the picture... you might wanna take a look at the BBC's homepagefor their photo of the guy in court. For anyone doing media studies at the moment, you'll most likely see the significance of why I point out this particular image.

Or for those who are not doing media studies, to put it another way "out of all the photos they had, they decided to go with that one."

Why... why did they use that? That almost looks like it was Photoshopped to be that bad.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Gilda

[Badnik Mechanic]

Urm.... yeah...

Before they change the picture... you might wanna take a look at the BBC's homepage for their photo of the guy in court. For anyone doing media studies at the moment, you'll most likely see the significance of why I point out this particular image.

Or for those who are not doing media studies, to put it another way "out of all the photos they had, they decided to go with that one."

[TheOcelot]

What we will probably never know is why? What on earth made him act the way he did. Shooting all those people.

[Patticus]

Yeah it does, or it isn't an eye for an eye.

Murder is murder. The life being lost is still a life, regardless of what happened during its existence.

No, that doesn't ring true under any legal system that I know of; since justifiable homicide is absolutely a thing that exists (most commonly, but not always, used under the guise of self-defense). Police officers aren't convicted of murder every time they are forced to kill someone, as an example.

I never said the murderers were trying to kill him, or were in any way hostile. If they were all sitting down enjoying the movie quite peaceably, doing nothing wrong, and he killed a dozen and wounded lots more out of nowhere, it would still be murder, despite any of the victims' past convictions. Or does life suddenly not matter if the person dying has done something you and/or society finds abhorrent?

[Tornado]

What we will probably never know is why? What on earth made him act the way he did. Shooting all those people.

Actually, this is something we probably will end up finding out. The justification/reasoning we may discover for why he did it may be alien to me or you, but the simple fact that they took him alive makes finding out what the "trigger" was (so to speak) fairly likely.

Murder is murder. The life being lost is still a life, regardless of what happened during its existence.

And then we go back to how saying he should just rot in jail is making the exact same judgment.

You also seem to have missed the point of my second bit, because all murder cases are not on in the same nor are they treated as such legally or morally.

I never said the murderers were trying to kill him, or were in any way hostile. If they were all sitting down enjoying the movie quite peaceably, doing nothing wrong, and he killed a dozen and wounded lots more out of nowhere, it would still be murder, despite any of the victims' past convictions.

No, but you did say that punishing him by executing him would bring us down to his level and would be an eye for an eye situation; which ignores the giant pink elephant in the room in that he opened fire on a packed movie theater of innocent people with the blatant intent to kill as many as was necessary (and filled his apartment with explosives apparently so he could divert attention away from the shooting) for whatever he was trying to prove, and killing him because of that isn't the same thing as him killing them for no reason.

Or does life suddenly not matter if the person dying has done something you and/or society finds abhorrent?

Actually, yes. Society has shown time and time again that it does tend to mean that people who do abhorrent things like mass murder, or pedophilia, or rape or whatever are not held to the same standards of value of life as people who do not. I'm not really sure what your point was supposed to be with that.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Gilda

[-Mark-]

He made people die. If he suffers the same thing they did (death), that makes it an eye for an eye. The number of people he killed and their relative innocence doesn't factor into it.

I steal £10 from you. I spend nine of them. You steal £1 back from me.

Guess what, you're £9 down.

Sorry, but the way I see it, a life is worth another life. To say that it's 'the same' if he dies implies that his one life is equal to all the lives he's taken. For it even come close to 'fair', he'd need to die a number of times equal to the number of people he killed. And that's before you even factor in the anguish of family and friends.

If anything, after what he's done, his life is worth less.