James Holmes and the Insanity Plea - Inconsistent Reasoning

James Holmes; the celebrated movie theater killer of 2 years ago; is set to go on trial after much delay. His delays and tests; along with the quest to have the trial moved elsewhere, have a ll failed and he is now on trial for his life. Let me be clear on this point; I am for the death penalty. But I am aghast at the way this case is being manipulated to prove that Mr. Holmes is sane enough to go on trial for his life.

Examine the facts; in addition to what he did in that theater, which is clearly beyond sane as he had no real motive; he is now tethered to the floor of the courtroom where he is being tried as sane. Does this make any sense?

I refer to a post on this which I did about 2 years ago at the time of Mr. Holmes arraignment. In short, I am for killing Mr. Holmes, but I am against the charade which would have us believe that this man is sane. I just want to call a spade a spade. Here is that post;

Much has been written of late concerning the use of the Insanity Plea as a defense in general and, in particular, in the case of James Holmes.  Holmes is the young man accused of multiple homicides in the shooting at a midnight showing of 'The Dark Knight Rises' in Colorado, which resulted in 12 people being killed and another 59 wounded. Police say the suspect acted alone and had no prior criminal record or ties to terrorism. He had, though, been under the care of a Mental Health professional at the time, and his case was reviewed, at the direction of his doctor, by a crisis management team just days before the killings took place.

Now the deed is done, and the Monday morning “Quarterbacking” has begun in earnest. The talking heads on my TV all say that the Insanity Plea is a dead end, as Mr. Holmes clearly planned this attack beforehand. This line of thinking, in determining whether Mr. Holmes is sane or not, is like comparing an orange to a watermelon. It makes no sense.

If, for example, I were to plan a murder for profit; and then say I was crazy; that would be a ridiculous plea, which would carry no merit. I would, in that case, be “crazy as a fox.” Obviously my crime would have had a criminal purpose; I was driven by greed. But what about the Holmes case? Let’s take a look at it.

Here’s a young man; with known mental difficulties; whose own doctor even questioned whether or not he was a danger to himself and others. He has planned, in meticulous detail, a crime too heinous to imagine. And then he actually carries it out, resulting in the deaths and injuries mentioned above. He hopes to gain no profit from his act. He doesn’t even have a sense of reality about the whole event; he even asked a deputy, after the shooting, how the film ended.

When considering an Insanity Plea, the question is not whether we believe that the subject was capable of premeditation in the crime for which they stand accused; the real question is how sane was the plan to begin with. What possible gain was there for Mr. Holmes to attain, even if he had gotten away with the crime? The answer is patently obvious. There was no gain, no real motive other than to commit the crime. That’s insane. Just like the guy who contemplates whether or not he can fly by jumping off the roof, he’s clearly insane.

Is this a plea to spare Mr. Holmes life? Not a chance. I believe in the death penalty. I just believe in being honest with ourselves about why we execute people when we do. The law says we do not execute people who are insane. So, in order to execute Mr. Holmes, he must be found to be sane.

No matter how much we kid ourselves to the contrary, Mr. Holmes is damaged, and likely will never be “fixed”. I mourn for the families of those who lost loved ones by his actions. If he is found guilty, I support the application of the death penalty for his crimes. Just don’t expect me to believe that he is sane.

Inconsistent Reasoning and Patriotism - Keeping America Safe?

I do not do politics here. I do, however, engage in examination of the various things I see and hear, for consistency. Let us examine the current flap over the Defense of the Terrorists in our Civilian Courts. While not wholly against the premise, I am outraged by the misinformation and distortion of history as provided by both sides in the debate.

In 1770 the American colonies were spoiling for war. The Boston Tea Party had already happened. The Boston Massacre had taken place and the trial of the British soldiers responsible, including the Captain who gave the order to fire, was underway. John Adams, one of our noted Founding Fathers would defend them. All but 2 were acquitted, the Captain included. Mr. Adams called it “…one of the most gallant, generous …..and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country.”

This past week many analogies have surfaced telling us that this was a glorious moment in American history which showcases the need to defend terrorism suspects in our Civilian Courts. While I am not in total disagreement with this, I must point out the inaccuracies of the argument. I can’t help it. I have to set the record straight.

In 1770 there was no America. Just a colony under English law. The court in which Mr. Adams tried his defendants was an English court. America would not have her own independent courts until after 1776, and officially not until after the Revolution had ended in 1781 at Yorktown. During the Revolution, Military Tribunals were the norm in dealing with enemy combatants, when warranted.

As for Mr. Adams having done “one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country”, let us examine this phrase.

The country he was serving at the time was England. The result of his defense was that 7 out of the 9 accused in the massacre, including the Captain who ordered it, were set free. In other words, Mr. Adams helped to free, in an English Court, the English soldiers who had massacred his neighbors.

And yet this episode is being held aloft as the reason why we must defend the terrorists in our courts with lawyers from the Justice Department, even while not knowing who they are and who their previous business dealings have involved.

If this sounds harsh, consider this. In 1770 the American colonies were, as I have stated earlier, spoiling for a fight. What better way to bring it to a boil than by defending and helping to free the soldiers who had murdered the civilians in Boston. Mr. Adams may have had an ulterior motive other than that of rendering “one of the best pieces of service” he ever undertaken for his country. Although undoubtedly a Patriot, his country at the time was England, the same as the Defendants. He was also a son of Samuel Adams, a noted smuggler and enemy of the Crown.

The lesson is clear in the outcome. 7 out of the 9 soldiers who committed sanctioned murder by the Crown that day were freed. Now ask yourself if justice was served. Then apply these lessons of history to the current debate and draw your own conclusions.

My own opinion is that the entire argument is specious and without merit. An apple is being compared to an orange in a grand effort to confuse the public. What do you think?