Thread: Life in prison at hard labour for Denver shooter Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023322
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on
:
Do you think that the homicidal maniac in Colorado should get life in prison at hard labour? Shouldn't his parents get the same punishment for raising such an evil son? That's what I think. Discuss.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Why do you presume that his parents caused him to do as he did?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Do you think that the homicidal maniac in Colorado should get life in prison at hard labour? Shouldn't his parents get the same punishment for raising such an evil son? That's what I think. Discuss.
I'm sure the Prophet Samuel would agree - it's clearly the fault of the parents when the sons commit evil acts.
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
I'm presuming his is mentally ill.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Ohfergoshsakes. SAMUEL had rotten kids too, but wasn't blamed for them. You'd need pretty clear proof before daring to blame parents.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Ohfergoshsakes. SAMUEL had rotten kids too, but wasn't blamed for them. You'd need pretty clear proof before daring to blame parents.
I take it I'm not the only who's been using the Old Testament readings at Morning Prayer, then?
Posted by chive (# 208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
I'm presuming his is mentally ill.
Yes, because violence and mental illness is always linked. No wonder people with mental illnesses are completely stigmatised. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
Give me a fucking break.I did not say violence and mental illness are always linked. I wonder given the OP whether this discussion is better held it Hell.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Do you think that the homicidal maniac in Colorado should get life in prison at hard labour?
How about we have a trial before we talk about the sentence?
quote:
Shouldn't his parents get the same punishment for raising such an evil son? That's what I think.
Seriously? If one of your kids went off the rails and committed a serious crime, how would you feel about it if people started talking about how much time you should do it prison? How about every time one of your kids gets a traffic ticket you also have to pay the same fine? After all, it must be your fault if they can't obey the law - you raised them.
Posted by catthefat (# 8586) on
:
Only someone who is mentally ill or very disturbed would do such a thing. Might be the parent's fault, or might not.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
i) What RuthW says about the guy that has been arrested. And if he is tried, ensure he's the person who should be standing trial.
ii) Who's to say the person who committed these acts is evil? Can you explain why we should punish the parents too?
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
while parents *fuck you up* (Larkin) - and there is an argument to be made over that -visiting the sins of the children on their parents is as debatable as visiting the sins of the fathers on the sons, which is to say *not at all*
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Do you think that the homicidal maniac in Colorado should get life in prison at hard labor?
The person or persons who did this will probably get the max, whatever that is, under Colorado law if he or they get to trial. All we have right now is a person accused of it.
quote:
Shouldn't his parents get the same punishment for raising such an evil son?
I don't believe my parents should be blamed for what I have done.
Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on
:
If he's really mentally ill he needs treatment, but should probably still spend the rest of his life in an institution.
Even if he isn't, just life in prison without parole. There's no reason whatsoever to use the death penalty on anyone in this country.
As for punishing the parents, that's a really, really evil idea. Punishing family members for the crimes of relatives is what regimes like North Korea do.
[ 20. July 2012, 19:34: Message edited by: Unreformed ]
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
...visiting the sins of the children on their parents is as debatable as visiting the sins of the fathers on the sons, which is to say *not at all*
I was just throwing a point of view out there re: the parents. I am not saying I agreed with it unequivocally ! I do feel that murderers should be housed in the worst of all possible prisons and forced to break rocks or some other sort of extreme hard labour; don't execute them - make them wish they'd never been born instead!
Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
...visiting the sins of the children on their parents is as debatable as visiting the sins of the fathers on the sons, which is to say *not at all*
I was just throwing a point of view out there re: the parents. I am not saying I agreed with it unequivocally ! I do feel that murderers should be housed in the worst of all possible prisons and forced to break rocks or some other sort of extreme hard labour; don't execute them - make them wish they'd never been born instead!
Punishment shouldn't be about revenge or making the life of the accused "miserable", but about protecting others against a dangerously violent person by removing him from society. Prison should certainly be austere, but not psychologically unbearable or needlessly cruel.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Agreed. For a start, it's really stupid to lump all murderers in the same boat. Is the perpetrator of the Colorado shootings on the same moral ground as the wife who endures years of physical abuse, suddenly snaps one day, grabs a kitchen knife that's to hand and kills her abusive spouse? I think not.
To carry on with, I've met more than a few murderers plus people who were party to a death in questionable circumstances. In my judgement, virtually all of them express regret for what they did. About the only exceptions are participants in organised crime.
Prison is debilitating enough as it is without making it needlessly inhumane.
[ 20. July 2012, 20:03: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
Aside from the irrationality of his actions, this photo gives me the impression that he was mentally unstable.
Moo
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Ohfergoshsakes. SAMUEL had rotten kids too, but wasn't blamed for them. You'd need pretty clear proof before daring to blame parents.
God's kids have messed up a lot. Sue Him.
As for the sick dude in question -- he's either evil-sick or crazy-sick, pick one - it may be that a structured lifetime of scheduled activities would be good for him.
'Course if we off 'im, we won't have to pay for his upkeep, and he won't ever hurt anyone again.
Lots of factors to consider.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, lots of factors to consider.
Dare I raise the apparent ease by which people can secure guns in the US as one factor that might be worth considering, too?
(Waits while our US friends gang up to defend the Second Amendment come what may ...)
Posted by chive (# 208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Aside from the irrationality of his actions, this photo gives me the impression that he was mentally unstable.
Moo
Yes, you can tell whether someone has a mental illness from a photo.
I cannot believe how ignorant some people are.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Aside from the irrationality of his actions, this photo gives me the impression that he was mentally unstable.
Moo
Really?
Posted by 205 (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
(Waits while our US friends gang up to defend the Second Amendment come what may ...)
Just this morning my daughter and I concluded about the only hope at this point is for the Government to STRONGLY encourage all the existing sane handgun owners to get their Concealed Carry Permits, practice much with their pistol and then never leave home without them.
A couple of these maniacal homicidal perps being dropped in their tracks before they can squeeze the trigger a second time might have a deterrent effect on future massacres.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Or not. Ever heard of "suicide by cop"?
Posted by chive (# 208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Aside from the irrationality of his actions, this photo gives me the impression that he was mentally unstable.
Moo
Yes, you can tell whether someone has a mental illness from a photo.
I cannot believe how ignorant some people are.
Sorry hosts, I probably reacted too personally in purg. I've started a thread
below.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Ohfergoshsakes. SAMUEL had rotten kids too, but wasn't blamed for them. You'd need pretty clear proof before daring to blame parents.
I take it I'm not the only who's been using the Old Testament readings at Morning Prayer, then?
I'm a Lutheran. I picked the story up the hard way--by reading the book. Unless you're not actually trying to be sarky, in which case I apologize.
[ 20. July 2012, 23:07: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
(Waits while our US friends gang up to defend the Second Amendment come what may ...)
Just this morning my daughter and I concluded about the only hope at this point is for the Government to STRONGLY encourage all the existing sane handgun owners to get their Concealed Carry Permits, practice much with their pistol and then never leave home without them.
A couple of these maniacal homicidal perps being dropped in their tracks before they can squeeze the trigger a second time might have a deterrent effect on future massacres.
Uh-huh. According to the report on the BBC, the alleged gunman was wearing body armour.
I'm far from convinced that a shoot-out in a darkened cinema in these circumstances would have been any less disastrous than what actually happened, and, indeed, could have resulted in more casualties. AIUI, handguns are not very accurate at any significant distances (say from the back of the stalls to the screen) anyway.
But what would I know - as a Brit who cannot own/use a handgun even if he wanted to do so. And we all know how the UK banning of guns has eliminated gun crime!!
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
General deterrence, or sentencing or shooting an evil person to make an example of him/her, has no effect on the behaviour of others. None.
Issues of violence prediction and prevention are very complex, and simple answers will not solve complex questions.
As for parents to blame. I expect occasionally they are blameworthy, but only rarely. I'm thinking of the physician-nurse family I know, with 4 kids. One is a violence criminal, now sentenced to life. The others are professionals and no signs of anything amiss. Again, we cannot explain simply.
May I suggest having a look at [url=http://www.anglicanjournal.com/nc/other/news-items/article/exorcising-evil-lessons-from-the-fatal-shooting-in-taber-493. html]this priest's response to his son being shot to death at a school shooting?[/url]
[ 20. July 2012, 23:19: Message edited by: no_prophet ]
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Dare I raise the apparent ease by which people can secure guns in the US as one factor that might be worth considering, too?
Yes. A few folks with concealed carry may have offed him earlier in his attack.
Posted by Meg the Red (# 11838) on
:
Another opinion on that, Mere Nick.
Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on
:
Remember that everything you are hearing from the media right now is probably 100% wrong in every detail except for the name of the shooter and the number dead. You think I'm kidding, but just remember Columbine and Matthew Shepard to name two examples. It took a year or so for the real story on both those incidents to come out, and they were both very different from what the media said they were. Add Katrina to that list too, actually.
[ 20. July 2012, 23:51: Message edited by: Unreformed ]
Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on
:
I think it is way to early to even be discussing this case. We have a criminal justice system in this country in which the person accused of this crime will be tried by a jury who we can hope will be given all the known correct information on which to make a decision It is not our job or the job of the media to try this case.
Eternal God, in whose perfect kingdom no sword is drawn but the sword of righteousness, no strength known but the strength of love, look down upon all those who morn in Colorado , and embrace them in your tender care.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Remember that everything you are hearing from the media right now is probably 100% wrong in every detail except for the name of the shooter and the number dead. You think I'm kidding, but just remember Columbine and Matthew Shepard to name two examples. It took a year or so for the real story on both those incidents to come out, and they were both very different from what the media said they were. Add Katrina to that list too, actually.
The "real story"??? Pray, enlighten us --
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Do you think that the homicidal maniac in Colorado should get life in prison at hard labour?
Just like Anders Breivik, you mean?...
In other words, the correct sentence depends on precisely just what he's done and why.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
This brief history of the Second Amendment is illuminating. I don't see how we can avoid talking about guns, and gun laws, when we're looking at mass killings happening over, and over, and over again.
Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Remember that everything you are hearing from the media right now is probably 100% wrong in every detail except for the name of the shooter and the number dead. You think I'm kidding, but just remember Columbine and Matthew Shepard to name two examples. It took a year or so for the real story on both those incidents to come out, and they were both very different from what the media said they were. Add Katrina to that list too, actually.
The "real story"??? Pray, enlighten us --
I'll take Columbine as an example since its the most similar to this instance. The perpetrators intended for it to be more of a bombing than a shooting, the perpetrators were not bullied, nor loners, they did not target jocks or "popular kids" (nor, depending on the particular form of urban legend Christians or blacks), they had nothing to do with any "trench coat mafia", and they were not addicted to violent video games.
The media reported the exact opposite of ALL of the above as fact at the time when it was a combination of misrepresentations and urban legends.
Link
here.
The book mentioned in the article is a very good read on this subject.
[ 21. July 2012, 01:38: Message edited by: Unreformed ]
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Do you think that the homicidal maniac in Colorado should get life in prison at hard labour?
How about we have a trial before we talk about the sentence?
Just so, RuthW. Mebbe we should let a few facts come to the light of day, before we let loose our righteous judgement. quote:
Gamaliel throws out the inflammatory bait:
Waits while our US friends gang up to defend the Second Amendment come what may ...
You, sir, are a troll. In fact, an exemplar.
Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on
:
Can't all the gun fetishists and gun control advocates shut their mouths for at least a FEW days before using a tragedy for their favorite political hobby horse?
The former are bothering me more than the latter though, with all this crap:
gun nut on
DUDE IF I WAS THERE, AND HAD A GUN, MAN, I WOULD HAVE BEEN ALL LIKE BOOM BOOM BOOM! PEW PEW PEW! I COULD GET 'EM WITH A HEADSHOT, CAUSE I'M SO MANLY.
/gun nut off
No, you wouldn't. At best, and I'm 99% sure this is what would happen, you'd cry for your mother and then piss your pants at the first shot.
At worst, you'd end up killing or wounding several innocent people while trying to play the hero. Just shut up already.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
The thing that struck me most about this tragedy was that there were children (including a baby who was killed) at the movie for the midnight showing. What sort of irresposible parents would take kids to an M rated movie at that time of night?
Posted by BessHiggs (# 15176) on
:
I thought the same thing, about taking very small children to a midnight movie. Don't mean the parents deserved that horror, but FFS, hire a babysitter.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
I took chasee#1 to movies when she was really small. tiny babies have no real concept of time of day, they often sleep through, and getting babysitters can be tough and expensive.
that being said, movies nowadays are so loud, I'd never bring a baby in. I rarely can stand to bring myself in.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
A couple of these maniacal homicidal perps being dropped in their tracks before they can squeeze the trigger a second time might have a deterrent effect on future massacres.
I think that someone who would not only plan this but carry it out is probably beyond registering realistic consequences to theirself--or caring.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
A couple of these maniacal homicidal perps being dropped in their tracks before they can squeeze the trigger a second time might have a deterrent effect on future massacres.
I think that someone who would not only plan this but carry it out is probably beyond registering realistic consequences to theirself--or caring.
Indeed. If the reports of the booby-trapped house/apartment are correct, this person doesn't look to have been intending to escape consequences. The concept of 'deterrent' only works for someone who hasn't narrowed down their choices to "die" or "get caught".
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Or not. Ever heard of "suicide by cop"?
He was wearing body armor, so suicide by cop was probably not the idea.
However, it's hard to see how the situation would have been improved by several dozen people people with concealed carry permits firing in the dark at everything they thought might be a a perp.
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
(Waits while our US friends gang up to defend the Second Amendment come what may ...)
You shan't find that argument here!
The Second Amendment's true purpose was to allow the establishment of a "well-regulated militia", i.e. the National Guard, not to allow a bunch of lunatics to purchase unlimited supplies of deadly weapons.
(As for capital punishment, it is against my religion and when it is carried out, it accomplishes nothing!)
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
However, it's hard to see how the situation would have been improved by several dozen people people with concealed carry permits firing in the dark at everything they thought might be a a perp.
Seriously. Suppose you were there, and had a gun. Now, imagine that, as soon as the guy comes in and starts shooting, the guy across the aisle from you pulls out a gun.
At least, you think it's a gun. It's dark and smoky. People are screaming and ducking down and moving around. The guy up front is still shooting. And the guy across the aisle stands up, and now you're sure it's a gun.
Is he trying to shoot the shooter? Or is he in league with the shooter? Is he a good guy or a bad guy?
How can you tell?
And how can he tell whether you are a good guy or a bad guy? Is he going to shoot the shooter, or is he going to shoot you?
And if he aims at you, is it because he's a bad guy, or because he thinks you're a bad guy?
If there were five, ten, twenty people there with guns, does anyone really think there would be fewer people dead?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
And if he aims at you, is it because he's a bad guy, or because he thinks you're a bad guy?
Beautifully put. The entire problem in a nutshell. Seeing a person with a gun doesn't tell you, without more, whether they are an "aggressor" or a "defender".
And in fact this reminds me of Breivik again, because his method of attack was to present himself as a "defender". And indeed, there's evidence that in his own mind that's precisely what he WAS.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re Josephine's comments:
Not to mention the *cops* trying to figure out who's who, when they arrive.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
A couple of these maniacal homicidal perps being dropped in their tracks before they can squeeze the trigger a second time might have a deterrent effect on future massacres.
This statement is rubbish for several reasons, but let us stick to the deterrent issue.
The shooter was wearing body armour. He was prepared to be shot at.
Completely rational people do not commit such acts.
Someone wishing to kill people but avoid being killed will choose tactics accordingly. No amount of concealed carry would have stopped the Unibomber or the Beltway Sniper.
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
For a more concrete example: there were at least two people carrying at the Gabrielle Giffords shooting. Neither was able to draw in time to stop Jared Loughner, and one of them nearly shot the guy who wrestled the gun away from him, because he heard the shots and by the time he looked in the right direction Loughner was on the ground and the other guy was holding the gun. Imagine a dark theater with people firing at muzzle flashes...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sir Kevin - yes, I understand the reasons for the Second Amendnment and they made sense in that context.
I may have been introducing a wind-up element here - I have sparred with US posters over the gun issue in the past. But I'm really not trolling and I do think it is a factor. Not that I have a solution - that's for the US to sort out.
For the record, I do see some logic in the US position and wouldn't condemn legitimate and law-abiding, non-nutcase gun owners - but there is something of an obsession with guns in the US it seems to me and that can't be at all healthy.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed
Punishment shouldn't be about revenge or making the life of the accused "miserable", but about protecting others against a dangerously violent person by removing him from society. Prison should certainly be austere, but not psychologically unbearable or needlessly cruel.
I'm relieved that you qualifed the first sentence with the second. Of course, prison should not be needlessly cruel, but it should be a deterrent to those outside.
Prisoners should certainly be made to do some kind of work for their board and lodging - like the rest of us. No prisoner should ever have rights exceeding those on the outside. And, of course, if able bodied prisoners refuse to work, then I will happily quote 2 Thessalonians 3:10: "If anyone does not want to work, then neither shall he eat."
Prison cannot just be about quarantining criminals from society. It is also about sending a message to society, that society is expressing anger (call that a kind of "revenge") towards those who commit serious crimes. If it is merely about protection, then a prisoner only needs to "convince" the parole board that he is no longer a danger and out he comes. And who is surprised when he reoffends?
He who despises the concept of "punishment for punishment's sake" is no friend of the innocent and of victims (potential or actual).
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
For the record too, whatever the ins and outs and the complexities of it all, I'm not sure I'd be advocating a 'ban' on gun ownership in the US. Pandora's box is already open and it would be impossible to put the lid back on.
From what I can gather, the legislation etc varies from State to State and there are big cultural and urban/rural/suburban differences - so it's not as if there's a single catch-all solution either.
I do think that there needs to be some kind of sea-change in attitudes though, a bit like people's attitudes towards other socio-political issues but that sort of thing takes time.
I don't see much of a shift in attitudes over this one in the US anytime soon.
Of course, our stricter gun controls over here in the UK haven't eliminated gun-related homicide nor knife-crime either, of course, although our murder rate is eight-times lower than the US according to some material I've read recently.
I don't believe that we are any more law-abiding or have less psychos per captita than the US, so I would suggest that there are different socio-cultural and political factors at play over here and on mainland Europe that account for the disparity. I think I read somewhere that there are around 85 fatal shooting incidents a day in the USA. In the UK, albeit with a lower population there are probably no more than around 20 fatal shooting incidents a year - out of a population of nearly 60 million.
For some reason many US Shippie or Facebook friends don't like me pointing out that statistic and start totting their shootin'-irons saying that if they didn't have them the nasty Federal gummint would walk all over them ... and then they'll retaliate by suggesting that we Brits live in some kind of totalitarian police state where the gummint has removed our natural rights to bear arms... puh-leeese ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Anyhow - the figures speak for themselves. A murder rate eight times that of Western Europe must tells us something. Go figure, as you Americans might say.
For all that, though, I'm with Graven Image:
'Eternal God, in whose perfect kingdom no sword is drawn but the sword of righteousness, no strength known but the strength of love, look down upon all those who mourn in Colorado , and embrace them in your tender care.'
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Prison cannot just be about quarantining criminals from society.
<bee in own bonnet>
That's the last thing for which prison should be considered.
Traditionally quarantine is to prevent the spread of infectios disease. It is often done when a person, animal or a ship may pose a risk but it is not necessary that the person, animal or ship is definitely a host.
If we use quarantine to protect society are we well on the way to imprisoning people on the basis of what they may do, rather than what they have done? Look how well that worked in Northern Ireland in the 1970's.
</bee in own bonnet>
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Ohfergoshsakes. SAMUEL had rotten kids too, but wasn't blamed for them. You'd need pretty clear proof before daring to blame parents.
I take it I'm not the only who's been using the Old Testament readings at Morning Prayer, then?
I'm a Lutheran. I picked the story up the hard way--by reading the book. Unless you're not actually trying to be sarky, in which case I apologize.
Not trying to be sarky at all, it's just Samuel's kids were in my mind because the lectionary readings for Morning Prayer have been cycling through 1 Samuel recently, and the passages about Samuel's sons being less than perfect has come up just a couple of days ago. My recollection of the Old Testament isn't usually good enough to remember that sort of thing off the top of my head unless I've read it recently!
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
For some reason many US Shippie or Facebook friends don't like me pointing out that statistic and start totting their shootin'-irons saying that if they didn't have them the nasty Federal gummint would walk all over them ... and then they'll retaliate by suggesting that we Brits live in some kind of totalitarian police state where the gummint has removed our natural rights to bear arms... puh-leeese ...
Anyhow - the figures speak for themselves. A murder rate eight times that of Western Europe must tells us something. Go figure, as you Americans might say.
This exchange between the American political commentators E.J. Dionne and David Brooks might interest you, Gamaliel.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Prisoners should certainly be made to do some kind of work for their board and lodging - like the rest of us. No prisoner should ever have rights exceeding those on the outside. And, of course, if able bodied prisoners refuse to work, then I will happily quote 2 Thessalonians 3:10: "If anyone does not want to work, then neither shall he eat."
If prisoners have more rights than those outside then that may very well suggest not that prisoners have too many rights but that those outside have too few rights.
Prisoners certainly should not be allowed to do work for less pay than those outside, otherwise the prisoners will undercut the jobs of those outside and be employed preferentially. Prisoners should not be allowed to deprive law-abiding citizens of proper jobs.
quote:
If it is merely about protection, then a prisoner only needs to "convince" the parole board that he is no longer a danger and out he comes. And who is surprised when he reoffends?
Presumably if the prisoner convinced the parole board that he or she is no longer a danger then the parole board are surprised.
Studies show that there are differences in rates of reoffence between prisons. Reoffence correlates positively with the punitive nature of the prison. Prisons organised around the goal of rehabilitation rather than retribution are, surprisingly enough, better at rehabilitation. Prisons organised around the goal of retribution are often worse than useless at rehabilitation.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Prisoners should certainly be made to do some kind of work for their board and lodging - like the rest of us. No prisoner should ever have rights exceeding those on the outside. And, of course, if able bodied prisoners refuse to work, then I will happily quote 2 Thessalonians 3:10: "If anyone does not want to work, then neither shall he eat."
If prisoners have more rights than those outside then that may very well suggest not that prisoners have too many rights but that those outside have too few rights.
I don't think the issue is, or should be, that prisoners have more or fewer rights than those outside, but the rights they should have. Some of the rights prisoners need are specific to them, as a consequence of their imprisonment and that needs to be recognised.
Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on
:
The only problem with citizens being armed is situations like the movie theater massacre. How in hell are ordinary citizens going to take out a crazed shooter with smoke grenades going off and the general confusion of stampeding bodies? You'd be more likely to shoot an innocent person instead of the lunatic who started it. But I have no problem with SANE gun owners who have permits to carry weapons. Hell, if I could do it I probably would. I'm sane... in case anyone is wondering!
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on
:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If we use quarantine to protect society are we well on the way to imprisoning people on the basis of what they may do, rather than what they have done? Look how well that worked in Northern Ireland in the 1970's.
Yeah-- look how well it has worked in Guantanamo.
Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on
:
The problem with prisons in the United States is that prisoners have it way too easy. I remember a few years back some guys in a Georgia prison were telling their lawyers that they (the prisoners) were having to endure life inside without televisions in each cell! Oh, the horror! AND, they had to eat cold sandwiches for lunch instead of having hot meals! How terrible for them!!! What a travesty of justice!
IMHO, I think the televisions should be yanked out of every room and the incarcerated should be made to work for their meals and board. Why in hell should taxpayers foot the bill for these people? Hard labor is a great idea. I'm all for re-instating the chain gang or something similar. We coddle them much too much.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy O'Furniture:
IMHO, I think the televisions should be yanked out of every room and the incarcerated should be made to work for their meals and board. Why in hell should taxpayers foot the bill for these people? Hard labor is a great idea. I'm all for re-instating the chain gang or something similar. We coddle them much too much.
Did you know that when television is freely available, fewer guards are needed? So the prisons are cheaper to operate?
Not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing. But if you're worried about the bill the taxpayers are being stuck with, it's something to consider.
Posted by Olde Sea Dog (# 13061) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Aside from the irrationality of his actions, this photo gives me the impression that he was mentally unstable.
Moo
That picture shows him with a facial expression almost exactly like that of Jared Loughner. I don't think it shows mental illness, I think it shows a conscious attempt to look as crazy as Loughner (who undoubtedly is an authentic paranoid schizophrenic). I think he posed that way with the thought that some day he might be using an insanity defense.
It's generally believed that life in a psychiatric institute is easier than life in a prison.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Did you know that when television is freely available, fewer guards are needed? So the prisons are cheaper to operate?
Not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing. But if you're worried about the bill the taxpayers are being stuck with, it's something to consider.
I sometimes wonder why we don't just unlock the doors, let all the prisoners out and have done with it . Save a whole heap of money that way.
Take this Denver killer, why not just give him the keys to his flat and send him home.
Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on
:
When I look at the picture of the Denver shooter, I don't see him as mentally unbalanced so much as I see him posing gleefully for the camera in a "Ha! Now I'm going to be famous and people are going to talk about me!" sort of way. Well, I guess that IS mentally unbalanced... if the only way you can be somebody in this world is to be famous... famous for killing people... Jesus, what a sad fucking world...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Thanks for the link, Grammatica. Yes, I did find it interesting, particularly the comment that Republicans are so totally allied with the gun lobby and that the Democrats are intimidated by them ... not a good position for either, I wouldn't have thought.
It's a very difficult issue for us to understand over here, as you'll appreciate, as guns aren't part and parcel of everyday life - and I know that's the case in some parts of the US too. I do wonder what the heck it's all about with the automatic weapon issue - who actually needs an automatic assault rifle? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
We clamped down on those big time after the Hungerford massacre in the late '80s and then on hand-guns after Dunblane. Ok, so the latest mass shooting, up in Cumbria a year or so ago now, didn't lead to bans on shot-guns - which is what that guy used to kill his victim.
You're never going to legislate against the nutters with the body-armour and smoke grenades - but there is certainly a debate to be had.
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I sometimes wonder why we don't just unlock the doors, let all the prisoners out and have done with it . Save a whole heap of money that way.
Take this Denver killer, why not just give him the keys to his flat and send him home.
It is not about money to those whose family members were shot, and it is not about money to those he might shoot if released. Where do people get completely morally bankrupt ideas that money is all there is and that money is all that matters? It is either complete moral bankruptcy, or complete absence of life experience or complete insensitivity or you will tell us. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on
:
Gamaliel: I also have a very difficult time understanding why some Americans absolutely must own assault rifles. Add hand grenades. Try to ask that of someone who is an N.R.A. boob and you'll get the same old answer: "I need my twenty-five assault rifles for hunting! Yeah, hunting... deer, turkey, bears, and the secret U.N. forces in the black helicopters..."
I am not opposed to Americans owning guns for personal protection and/or hunting but assault rifles are a bit over the top. And who hunts animals with grenades? That's just nuts.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
The idea of blaming the parents for the actions of the child rather obviously needs some caveats. At what age do you stop blaming parents? If a six-year-old does something bad, it may be reasonable to blame the parents, but does it seem as reasonable when the child is sixty? Or even thirty?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
I'd better just say No-prophet that my post was make with total cynical black humour * . (A bit early for humour in this case accepted ).
FWIW I'm in favour of a harsh ,(not brutal), prison regime , and would prefer it if all murderers faced the death penalty.
Keep them alive long enough to find out what makes them tick , so as to try and prevent future tragedies ? Yes.
* This character had booby-trapped his own flat , sending him home would save everyone a load of bother.
Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on
:
Look, thanks for the concern, guys, but I think you should focus on fixing Britain's crime problems before giving advice to the US. Stones, glass houses, etc.
And no, I'm not a gun fetishist. I have zero desire to ever own or operate one, and couldn't care less about the Second Amendment, an 18th Century relic.
[ 21. July 2012, 19:27: Message edited by: Unreformed ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
(Waits while our US friends gang up to defend the Second Amendment come what may ...)
Just this morning my daughter and I concluded about the only hope at this point is for the Government to STRONGLY encourage all the existing sane handgun owners to get their Concealed Carry Permits, practice much with their pistol and then never leave home without them.
A couple of these maniacal homicidal perps being dropped in their tracks before they can squeeze the trigger a second time might have a deterrent effect on future massacres.
Ah yes, I can see the scenario now.
Man with gun(s) walks into crowded cinema, gets his gun out and suddenly 36 men carrying their handguns tell their dates/wives/children to lie down and then, all in unison, shoot the would-be gunman to pieces.
What is this, the wild west?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Look, thanks for the concern, guys, but I think you should focus on fixing Britain's crime problems before giving advice to the US. Stones, glass houses, etc.
And no, I'm not a gun fetishist. I have zero desire to ever own or operate one, and couldn't care less about the Second Amendment, an 18th Century relic.
That's a three year-old story, as any three year-old could tell you. Here is an update, which I found from a link on the page you supplied.
Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Look, thanks for the concern, guys, but I think you should focus on fixing Britain's crime problems before giving advice to the US. Stones, glass houses, etc.
And no, I'm not a gun fetishist. I have zero desire to ever own or operate one, and couldn't care less about the Second Amendment, an 18th Century relic.
That's a three year-old story, as any three year-old could tell you. Here is an update, which I found from a link on the page you supplied.
That's nice, but there's nothing in that article comparing rates of violent crime in Britain to other countries, which is what I'm talking about.
And I can say the same thing about the US.
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
diagnosis by photo is ridiculous - guy would probably look the same if he'd just won the state lotto
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
diagnosis by photo is ridiculous - guy would probably look the same if he'd just won the state lotto
and as Think points out on the other thread, his hair has a decided lack of a ginger hue.
(actually seeing the papers after seeing the start of this thread-and a suggestion it was a ID photo I didn't see the sinister look, it looks just like all our staff photo's at work)
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Look, thanks for the concern, guys, but I think you should focus on fixing Britain's crime problems before giving advice to the US. Stones, glass houses, etc.
And no, I'm not a gun fetishist. I have zero desire to ever own or operate one, and couldn't care less about the Second Amendment, an 18th Century relic.
There's a reason the torygraph chose to highlight a comparison with Europe rather than the US - because they can't scare people with a comparison with the US because the US is so much worse. There are only around twice as many people murdered in the whole of the UK as there are in the city of Baltimore alone.
Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on
:
Personally I think the stuff about the red hair and calling himself "The Joker" will turn out to be about as reliable as "rapes in the Superdome" and "people shooting at helicopters" were in the aftermath of Katrina. That is, not very.
Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Look, thanks for the concern, guys, but I think you should focus on fixing Britain's crime problems before giving advice to the US. Stones, glass houses, etc.
And no, I'm not a gun fetishist. I have zero desire to ever own or operate one, and couldn't care less about the Second Amendment, an 18th Century relic.
There's a reason the torygraph chose to highlight a comparison with Europe rather than the US - because they can't scare people with a comparison with the US because the US is so much worse. There are only around twice as many people murdered in the whole of the UK as there are in the city of Baltimore alone.
Uh, reading comprehension, much? The subtitle of the article says "worse than even America". And this is overall violent crime--not the homicide rate, which is indeed about two and a half times the very low rate of homicide in the UK. That's "homicide", mind you--not "gun deaths", or "gun killings". Homicide. I guess you may think that its more moral to kill a person with a knife or pushing them out of a window than with a bullet, why, I have no idea.
[ 21. July 2012, 20:10: Message edited by: Unreformed ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Look, thanks for the concern, guys, but I think you should focus on fixing Britain's crime problems before giving advice to the US. Stones, glass houses, etc.
And no, I'm not a gun fetishist. I have zero desire to ever own or operate one, and couldn't care less about the Second Amendment, an 18th Century relic.
There's a reason the torygraph chose to highlight a comparison with Europe rather than the US - because they can't scare people with a comparison with the US because the US is so much worse. There are only around twice as many people murdered in the whole of the UK as there are in the city of Baltimore alone.
Uh, reading comprehension, much? The subtitle of the article says "worse than even America". And this is overall violent crime--not the homicide rate, which is indeed about two and a half times the very low rate of homicide in the UK. That's "homicide", mind you--not "gun deaths", or "gun killings". Homicide. I guess you may think that its more moral to kill a person with a knife or pushing them out of a window than with a bullet, why, I have no idea.
Note that there are no numbers to support that assertion in the article, and what numbers there are are junk stats assembled by the then opposition conservative party.
Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on
:
The European Commission was the "then opposition party"? Uhh, ok.
It's amazing how much people will lie to themselves when they're confronted with facts that go against their chosen narratives.
More violent crime in the UK than wild west America? IMPOSSIBLE! LIES! ALL LIES!
Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on
:
As to "no numbers to support that assertion", there are plenty. And they're from the European Commission for the British and European crime rates, and the FBI for the American one.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation--puppet of David Cameron.
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I'd better just say No-prophet that my post was make with total cynical black humour * . (A bit early for humour in this case accepted ).
FWIW I'm in favour of a harsh ,(not brutal), prison regime , and would prefer it if all murderers faced the death penalty.
Keep them alive long enough to find out what makes them tick , so as to try and prevent future tragedies ? Yes.
* This character had booby-trapped his own flat , sending him home would save everyone a load of bother.
Too subtle for me. Sorry.
My preference would actually be a slightly different angle. Persons who have shown danger to others, need to be out of sight, out of mind, and permanently under supervision. Prison doesn't have to be harsh, it needs to express the old fashioned term "penitence" as in penitentary. Simple food, simple life, simple working to maintain the inmate's keep. But supervision and monitoring. Like being bricked up in a monastery of medieval times. And we never ever want to hear about or from you again.
In terms of 'what makes them tick', I believe it is known well what factors predict further outbursts of violence in someone who has already shown violence, but it is frightfully difficult to predict about those who show no prior history.
[ 21. July 2012, 20:34: Message edited by: no_prophet ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Look, thanks for the concern, guys, but I think you should focus on fixing Britain's crime problems before giving advice to the US. Stones, glass houses, etc.
And no, I'm not a gun fetishist. I have zero desire to ever own or operate one, and couldn't care less about the Second Amendment, an 18th Century relic.
There's a reason the torygraph chose to highlight a comparison with Europe rather than the US - because they can't scare people with a comparison with the US because the US is so much worse. There are only around twice as many people murdered in the whole of the UK as there are in the city of Baltimore alone.
Uh, reading comprehension, much? The subtitle of the article says "worse than even America". And this is overall violent crime--not the homicide rate, which is indeed about two and a half times the very low rate of homicide in the UK. That's "homicide", mind you--not "gun deaths", or "gun killings". Homicide. I guess you may think that its more moral to kill a person with a knife or pushing them out of a window than with a bullet, why, I have no idea.
Definitions of violent crime vary. While robbery is common the American definitions for rape, homicide and especially assault differ from those in Britain. In the UK 'Violence against the person' is included in violent crime statistics and that includes assault without injury, which includes some pretty minor incidents. In the USA OTOH violent crime specifies aggravated assault, which includes the use, or the threat to use a weapon to cause serious injury.
[ 21. July 2012, 20:39: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy O'Furniture:
The problem with prisons in the United States is that prisoners have it way too easy.
No, the problem with prisons in the US is that the US criminal injustice system is quite possibly broken beyond fixing.
It's a for-profit system; the US incarcerates something like 25% of all the prisoners in the world (without having 25% of the people in the world); we incarcerate at a rate 5-7 times higher than any other country.
quote:
Why in hell should taxpayers foot the bill for these people? Hard labor is a great idea. I'm all for re-instating the chain gang or something similar. We coddle them much too much.
Because we're the ones who decided that all kinds of non-violent criminals and people who did not commit a 'crime' by any normal definition of the word should be incarcerated.
Which is to say nothing of this particular person. I agree that if he's guilty he needs to be locked away from society for the rest of his life. But it's ridiculous to treat a person locked up for mass murder the same way we treat a person locked up because she told a cop her name was 'Ticia' instead of 'Leticia' (which we currently do).
Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on
:
quote:
Definitions of violent crime vary. While robbery is common the American definitions for rape, homicide and especially assault differ from those in Britain. In the UK 'Violence against the person' is included in violent crime statistics and that includes assault without injury, which includes some pretty minor incidents. In the USA OTOH violent crime specifies aggravated assault, which includes the use, or the threat to use a weapon to cause serious injury.
This, if true and if the definitions are drastically different is a reasonable point to consider in international comparisons. It reminds me of how differently "infant mortality" is calculated from country to country, or what constitutes "poverty" (not to mention the conundrum absolute vs. relative poverty).
Really, I loathe commenting on the domestic policies and politics of other western democracies, and hate what amounts to dick-measuring contests between them even more. It's bad manners and often done in gross ignorance in order to bolster preconceived stereotypes, and in the end, it's just the narcissism of petty differences. I hate it when done by the British to the US about guns and crime, and hate it when Americans do it to the UK about the NHS.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
There is a number, just after the UK and other countries, having 2000 violent incidents.
quote:
By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population.
What 'America' is I'm not sure.
But looking it up (i.e. googling) the UK does appear to have 3% of the population assault victims compared to 1.2% US (similar with rape).
So at least one other site, is consistent with the report (although there are enough uncertainties with homicide statistics, which you'd think would be easy, to be cautious about numbers).
[For example]
if the 9/100,000 US homicide (may only be the 40% involving guns only? in which case 20/100,000) had 'only' been assaulted would give ~1% over lifetime (~0.3%UK) so some of the difference could be because more American victims don't survive.
Alternatively English muggers may target the elderly, which would skew the stats the other way.
Or have old fashioned definitions of assault..or whatever.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
It's amazing how much people will lie to themselves when they're confronted with facts that go against their chosen narratives.
Indeed it is.
The murder rate for the US is almost 4 times that for the UK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_rate
Murder has the advantage as an indicator that it is far less likely than other violent crimes to go under reported or uninvestigated - police forces can make assaults disappear from the stats, but not murders. And which countries have the most incentive to fake the stats? The ones where the police chiefs are directly elected or are appointed by local elected officials.
Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on
:
"America" meant the USA, because it's consistent with the yearly FBI numbers.
The bottom line is, from all we can gather and putting aside disputed definitions, the US has a higher homicide rate (from the very low base of the UK rate), and either similar or slightly lower rates of other crimes.
The US homicide rate, while high by developed world standards, hardly makes it Brazil or South Africa.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's a very difficult issue for us to understand over here, as you'll appreciate, as guns aren't part and parcel of everyday life - and I know that's the case in some parts of the US too. I do wonder what the heck it's all about with the automatic weapon issue - who actually needs an automatic assault rifle?
No one does, and that's the honest truth. In some rare hunting situations it's nice to have, but certainly not necessary.
The problem for US gun owners is what they perceive to be the slippery slope of banning firearms. If you create a legal precedent by banning assault rifles, then it's only a matter of time before that precedent is somehow used to ban bolt action rifles, then falling block, then muzzle loaders etc.
Mostly that perception is NRA hype, but it's also the fond hope of lobbyists like Handgun Control (who essentially want to ban all firearms). It's a bit of bullshit and truth all mixed together, and it's hard to sort sometimes.
There's absolutely no 'need' for the citizens to carry automatic weapons. There's also no 'need' for an artist to put a cross up-side-down in a vat or human piss and cum. However, the fear of losing a right often wins out over the reality of needing that right.
YMMV
Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
It's amazing how much people will lie to themselves when they're confronted with facts that go against their chosen narratives.
Indeed it is.
The murder rate for the US is almost 4 times that for the UK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_rate
Murder has the advantage as an indicator that it is far less likely than other violent crimes to go under reported or uninvestigated - police forces can make assaults disappear from the stats, but not murders. And which countries have the most incentive to fake the stats? The ones where the police chiefs are directly elected or are appointed by local elected officials.
Yes, the US has a higher homicide rate than the UK. Which I've already said. And?
The rest of your post is bullshit conjecture.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Two hours ago s/he makes a cheap jibe about UK crime rates then half an hours ago states 'Really, I loathe commenting on the domestic policies and politics of other western democracies'.
I give up with some people.
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
Denver victim just missed Toronto Eaton Centre shooting.
Maybe it'd be better to focus on the survivors and dead?
Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Two hours ago s/he makes a cheap jibe about UK crime rates then half an hours ago states 'Really, I loathe commenting on the domestic policies and politics of other western democracies'.
Just to prove how stupid it doing it is, Sioni.
I actually don't think the UK is a very violent place. But it sure is easy to make it LOOK that way. I could, if I wanted, make Belgium look like a violent third world basket through a combination of cherry-picking data and wild conjecture.
Here's the thing: the USA and UK are much, much more similar than they are different. I know it's very scary to nationalists on both sides looking for smug moral superiority on the cheap, but it's the truth.
[ 21. July 2012, 21:29: Message edited by: Unreformed ]
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Re TV in prison: Yes, it's used as a pacifying agent. Idle minds as well as idle hands are the devil's workshop in prison situations.
Speaking of idle hands -- I've read about programs where hardened, long-haul prisoners are taught to do things like train service dogs or raise produce for the prison and for local food programs, and that their participation benefits all concerned -- . Unfortunately, in the US Joe/Jane Lunchbucket tend to hear about such things and think of them as further librul coddling of people they'd rather have taken out to the back forty and shot, or at least thrown in a medieval dungeon...so it's hard to sell the public on the idea -- even if it meant more service dogs for the disabled or more food for the local food bank.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy O'Furniture:
When I look at the picture of the Denver shooter, I don't see him as mentally unbalanced so much as I see him posing gleefully for the camera in a "Ha! Now I'm going to be famous and people are going to talk about me!" sort of way. Well, I guess that IS mentally unbalanced... if the only way you can be somebody in this world is to be famous... famous for killing people... Jesus, what a sad fucking world...
How exactly is it that you know the photo was taken after he hatched his plot?
All of this diagnosis by photo strikes me as very much as being done with a massive dose of hindsight.
Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy O'Furniture:
When I look at the picture of the Denver shooter, I don't see him as mentally unbalanced so much as I see him posing gleefully for the camera in a "Ha! Now I'm going to be famous and people are going to talk about me!" sort of way. Well, I guess that IS mentally unbalanced... if the only way you can be somebody in this world is to be famous... famous for killing people... Jesus, what a sad fucking world...
How exactly is it that you know the photo was taken after he hatched his plot?
All of this diagnosis by photo strikes me as very much as being done with a massive dose of hindsight.
It wasn't, from what I understand it's from his college ID card. I think just about everyone looks at least mildly disturbed on their ID card/driver's license.
Posted by Olde Sea Dog (# 13061) on
:
A note on assault rifles for members outside the US - our military assault rifles are fully automatic, but our civilian "assault rifles" are almost always semi-auto. It's extremely difficult for a civilian to own an automatic gun here, and most states forbid them outright.
When you read about massacres with assault rifles in the US, it's always been about semiautomatic rifles.
Concerning the OP, I think the hard labor should be in raising prisoners' own food by older methods, and a few other jobs like making license plates and cleaning up a community, that don't compete with the livelihoods of people on the outside.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
@ Olde Sea Dog
What you say is true, but as a gun owner and displaced Alaskan who used to hang out with a lot of gun nuts, I can tell you that it's fairly simple to take an SKS, AK-47, 10/22, AR-15, BAR or just about any other assault rifle and make it full auto. A little file work here, a home-made part there...
I'm personally on the fence when it comes to semi-auto weapons. I'll give some credence to the aforementioned slippery slope argument and I don't personally want to lose all my hunting rifles. However, I also see the horrific crimes committed with automatic weapons and cannot turn a blind eye to the suffering they have caused.
I also suspect that if gun crime continues to escalate then they'll simply repeal the 2nd amendment altogether and I'll be back to trying to hunt ducks with a blowgun.
I'm a big fan of middle ground solutions, and IMO registration and Brady Bill-esk legislation is probably the way to go if we gun owners want to keep any of our 2nd amendment rights at all. It's not a perfect solution from either side of the debate, but it's probably a bit better than the way things are now.
However, I'm afraid neither side wishes to compromise at all.
Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy O'Furniture:
When I look at the picture of the Denver shooter, I don't see him as mentally unbalanced so much as I see him posing gleefully for the camera in a "Ha! Now I'm going to be famous and people are going to talk about me!" sort of way. Well, I guess that IS mentally unbalanced... if the only way you can be somebody in this world is to be famous... famous for killing people... Jesus, what a sad fucking world...
How exactly is it that you know the photo was taken after he hatched his plot?
All of this diagnosis by photo strikes me as very much as being done with a massive dose of hindsight.
You are correct, sir or madam. I was wrong to assume that his picture was taken after he did his evil deed. I was also wrong to make blanket statements about prisons. What the hell do I know, anyway? I was just reacting with emotion instead of thoughtfulness--shooting from the hip, as it were, with an unregistered gun. Apologies to all and sundry.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
To the OP. If life in prison with hard labour, strong medication and therapy would be a cost effective, fully transparent, democratically agreed, humane way rather than euthanasia or some marginally cheaper compromise ($30,000 a year) in between considering that the surviving victims will get far less care and the bereaved, unless some insurances pay up, fine.
There is NO excuse whatsoever for this psychotic creature who can only be redeemed in Judgement getting hold of the guns and ammo.
Prison is no quantifiable deterrent to anything in my experience. It lets some guys grow up after their first youthful murder, yeah, I've seen that a couple of times. Prison is not going to deter habitual criminals, psychopaths nor people having a bad day that doesn't end.
It's our job to love these people - personally - regardless and there is no social action beyond that.
Posted by Ondergard (# 9324) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Olde Sea Dog:
A note on assault rifles for members outside the US - our military assault rifles are fully automatic, but our civilian "assault rifles" are almost always semi-auto. It's extremely difficult for a civilian to own an automatic gun here, and most states forbid them outright.
When you read about massacres with assault rifles in the US, it's always been about semiautomatic rifles.
Thanks for the note, but as a subject of Her Majesty the Queen (Gawd bless 'er) I do not have the right to arm bears... sorry, bear arms... and therefore do not know and furthermore do not care what you are talking about.
I have never handled a gun of any kind, nor been offered the use or the loan of one. Apart from some specialist police units, and the Armed Forces, no-one in this country carries a firearm on the streets unless he or she is a criminal - which is why there is a mandatory five year sentence for doing so.
And that's how it should be. Any country which allows its private citizens routinely and as of right to arm themselves with any kind of firearm (outwith licensed and strictly controlled shooting clubs) is as mad as a bag of frogs. Period, as you Americans would say. They should all be banned, entirely.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
There is NO excuse whatsoever for this psychotic creature who can only be redeemed in Judgement getting hold of the guns and ammo.
The clerk who sold the gun to Holmes sold it to a good looking, well-spoken, graduate student.
That's the trouble with all the flimsy gun laws that the NRA believe will keep us safe. Gun dealers can't tell who is a deer hunter and who is a "psychotic creature" or who is likely to become enraged when their wife leaves them or who has suicidal family members or who has curious six year-old children.
Outlawing automatic weapons should be a no brainer, a minimum starting point toward sane gun laws.
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on
:
While I come a little short of banning the NRA as a terrorist organization, I think their motives are basically uncaring and self-centred. US laws on deadly weapons should be just like the UK's. When I see news like this, I am embarrassed to be an American. I live in a community which is basically safe and I go out of my way to be polite to everybody, particularly when driving. You never know what sorts of deadly weapons the other drivers have stowed in their cars. Assault rifles and anything else which is not a shot gun used for hunting should be banned for civilian use. Only well-trained police officers and on-duty military personnel in combat zones should have side arms and heavy-duty ordnance. I am grateful that weapons are not allowed on university campuses and in bars, pubs and restaurants!
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Outlawing automatic weapons should be a no brainer, a minimum starting point toward sane gun laws.
No automatic or semiautomatic weapons, and no high-capacity magazines. Nobody needs those for hunting or sport.
The next step, I think, is to allow cities and states to regulate firearms as they choose. The second amendment was intended to ensure that we would always have a militia instead of a standing army. They wanted all the citizens to be able to respond to a call to arms and mutual defense, in the event of a military threat.
Our founding fathers did not like and did not trust standing armies. Only we now have a standing army, and no one is going to be riding through town yelling "The Iranians are coming! The Afghans are coming! To arms! To arms!"
And what good would it do if they did? Armies have tanks and drones and fighter jets and artillery. If everyone in your neighborhood had a fully automatic weapon with plenty of ammunition, you're still going to be wiped out with the first artillery barrage. And nobody, AFAIK, is arguing that the second amendment allows you or your neighbor to have tanks and drones. (Your local police can have them, which I think is a major, major problem. I am strongly opposed to the militarization of the police. But that's a different issue.)
Anyway, all that said, if Washington DC or Philadelphia or Chicago or Denver decides that they want to do what most towns in the Wild West did back in the day, they should be able to forbid guns entirely within their city limits, and impose stiff penalties for having the guns. If you're just visiting, they should be able to require you to check your guns at an approved gun storage facility.
If San Francisco and St. Louis want to ban handguns and permit long guns, more power to them.
Of course, it will be much, much harder for a city to control guns in their city limits if they're readily available just across the line -- you can see that out here at the end of June and early July, where fireworks of every kind imaginable are sold on the Indian reservations, even though most of them are illegal off the reservations.
But many cities that enacted bans on handguns thought that having an imperfect ban was better than no ban at all. I think the courts were wrong to take that away from them.
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on
:
The world our college students are now living in.
quote:
WEAPONS Possession, use or threatened use of firearms is prohibited. Possession of knives with a culinary purpose or a blade no longer than three inches is allowed. Combat knives and ceremonial swords are not.
From the 2012 University of Oregon's residence hall contract.
Compare it to the same university's residence hall contract in the 1960s.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Interesting link, Grammatica. Today's students would never survive the phone call limit of five minutes per day.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
Totally irrelevant - but I picked up a brochure for the NZ film festival today and the person depicted on the cover bore a close resemblance to the ID photo of the accused posted on this thread on this thread.
It was a weird co-incidence.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
On the issue of mass shootings, the real question is cultural, ie why they have become a feature of Western countries over the last few decades.
It is not the availability of weapons, because firearms were more freely procurable in the past (up until well into the first half of the twentieth century it was possible to walk into a shop and purchase a revolver over the counter here in Australia and in places such as Britain), and it is not the advent of automatic or semi-automatic weapons either, because anyone moderately competent with a bolt-action rifle could kill a considerable number of people by firing into a crowd.
On the issue of punishment, it is important to distinguish punishment as such, ie retribution, from possible side benefits of punishment, such as deterrence, rehabilitation and quarantine/protection.
It is also important to emphasise that except in cases of certifiable metal illness, retribution is essential to human dignity, because it assumes and attributes individual responsibility, without which people are depersonalized robotic zombies, or unpersons.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
People like Josephine; Paddy O'F and Sir Kevin have already stated my approach to both the NRA and the private possession of assault weapons.
What really brought home James Holmes' danger to society to me was his knowledge of explosives and the way he booby trapped his flat. The man is lethal. If I hadn't read a bit about his life and known he was a former postgraduate student, I would suspect him to be a former military operative, with specialist skills.
I wonder, if convicted, are there secure facilities for the criminally insane in Colorado he could be permanently confined to? It would appear he should never be allowed to walk the streets again.
My sympathies would all lie with his victims and their relatives.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ondergard:
Any country which allows its private citizens routinely and as of right to arm themselves with any kind of firearm (outwith licensed and strictly controlled shooting clubs) is as mad as a bag of frogs. Period, as you Americans would say. They should all be banned, entirely.
Amen ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
I'll second that amen, but I saw a stat on TV last night saying that 60% of Americans still want their guns so our congress people won't go near the issue.
Even though law enforcement officers have been saying (like Josephine) that people in the theater carrying guns would have made the incident worse, we still keep hearing the "Arm everyone!" argument. We also hear that this guy would have just used a bomb in the movie if he hadn't had guns. I see no reason to believe that. Bombs have their own problems and they don't give the perp his macho moment in the spotlight.
There's a short video out now of Holmes teaching a class. If I didn't know what I know now, I would find him charming, witty, handsome. I also see no sign of mental illness at all. I doubt if someone with schizophrenia would be capable of so much detailed, logical planning. I certainly hope the jury doesn't find him insane and inflict him on all the innocent ill people in the state psychiatric hospital.
I just think he's a heartless, evil man, steeped in our culture that glorifies big violent actions. Just look at the 2 hour and 44 minute movie everyone was there to see. Some people had brought their six year old children to watch this in the middle of the night. Sure, most people can watch, get a thrill, and go home unmoved, but young brains are maleable and might not really benefit from hours and hours of violent images on their screens day after day.
I'm sure I'll get the "What about the children?" mock for saying this but I don't understand why we think we can expose our children to so much of this stuff and not have it effect them. I've been on a kick of watching old 1940's movies on You Tube this year and when I watch a contemporary film after a dozen of the old ones the contrast is really shocking, we've just become inured.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
we've just become inured.
That's the truth. I can understand a variety of contrasting viewpoints on the gun ownership issue, but this is something that both sides need to recognize: there's a far deeper evil at work here.
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
This may sound a little inflammatory, but I suppose it should given the life and death content of the thread: A brief internet search suggests Colorado has a 48 hour waiting period to have an abortion, and no waiting period at all to buy a gun, just an instant point-of-sale check. If this is true, it certainly underscores the cultural divides between USA and many other places. The rationale can only be ideological and cultural. I wonder what the situation is generally.
It is also suggested from my search that juveniles need parental consent to have an abortion, but not necessary to by a gun. Again, this is from an internet search, so I don't know if factual.
[ 23. July 2012, 16:50: Message edited by: no_prophet ]
Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Olde Sea Dog:
A note on assault rifles for members outside the US - our military assault rifles are fully automatic, but our civilian "assault rifles" are almost always semi-auto. It's extremely difficult for a civilian to own an automatic gun here, and most states forbid them outright.
When you read about massacres with assault rifles in the US, it's always been about semiautomatic rifles.
The amount of false information in this post is incredible. The only correct statement is quote:
our civilian "assault rifles" are almost always semi-auto.
1) With some exceptions such as special operations, US military assault rifles (squad machine guns excluded) are select-fire to do either single shot (semi-auto) or 3-round burst, not automatic. Automatic is a waste of ammo in nearly every scenario.
2) It's easy to obtain an automatic rifle, provided you can come up with the cash. They're quite expensive. It also requires a $250 tax stamp per firearm from the federal government, filling out a few forms, and waiting 3 to 6 months for BATFE approval.
3) Only about a dozen (it changes) states prohibit civilian ownership of automatic firearms.
4) Not every civilain massacre is done with semi-automatic firearms. The North Hollywood bank robbery is an example. Though I guess that's not exactly a massacre since only the 2 perps were killed.
seperate note
There doesn't seem to be an agreed upon definition of an "assault rifle". As a general rule, when the news outlets use the term, they mean "a scary looking black gun that we know nothing about".
Take this "hunting rifle" and this "assualt rifle". One looks scarier than the other, but both are the same gun underneath, with the same capabilities. One would be called an "assault rifle" if used in a crime, but the term is meaningless.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I certainly hope the jury doesn't find him insane and inflict him on all the innocent ill people in the state psychiatric hospital
I have two friends who are doctors specializing in determining the mental capacity of criminal defendants. I would not be shocked to discover that one of them has already been contacted in this matter. They are the ones who would testify before a judge and before a jury about his mental capacity. This is all to say that judges and juries do not just call people insane based on their own opinions. They will have people with some pretty spectacular qualifications guiding them, and I have quite a bit of confidence that, if he ends up in the mental hospital, it will be because one of my friends has told the judge or jury that he needs to be there.
Re: the death penalty, we are still waiting on a call, as far as I know, but I can tell you that the District Attorney in the district where he is being prosecuted is known for seeking the death penalty more often than others. The majority of the people on Colorado's death row today came out of her district, and she is a persona non grata among my criminal defense attorney friends. It is a law and order kind of district, so unless his mental capacity is a mitigating factor, I expect them to seek the death penalty.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'm sure the Prophet Samuel would agree - it's clearly the fault of the parents when the sons commit evil acts.
Then why doesn't it work the other way around? Samuel was a pretty good guy in the eyes of men and, apparently, God alike-- but his father Eli didn't come in for much praise.
Perhaps you were speaking ironically.
[ 23. July 2012, 17:48: Message edited by: Alogon ]
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Samuel was a pretty good guy in the eyes of men and, apparently, God alike-- but his father Eli didn't come in for much praise.
Maybe because he wasn't his father? (Isn't it amazing how P4 Bible Study stays with you?)
Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on
:
quote:
This may sound a little inflammatory, but I suppose it should given the life and death content of the thread: A brief internet search suggests Colorado has a 48 hour waiting period to have an abortion, and no waiting period at all to buy a gun, just an instant point-of-sale check.
This can't be right. I have friends who collect guns and they've always told me federal law requires a seven-day waiting period for a background check.
quote:
If this is true, it certainly underscores the cultural divides between USA and many other places. The rationale can only be ideological and cultural. I wonder what the situation is generally.
You don't realize that US abortion regulations are extremely lax compared to the rest of the world, do you? Look it up. Western European countries have much tighter restrictions. The only country I know of with fewer abortion regulations than the US is Canada, which seems to have none at all.
When it comes to easy abortion, sadly, we're #1 or very close to #1.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
It is also suggested from my search that juveniles need parental consent to have an abortion, but not necessary to by a gun. Again, this is from an internet search, so I don't know if factual.
Actually:
Juveniles cannot purchase handguns or handgun ammo. Period. Full stop. Must be 21 years of age.
They can purchase rifles and shotguns after 16 in some states.
Posted by Olde Sea Dog (# 13061) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
@ Olde Sea Dog
What you say is true, but as a gun owner and displaced Alaskan who used to hang out with a lot of gun nuts, I can tell you that it's fairly simple to take an SKS, AK-47, 10/22, AR-15, BAR or just about any other assault rifle and make it full auto. A little file work here, a home-made part there...
I'm personally on the fence when it comes to semi-auto weapons. I'll give some credence to the aforementioned slippery slope argument and I don't personally want to lose all my hunting rifles. However, I also see the horrific crimes committed with automatic weapons and cannot turn a blind eye to the suffering they have caused.
I also suspect that if gun crime continues to escalate then they'll simply repeal the 2nd amendment altogether and I'll be back to trying to hunt ducks with a blowgun.
I'm a big fan of middle ground solutions, and IMO registration and Brady Bill-esk legislation is probably the way to go if we gun owners want to keep any of our 2nd amendment rights at all. It's not a perfect solution from either side of the debate, but it's probably a bit better than the way things are now.
However, I'm afraid neither side wishes to compromise at all.
Yes, middle ground is good ...... it's worthwhile to note that there is not really a strong correlation between lawful gun ownership and gun homicides. There is SOME slight correlation but there are numerous cases that buck the trend: in this country the big cities with strict control such as LA, Boston, or NYC have fairly high gun death rates, but so do southern cities without much control, and several "easy" states such as Vermont have low murder rates.
Internationally we see Switzerland as a sort of extreme case of little gun control - more than there used to be, but still every household with an adult make has a fully automatic rifle as part of the citizen militia - and they have a very low murder rate.
I suspect that cultural factors are more important than gun control legislation, but it's quite hard to legislate morality.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
One aspect of the Columbine case that never received enough exposure was the role of anti-depressants. Zoloft and then Luvox were prescribed by Eric Harris's psychiatrist, when neither drug was authorized for pediatric use. Luvox has since been taken off the market altogether.
How much has been publicized about strange substances in the blood of this murderer? I suspect, very little if anything. I suspect that it will remain so, too, if a certain powerful industry has its way.
Posted by Olde Sea Dog (# 13061) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
..........2) It's easy to obtain an automatic rifle, provided you can come up with the cash. They're quite expensive. It also requires a $250 tax stamp per firearm from the federal government, filling out a few forms, and waiting 3 to 6 months for BATFE approval........
.
The BATFE approval is what I've heard is the hard part (or it used to be, I don't know what the situation is now, federal attitudes can change a lot). Very difficult unless you have lots of sterling references. That's probably why so few people have automatic weapons, even though there are so many gun nuts who want them.
Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on
:
I'd bet that more people have them than one might think in states that allow them. I can find someone shooting one at one of my local ranges about once or twice a month. They're still rare, but that's primarily due to cost, not availability or the BATFE. Unless the BATFE finds some reason to deny the application, they won't.
A typical semi-automatic rifle will run between $500 and $1,000. A typical automatic will run from about $15,000 to $25,000. More for specialty items like full on machine guns. That's a hard pill to swallow for most folks.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I certainly hope the jury doesn't find him insane and inflict him on all the innocent ill people in the state psychiatric hospital
I have two friends who are doctors specializing in determining the mental capacity of criminal defendants. I would not be shocked to discover that one of them has already been contacted in this matter. They are the ones who would testify before a judge and before a jury about his mental capacity. This is all to say that judges and juries do not just call people insane based on their own opinions. They will have people with some pretty spectacular qualifications guiding them, and I have quite a bit of confidence that, if he ends up in the mental hospital, it will be because one of my friends has told the judge or jury that he needs to be there.
Re: the death penalty, we are still waiting on a call, as far as I know, but I can tell you that the District Attorney in the district where he is being prosecuted is known for seeking the death penalty more often than others. The majority of the people on Colorado's death row today came out of her district, and she is a persona non grata among my criminal defense attorney friends. It is a law and order kind of district, so unless his mental capacity is a mitigating factor, I expect them to seek the death penalty.
I would certainly applaud the use of expert evidence in this area. Of course, a judge is still stuck with making the ultimate decision if the experts disagree, which does happen.
Regarding the death penalty, I'd be fairly amazed if it wasn't sought if he is determined to be mentally competent. I'm not in favour of the death penalty as a matter of principle, but given that it's available as a matter of law in Colorado, if you're not going to use it for random mass murder, when ARE you going to use it?
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
Alogon raised an important point. James Harris looked extremely strange when he was arraigned. His behaviour was also bizarre.
I am not sure what substances, prescribed or otherwise, he took before committing the murders, but I suspect it might have been a cocktail of the sort which really blows your mind. My hope is that they really get expert evaluation here, because it would be vital to ensuring a fair trial, which I think he deserves, whatever he appears to have done.
There must have been something he chanced upon in his, seemingly lonely, life as a graduate student which pushed him over the edge. Whatever it was, a single event, or a series, the results were pretty much diabolical.
With all these multiple murder outrages there is much society can learn. I wonder if we are looking in the right places or asking anywhere near the right questions.
He is, quite obviously, not a normal person as we know it.
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Re: the death penalty, we are still waiting on a call, as far as I know, but I can tell you that the District Attorney in the district where he is being prosecuted is known for seeking the death penalty more often than others. The majority of the people on Colorado's death row today came out of her district, and she is a persona non grata among my criminal defense attorney friends. It is a law and order kind of district, so unless his mental capacity is a mitigating factor, I expect them to seek the death penalty.
A clip on the Australian TV news this morning showed a lady who I think was the DA of Colorado saying that it would be up to victims' families to decide whether the prosecution should seek the death penalty. Surely sentencing is a matter for the judge rather than the victims' families, or is this just another peculiarity of US law like the right to shoot anyone anytime so long as you can claim it's in self-defense. (Not that the Joker arrested has claimed that yet.)
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
That's not a feature of U.S. law (duh) and neither is the other thing you mentioned (as I'm sure you know). The victims' families may be consulted/asked to testify because they are intimately involved in the situation, having experienced its direct impact, and to ignore them altogether would be ... what's the word... rude? Also cold and unfeeling. They should at least be heard if they want to be, even if not a word of what they say has any effect on legal decisions. But they don't make the decision to try for a death penalty. That choice would be up to the prosecutor, within the options circumscribed by law. (And whatever he/she may say in the interests of winning public sympathy and attempting to shuffle off the onus of being the real decisionmaker. But we all know better)
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Alogon raised an important point. James Harris looked extremely strange when he was arraigned. His behaviour was also bizarre.
I am not sure what substances, prescribed or otherwise, he took before committing the murders, but I suspect it might have been a cocktail of the sort which really blows your mind. My hope is that they really get expert evaluation here, because it would be vital to ensuring a fair trial, which I think he deserves, whatever he appears to have done.
There must have been something he chanced upon in his, seemingly lonely, life as a graduate student which pushed him over the edge. Whatever it was, a single event, or a series, the results were pretty much diabolical.
With all these multiple murder outrages there is much society can learn. I wonder if we are looking in the right places or asking anywhere near the right questions.
He is, quite obviously, not a normal person as we know it.
The minute or so of his court appearance I saw on television suggests someone who is sleepy but can't get to sleep.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Re: the death penalty, we are still waiting on a call, as far as I know, but I can tell you that the District Attorney in the district where he is being prosecuted is known for seeking the death penalty more often than others. The majority of the people on Colorado's death row today came out of her district, and she is a persona non grata among my criminal defense attorney friends. It is a law and order kind of district, so unless his mental capacity is a mitigating factor, I expect them to seek the death penalty.
A clip on the Australian TV news this morning showed a lady who I think was the DA of Colorado saying that it would be up to victims' families to decide whether the prosecution should seek the death penalty. Surely sentencing is a matter for the judge rather than the victims' families, or is this just another peculiarity of US law like the right to shoot anyone anytime so long as you can claim it's in self-defense. (Not that the Joker arrested has claimed that yet.)
The Judge makes the decision at the sentencing hearing, but the DA has to ask for the death penalty. And while the DA does make the final call about asking for the death penalty, there has developed in the American system an intense focus on victim's rights. For instance, in Colorado, the victim has to have notice of any court dates, and if the DA cannot show that notice, the hearing cannot go forward. So they probably have to consult the victims, but the final call goes to the DA. (Small point- the State is broken up into judicial district, each consisting of several counties. So there isn't a state DA; that was probably Carol Chambers, the 18 Judicial District's DA. Google "Carol Chambers Death Penalty" to see what I was talking about.)
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
It isn't rocket science. You just have to make it impossible for all people and especially nutters from getting guns.
If you have a system where any college dropout can get assault rifles and enough ammo to defend the Alamo you are bound to get regular massacres.
No members of the public should be allowed to own high velocity guns. Full Stop.
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
One aspect of the Columbine case that never received enough exposure was the role of anti-depressants. Zoloft and then Luvox were prescribed by Eric Harris's psychiatrist, when neither drug was authorized for pediatric use. Luvox has since been taken off the market altogether.
This is incorrect. Here's some info for you.
Luvox, which is brandname of fluvoxamine, is off the market, but fluvoxamine is not. The drug monograph for fluvoxamine contains the following:
quote:
Peds Dosing .
Dosage forms: 25,50,100
obsessive-compulsive disorder
[8-11 yo]
Dose: 50-200 mg PO qd div qd-bid; Start: 25 mg PO qhs, incr. 25 mg q4-7 days; Max: 200 mg/day; Info: consider lower dose in females in this age group; to D/C taper dose gradually
[12-17 yo]
Dose: 50-200 mg PO qd div qd-bid; Start: 25 mg PO qhs, incr. 25 mg q4-7 days; Max: 300 mg/day; Info: to D/C taper dose gradually
Zoloft's (sertraline) monograph contains this:
quote:
Peds Dosing .
Dosage forms: 25,50,100; 20/mL
obsessive-compulsive disorder
[6-12 yo]
Dose: 25 mg PO qd; Max 200 mg/day; Info: may incr. 25-50 mg/day qwk; taper dose gradually to D/C
[13-17 yo]
Dose: 50 mg PO qd; Max 200 mg/day; Info: may incr. 25-50 mg/day qwk; taper dose gradually to D/C
(edit: source Epocrates.com, which anyone can join and use online for free, a USA site)
[ 24. July 2012, 15:09: Message edited by: no_prophet ]
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
It isn't rocket science. You just have to make it impossible for all people and especially nutters from getting guns.
Well, we can go back to Prohibition, since that kept booze away from folks who wanted to drink, or look at our current drug laws since people can only obtain drugs prescribed by their physicians or we could look at our border patrol since no one enters the country illegally.
quote:
If you have a system where any college dropout can get assault rifles and enough ammo to defend the Alamo you are bound to get regular massacres.
It seems more accurate to say that if a person is bound and determined to pull off a certain deed, if his conscience won't stop him then no law will.
quote:
No members of the public should be allowed to own high velocity guns. Full Stop.
When you outlaw things people want all you do is change who they have to buy from. I'd suspect the vast majority of criminal gangs agree with many politicians and fully endorse tough drug laws, support restrictions if not outright bans on the private ownership of firearms and maybe even the sale of alcoholic beverages.
[ 24. July 2012, 15:19: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Do you think that the homicidal maniac in Colorado should get life in prison at hard labour? Shouldn't his parents get the same punishment for raising such an evil son? That's what I think. Discuss.
I think the notion that parents are responsible for the moral choices of their adult son is insulting. So much for free will. There is no justice in condemning a person solely for the actions of a relative. The very thought is disgusting.
What information do you have to base your assumption that his parents caused him to be murderer? It sounds like he had a pretty mainstream upbringing and had the hallmarks of a good childhood - involved in his church, worked hard in school.
Do you not allow for the possibility that each of us has the capacity for great evil? It's only the neglect or malfeasance of parents that could "create" an "evil son?"
Pardon me, but who exactly the fuck are you to judge them?
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Punishment shouldn't be about revenge or making the life of the accused "miserable", but about protecting others against a dangerously violent person by removing him from society. Prison should certainly be austere, but not psychologically unbearable or needlessly cruel.
Eh, I agree that retribution should not be a major consideration of criminal punishment, but I wouldn't limit the considerations to sequestering felons. To the extent that a person commits a criminal act with the requisite capacity to make meaningful moral choices (i.e. with the exception of the severely mentally ill), crime ought to be punished in such a harsh way to provide a disincentive for crime.
The justice system would not be so effective if the worst punishment one could receive is life in supervised confinement that contained no element of unpleasantness.
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
Personally, in terms of experience of crimes, the thing I think about it that the offender is out of circulation, and not able to do anything violent. Out of sight, out of mind. I'd prefer never to hear about such people as this murderer or the Norway murderer once sentenced. Disappeared from public view.
Locking people up is the highest level of supervision. Having people on the street and just reporting to a probation worker periodically is the least. I cannot understand why we don't have a lot more in between supervision for many offenders, like lifetime GPS-electronic monitoring. A repeat murderer, sex offender, etc is unacceptable.
In terms of austere, not quite sure what that means. Canadian prison cells are typically about the size of the average residential bathroom containing toilet, sink and bathtub. When I see American prisons on TV, they look similar but there's often more people in them to the Canadian 1 or 2. But the point seems to be that exposure to dangerous people who will hurt you is part of the punishment.
Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It seems more accurate to say that if a person is bound and determined to pull off a certain deed, if his conscience won't stop him then no law will.
This. Otherwise we have to ban such normal items as nails, bleach, aluminum foil, and anything sold in a plastic bottle.
Posted by Ondergard (# 9324) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It seems more accurate to say that if a person is bound and determined to pull off a certain deed, if his conscience won't stop him then no law will.
This. Otherwise we have to ban such normal items as nails, bleach, aluminum foil, and anything sold in a plastic bottle.
All total irrelevant bollocks.
Mass murderers are enabled to mass murder when they have the ability to lay hands on weapons which allow them to kill at some distance - feet, at least, yards usually - without reloading.
A guy who goes berserk in a cinema with a knife - even a knife of machete proportions - can cause huge damage, certainly, but can also be overpowered by concerted action or outstanding bravery: and you don't have to be a macho man. Look up Lisa Potts GM.
All that Yankee NRA crap about "guns don't kill people, people kill people" - quite apart from not redounding to the collective credit of the citizens of the United States - is only correct in one way - intention.
When it comes to execution, guns - the guns your stupid Second Amendment protects - are way ahead of anything else in killing powerless and innocent people.
When will you people see sense?
[ 24. July 2012, 20:29: Message edited by: Ondergard ]
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ondergard:
When it comes to execution, guns - the guns your stupid Second Amendment protects - are way ahead of anything else in killing powerless and innocent people.
When will you people see sense?
The July 7 bombings didn't require a single gun and still killed a bunch of people.
Murder is illegal, and yet it happened anyway. What makes you think that someone who is set on murdering a dozen innocent people will give a flying crap about a gun ban?
I'm not a gun rights absolutist, but we have the Constitution that we have, and we've only amended it a handful of times. I don't see the Second Amendment being repealed.
Besides which, there's nothing more impertinent than a Brit chastising us for laws that don't affect him. You don't hear me griping about how fucking stupid establishment of the C of E is in the year 2012. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Olde Sea Dog (# 13061) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Alogon raised an important point. James Harris looked extremely strange when he was arraigned. His behaviour was also bizarre.
I am not sure what substances, prescribed or otherwise, he took before committing the murders, but I suspect it might have been a cocktail of the sort which really blows your mind. My hope is that they really get expert evaluation here, because it would be vital to ensuring a fair trial, which I think he deserves, whatever he appears to have done.
There must have been something he chanced upon in his, seemingly lonely, life as a graduate student which pushed him over the edge. Whatever it was, a single event, or a series, the results were pretty much diabolical.
With all these multiple murder outrages there is much society can learn. I wonder if we are looking in the right places or asking anywhere near the right questions.
He is, quite obviously, not a normal person as we know it.
Interesting ...... to me the outstanding thing was how ordinary his behavior was before and after the shooting, other than that picture in which he was obviously mimicking Jared Loughner's nutty smile.
He's certainly no nutter, having planned this long in advance, accumulated guns and ammo, and having booby-trapped his apartment with more thought than the average wartime sapper would have. All that time, he never spoke about enemies or put bizarre rantings up on the internet.
I suspect his field of study had something to do with his coldhearted decision. Maybe he thought of people as being simply biochemical automatons, that there would be nothing more wrong in killing a human than in killing a robot. I wouldn't be surprised if he had intended to kill himself afterward, to take as many as possible with him to demonstrate what an intelligent mass murderer could accomplish ....... but then found his ability to commit suicide wilt at the sight of so many guns pointed at him.
Or maybe he intends to play the system as much as possible, aiming for a lifetime of ease and comfort in a mental hospital, of a regression to a womb-like lack of all responsibility.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
Besides which, there's nothing more impertinent than a Brit chastising us for laws that don't affect him. You don't hear me griping about how fucking stupid establishment of the C of E is in the year 2012.
I'm hip. We should not forget that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists. That's what Patrick Henry said, anyway, and I'll take his word over any Brit.
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Olde Sea Dog:
He's certainly no nutter, having planned this long in advance, accumulated guns and ammo, and having booby-trapped his apartment with more thought than the average wartime sapper would have. All that time, he never spoke about enemies or put bizarre rantings up on the internet.
I'm no psychiatrist, and I don't know your background, but does a plan and premeditation necessarily rule out that he was operating under an insane delusion? I imagine there are high functioning schizophrenics who are completely paranoid and delusional but can engage in planning and goal-oriented behavior.
Also, as a person with some good friends and close relatives who suffer from mental illness, could I ask you to avoid referring to the genuinely mentally ill as "nutters"? It's no less offensive than calling someone with Down Syndrome a "tard."
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
Have a look at Delusional disorder. People can have a coherent delusional system that allows them to think, believe and feel things that are manifestly untrue, but not show flagrant craziness.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Olde Sea Dog:
Or maybe he intends to play the system as much as possible, aiming for a lifetime of ease and comfort in a mental hospital, of a regression to a womb-like lack of all responsibility.
Where are these cushy, comfy, state run mental hospitals for the criminally insane? The best ones I've ever seen are bleak, depressing, dangerous and often terrifying.
The insanity plea is used in the U.S Criminal Justice System in less than 1% of all criminal cases. The people who succeed in winning it usually spend more time locked up, with far less privileges, than the murderers who go to prison. They have no appeal system.
When John Hinkley tried to kill Ronald Reagan he was a young man, newly struck with schizophrenia. After he was judged insane he was locked up in an institution where he quickly responded to medication and has been harmless ever sense. Thirty years later he's still there while many people after him have murdered, done time, and been released.
When someone is facing the death penalty, the insanity defense might be "working the system," but up against "life," it's probably not such a good deal.
Posted by Olde Sea Dog (# 13061) on
:
I'm quite sure that schizophrenia rules out any accurate, long-term planning - not to speak of advanced graduate studies which were successful until recently. Such planning without giving any signs of paranoia or other symptoms would argue against any such diagnosis. (there are both American and British manuals of diagnosis online if you want to check what I'm saying, or you could ask a psychiatrist if you know one).
A perfect example of a true paranoid schizophrenic who planned a little in advance, but not extensively, would be Jared Loughner. He gave many examples of disordered and paranoid thinking for some years in advance, and it was evident on his webpage. In my opinion, Loughner would not have been able to anything like what Holmes planned out in advance, especially the intricate booby-trapping.
Posted by Olde Sea Dog (# 13061) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Olde Sea Dog:
Or maybe he intends to play the system as much as possible, aiming for a lifetime of ease and comfort in a mental hospital, of a regression to a womb-like lack of all responsibility.
Where are these cushy, comfy, state run mental hospitals for the criminally insane? The best ones I've ever seen are bleak, depressing, dangerous and often terrifying.
The insanity plea is used in the U.S Criminal Justice System in less than 1% of all criminal cases. The people who succeed in winning it usually spend more time locked up, with far less privileges, than the murderers who go to prison. They have no appeal system.
When John Hinkley tried to kill Ronald Reagan he was a young man, newly struck with schizophrenia. After he was judged insane he was locked up in an institution where he quickly responded to medication and has been harmless ever sense. Thirty years later he's still there while many people after him have murdered, done time, and been released.
When someone is facing the death penalty, the insanity defense might be "working the system," but up against "life," it's probably not such a good deal.
Those are good points, except that it's not relevant what the actual situation is - the only relevant matter is what Holmes BELIEVES ..... which is likely to be standard fare.
I think he's read about Loughner's situation (remember the smile mimicking Loughner's), and he thought that Loughner's situation wasn't so very bad after all (and maybe it isn't - I'd like to see some pics of that particular hospital, they're all so very different.)
Posted by Olde Sea Dog (# 13061) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
Have a look at Delusional disorder. People can have a coherent delusional system that allows them to think, believe and feel things that are manifestly untrue, but not show flagrant craziness.
He hasn't given any indication of having a delusion, but I'm sure that will come out with the court-ordered psych evaluation, if there is one. But scroll down on that page to Indicators of a Delusion, and then Features. Already it seems unlikely he has that problem, since he would have shown it to some of the several friends and family that have been interviewed.
On the other hand, his mother apparently had some reason for thinking that he did it, as a first reaction after being told.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
News story today has her explaining the ambiguous statement "You have the right person" she said to the media guy who called her. She says in that conversation it meant "Yes, I am the mother of the guy you just named, you've got the right person on the phone" and NOT "Yes, the police have arrested the true criminal."
This sounds sensible. Particularly if it was a media guy she was talking to, who couldn't "have" the perpetrator in any sense (unlike the police).
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
I take Mere Nick's and Olde Sea Dog's points. Perhaps Harris was heavily sedated before arraignment.
He is, as OSD points out, a very strange young man. We had someone a wee bit like him here in Tasmania a few years ago called Martin Bryant, who, after committing his atrocity, was on suicide watch.
Whether he is insane, or extremely anti-social and the difference is sometimes hard to work out, having worked with someone on the borderline years ago, who was diagnosed as the latter, I don't know. The person I'm thinking of wasn't a killer, though, just a flaming eccentric.
Being in a secure psychiatric facility, possibly in isolation, for the rest of his life, may possibly be the worst fate for him because I think his actions were a statement of sorts. In a few years he'll be just another "never to be released" inmate or they may execute him. Not much of a "statement" from him in either case.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re delusion:
He does seem to think he's the Joker, one of Batman's foes--right down to dying his hair red.
Posted by Ondergard (# 9324) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:
Originally posted by Ondergard:
When it comes to execution, guns - the guns your stupid Second Amendment protects - are way ahead of anything else in killing powerless and innocent people.
When will you people see sense?
The July 7 bombings didn't require a single gun and still killed a bunch of people.
But they didn't buy their bombs from a licenced bomb shop, whose existence is protected by vested interest and Common Law, did they?
quote:
Murder is illegal, and yet it happened anyway. What makes you think that someone who is set on murdering a dozen innocent people will give a flying crap about a gun ban?
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer above. The reason we don't have so many murders in this country, proportionately, compared to the US, is more to do with the ROUTINE availability of guns in the US, the availability of which for legitimate purchase is enshrined in your crazy Second Amendment, than it is to any difference in the level of homicidal mania in the general populations.
quote:
I'm not a gun rights absolutist, but we have the Constitution that we have, and we've only amended it a handful of times. I don't see the Second Amendment being repealed.
Besides which, there's nothing more impertinent than a Brit chastising us for laws that don't affect him. You don't hear me griping about how fucking stupid establishment of the C of E is in the year 2012.
You got the wrong guy here, Yank. I am not now, and have never been... (to quote the litany from one of the Committees chaired by one of your more colourful Senators of the Fifties)... a member of the Church of England, for whose disestablishment I most devoutly wish... but even the most partisan Methodist, like me, doesn't think that the Establishment of the Church of England has lead down the years to a direct link between the existence of cathedrals and an epidemic of thirty crazy bishops, in full regalia, mowing down a cinema audience with a jewel-encrusted Smith & Wesson semi-automatic crozier.
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:
Originally posted by Olde Sea Dog:
He's certainly no nutter, having planned this long in advance, accumulated guns and ammo, and having booby-trapped his apartment with more thought than the average wartime sapper would have. All that time, he never spoke about enemies or put bizarre rantings up on the internet.
I'm no psychiatrist, and I don't know your background, but does a plan and premeditation necessarily rule out that he was operating under an insane delusion? I imagine there are high functioning schizophrenics who are completely paranoid and delusional but can engage in planning and goal-oriented behavior.
Also, as a person with some good friends and close relatives who suffer from mental illness, could I ask you to avoid referring to the genuinely mentally ill as "nutters"? It's no less offensive than calling someone with Down Syndrome a "tard."
If shooting dozens of innocent people watching a film does not qualify the killer as a nutter I don't know what does. And to suggest that this is an insult to all people with mental illness is purest humbug.
And your juxtaposition of the right to carry arms with the establishment status of the Church of England is one of the daftest things posted here in a long time.
[ 25. July 2012, 15:41: Message edited by: aumbry ]
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
And your juxtaposition of the right to carry arms with the establishment status of the Church of England is one of the daftest things posted here in a long time.
I'm not sure about that; the competiton is very strong ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
This morning on local radio there was a news item about the increased number of people in Colorado seeking firearms to protect their families.
It brought home to me how little I understand the American situation. I do the understand wish to protect, but the increase in numbers seemed to reflect a belief that buying a gun was the only way people could feel safe.
I'm not judging, I just felt sad about the levels of desperation I thought this reflected.
I also realise I am probably hopelessly naive ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
.
Huia
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
If shooting dozens of innocent people watching a film does not qualify the killer as a nutter I don't know what does. And to suggest that this is an insult to all people with mental illness is purest humbug.
I have to disagree with you. Many have been killed in anger, retaliation, desperation or as it appears in the Anders Breivik case, after cool, though perverse, reasoning.
Describing those committing particularly despicable crimes, or even criminals as a whole, as 'nutters' or in some way mentally ill, is little more than an attempt to separate 'normal' folk from the kind of people who do that sort of thing.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
In legal terms, whether or not you're a 'nutter' has to do more with your ability to form thought processes than with the conclusions you make.
You can't label every conclusion to do something really bad as 'crazy', otherwise you'd never convict anyone of anything much, on the grounds that no sensible person would put themselves at the risk of being locked up for years on end.
Meanwhile, I spotted a little report on the BBC suggesting that gun sales in that patch of Colorado have gone up this week. You want to talk about nutters, there's an entire culture in the US of A that comes across as unhinged...
[ 26. July 2012, 07:16: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
[/qb]
I have to disagree with you. Many have been killed in anger, retaliation, desperation or as it appears in the Anders Breivik case, after cool, though perverse, reasoning.
Describing those committing particularly despicable crimes, or even criminals as a whole, as 'nutters' or in some way mentally ill, is little more than an attempt to separate 'normal' folk from the kind of people who do that sort of thing. [/qb][/QUOTE]
I part take your point but would be interested to know what the cool though perverse reasoning could be that would draw such a conclusion? And as a semantic point can reason ever be perverse without being a form of anti-reason?
[ 26. July 2012, 09:19: Message edited by: aumbry ]
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re delusion:
He does seem to think he's the Joker, one of Batman's foes--right down to dying his hair red.
That has implications.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
The media have made the link between his hair colour and believing he is the Joker many times. But when has the Joker had RED hair? If he'd dyed his hair green it might be significant.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
I think it's the loud colour, Robert Armin. It makes him stand out like the Joker. I think he's trying to attract attention, or was.
Remember the old Goon Show saying: "The plot thins"? As the drama unfolds he seems stranger and stranger. Something has really gone amiss. This is no normal person.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Lots of people today dye their hair red, simply because it looks good. I haven't yet met one who claimed it made them look like the Joker. Given that it is fairly easy to change the colour of your hair I would have thought he would have gone for green, if that was the link he wanted to make.
This young man is clearly seriously disturbed, However I think there's a lot of over-analysis going on here.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Lots of people today dye their hair red, simply because it looks good.
In whose eyes?
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
News story today has her explaining the ambiguous statement "You have the right person" she said to the media guy who called her. She says in that conversation it meant "Yes, I am the mother of the guy you just named, you've got the right person on the phone" and NOT "Yes, the police have arrested the true criminal."
This sounds sensible. Particularly if it was a media guy she was talking to, who couldn't "have" the perpetrator in any sense (unlike the police).
That was ABC News, too. The same one that altered George Zimmerman's 911 call about Trayvon Martin to make him sound racist. I thought FOX was bad.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
A topical one from the UK, in which a student was shot, apparently at random and the killer pleaded for manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility. The jury found him guilty of murder.
He named himself 'Psycho' in court.
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
This story is well worth the read. Gives some perspective.
quote:
The survivors who fared the best, he found, didn't grant pardons.
"They don't absolve their would-be killers and they haven't stopped crying, even decades later," he says.
A little anger and competitive zeal can actually help,
quote:
"I don't care enough to know his name," .... "He's a piece of s**t to me. These guys do it, and their names are out there forever. Victims are left to sink or swim."
...Americans' reactions to mass killings are now ritualized: heroic stories about survivors, calls for gun control, psychologists offering insights into the mind of the twisted killer on television.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
Here's an interesting contribution by Prof. Paul Mullen, clinical psychiatrist. He argues that these kinds of mass killings are culturally conditioned, did not arise in Western culture till 1913 (though they have been known in other cultures for longer), and do not generally involve "clinically insane" people. According to him, the rate of serious psychological disturbances in such crimes is similar to that in other serious crimes, at only 10%. Most of these people are "mad" in a popular sense, but not in a clinical one. He also argues that because practically all of these killers are obsessive, and because they need specific killing tech for maximum damage, most of them likely can be detected by the authorities during their lengthy preparatory phase.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
The media have made the link between his hair colour and believing he is the Joker many times. But when has the Joker had RED hair? If he'd dyed his hair green it might be significant.
IIRC, he had red hair in the old TV series (which I grew up on). Played by Cesar Romero.
I'm not up on what the recent Jokers have looked like. I've watched some of the various Batman films, but found the villains far too dark and twisted. However, Batman, Alfred, and Catwoman made the movies worth it. I'd planned to see this one, partly because I love Michael Caine. After the shooting, I figured I'd wait a week or two, then go on a weekday during the day. But there was a guy here in N. Calif. who stood up in a showing and started yelling about Colorado. So my plans are on hold.
I'm not familiar with the comic books; but, based on the old series, I'm guessing that the Joker in the original comics had red hair, too.
Yes, lots of people die their hair red. But this guy reportedly had a Joker mask in his apartment, and told the cops he's the Joker.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
The media have made the link between his hair colour and believing he is the Joker many times. But when has the Joker had RED hair? If he'd dyed his hair green it might be significant.
IIRC, he had red hair in the old TV series (which I grew up on). Played by Cesar Romero.
I'm not up on what the recent Jokers have looked like. I've watched some of the various Batman films, but found the villains far too dark and twisted. However, Batman, Alfred, and Catwoman made the movies worth it. I'd planned to see this one, partly because I love Michael Caine. After the shooting, I figured I'd wait a week or two, then go on a weekday during the day. But there was a guy here in N. Calif. who stood up in a showing and started yelling about Colorado. So my plans are on hold.
I'm not familiar with the comic books; but, based on the old series, I'm guessing that the Joker in the original comics had red hair, too.
Yes, lots of people die their hair red. But this guy reportedly had a Joker mask in his apartment, and told the cops he's the Joker.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
If he's calling himself the Joker then the link makes sense. But I think I'm right in saying that in the comics he's had green hair from the start, which is what confused me. (Am I at the fundamentalist end of the comic book spectrum?)
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Most of these people are "mad" in a popular sense, but not in a clinical one.
What on earth is that supposed to mean?
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Most of these people are "mad" in a popular sense, but not in a clinical one.
What on earth is that supposed to mean?
That ordinary folks would say that anyone who does this has got to be nuts to do what they did. But they're not in fact mentally ill.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
I think the dyed hair might be a bit of a red herring. As more evidence becomes available, I am beginning to doubt whether James Holmes was totally on this planet immediately prior to, or at the time of the shootings. How long he has been like that and whether he is currently normal psychologically, in the broadest sense, are open to investigation.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Holmes may have found that green hair dye is harder to get hold of than semi-automatic weapons and so settled for L'Oreal Sunset Red.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
According to today's paper, he was under psychiatric treatment.
Moo
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Describing those committing particularly despicable crimes, or even criminals as a whole, as 'nutters' or in some way mentally ill, is little more than an attempt to separate 'normal' folk from the kind of people who do that sort of thing.
I agree. Someone in a speech or stand-up interview here in the US referred to the perpetrator of this heinous act as a
demon: I think that term is light-years more appropriate!
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I double-checked my memory of the Joker's hair. According to various sites, both the Cesar Romero and Heath Ledger versions had red hair.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Apologies for being a bore (I must get out more) but Cesar Romero had green hair when playing the Joker, as did Heath Ledger.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Apologies for being a bore (I must get out more) but Cesar Romero had green hair when playing the Joker, as did Heath Ledger.
Just checked out a numerous Cesar Romero pics as Batman and found a couple with red hair as well as numerous with green. That's 60's television for you. Batman with Red Hair
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Wow - I stand corrected. I wonder what the thinking was behind that.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Just checked out a numerous Cesar Romero pics as Batman and found a couple with red hair as well as numerous with green. That's 60's television for you. Batman with Red Hair
Ummm..... I'm not a comic book geek, but I think you mean Joker with Red Hair. Right?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I already made reference to Azaria Chamberlain in the related hell thread. This whole hair colour business is reminding me about all the assertions that "Azaria" meant "sacrifice". Never mind that his hair isn't actually the correct colour for most depictions of the Joker, it HAS to mean something.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I already made reference to Azaria Chamberlain in the related hell thread. This whole hair colour business is reminding me about all the assertions that "Azaria" meant "sacrifice". Never mind that his hair isn't actually the correct colour for most depictions of the Joker, it HAS to mean something.
Both, I think, are proving gigantic red herrings.
I'm not surprised evidence is coming out that Holmes was seriously mentally at risk of doing something like this and that his treating psychiatrist was previously cautioned about inappropriately medicating people.
Most mentally ill people are no danger to anyone else. As the plot unfolds he seems a very special case indeed. The tragedy is being compounded: especially if it was in any way avoidable.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re red hair:
This is where I got the info that Heath's version of Joker had red hair:
quote:
Holmes’ dyed red hair, however, more closely resembled the late Heath Ledger’s “Dark Knight” Joker, or the one played on TV by the late actor Cesar Romero.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
I guess the "hair colour" sub-thread continues. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Just knotting up the loose end of the sub-thread!
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Most mentally ill people are no danger to anyone else.
Generally true, but shit happens.
We had a friend at our last church who was on a disability pension because of his schizophrenia.
He would enliven Bible study groups with dirty jokes when he got bored: he once walked out to the front of the church, took the microphone from the pastor, and delivered his own little homily; and periodically we had to carefully suggest to him that perhaps, just perhaps, he had misheard God's command to go off his medication.
Everyone loved him, and assumed he was completely harmless.
Then one day, all out of the blue, he attacked his parents with a knife.
Fortunately they managed to restrain him, no-one was hurt, and after receiving professional help he seems to have settled back to (his) normality.
The point is that we need to be careful not only about blaming perpetrators with a history of mental illness, but blaming those whom we imagine should have been clairvoyant enough to know what they were going to do.
[ 30. July 2012, 07:22: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
I've pursued the hair colour theme because it confuses me. If you identified with someone to the extent of making yourself look like them and, even worse, acting in a horrific way just like they did, don't you think you would get the details right? If this chap was such a big comic fan that he wanted to be the Joker why didn't he dye his hair green? The red hair may mean something, but I don't think its what the media are claiming.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Just checked out a numerous Cesar Romero pics as Batman and found a couple with red hair as well as numerous with green. That's 60's television for you. Batman with Red Hair
Ummm..... I'm not a comic book geek, but I think you mean Joker with Red Hair. Right?
Yup, that's what I get for posting during bouts of insomnia. Cesar Romero as the Joker is right.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I've pursued the hair colour theme because it confuses me. If you identified with someone to the extent of making yourself look like them and, even worse, acting in a horrific way just like they did, don't you think you would get the details right? If this chap was such a big comic fan that he wanted to be the Joker why didn't he dye his hair green? The red hair may mean something, but I don't think its what the media are claiming.
Since the Joker appeared with both red and green hair either would technically correct. Who knows whether the suspect saw any version of Batman, TV or movie. Personally, I think he's tried to set himself up in advance for an insanity plea.
Posted by Olde Sea Dog (# 13061) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
]........ Personally, I think he's tried to set himself up in advance for an insanity plea.
I agree, but the way it works in this country is that a person mentally ill is held in a hospital until they are judged fit to stand trial. There's no way to get out of eventually standing trial unless the person dies in the hospital.
Holmes may not be aware of that, lots of people still think one can get out of doing prison by staying a coupla years in the hospital and then getting out once "cured".
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Olde Sea Dog:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
]........ Personally, I think he's tried to set himself up in advance for an insanity plea.
I agree, but the way it works in this country is that a person mentally ill is held in a hospital until they are judged fit to stand trial. There's no way to get out of eventually standing trial unless the person dies in the hospital.
Holmes may not be aware of that, lots of people still think one can get out of doing prison by staying a coupla years in the hospital and then getting out once "cured".
Actually, there is an addition to that: if a person goes to trial and is found Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity they'll be sentenced to a Mental Institution until they are judged returned to sanity and then they are set free. The fine balance is being found fit to stand trial, but not guilty by reason of insanity. I think it's that outcome he's prepping for.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
There are really 2 separate questions. The first is that of a person's fitness to be tried: can they give instructions to their lawyers; can they understand the nature of a trial; can they sensibly accept advice? The position here is that if a person is found not fit to be tried (and that's a question for a jury, based upon proper medical evidence) they are referred into the mental health system. There can be a special trial, where a court will decide if there is sufficient evidence to convict. If so, then the judge fixes a term to be sent in a forensic mental institution, rather than a sentence. Release after then depends upon the usual mental health procedures, but if a person's hospitalisation is to continue after "serving the term", that time is an a normal mental health hospital with regular reviews by an independent Tribunal.
The other question is whether a person is not guilty on the ground of mental illness. Here, the test is the old McNaghten Rule one: at the time of the action, was the accused suffering from a disease or illness of the mind such that s/he did not know the nature and quality of the act. or did not know that the act was wrong. This easily deals with the person who stabs to death 6 others with the carving knife he was carrying to peel apples with, because he had a message from God to do so. It deals with the mother who smothers her children because she believes that the world is an evil place and that the right thing to do is to bring their lives to an end, so that they can live with God. Again, the question is sone requiring expert medical evidence and in the vast majority of cases, there is no real contest between the prosecutor and those acting for the accused. By and large, they are tragic instances of what can go wrong.
What it the McNaghten Rule does not do is to deal with a psychopath. such a person does know just what they are doing, and is indifferent to whether that is right or wrong. Most psychiatrists would say that that is a form of mental illness, but the finding will be one of guilt and the person sentenced to a term of imprisonment. It looks as if this man may well fall into that category.
[ 30. July 2012, 23:03: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on
:
One would certainly hope so!
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0