WWTBAM Bored

Colorado theater shooter's sentence to be announced 7pm ET (5pm local time). Jury deliberated six and a half hours, according to the AP report (one hour yesterday, the balance today).

I'm no expert, but I figure with that brief a time for deliberations points to the ultimate punishment.

SpacemanSpiff wrote:Colorado theater shooter's sentence to be announced 7pm ET (5pm local time). Jury deliberated six and a half hours, according to the AP report (one hour yesterday, the balance today).

I'm no expert, but I figure with that brief a time for deliberations points to the ultimate punishment.

In general, a quick verdict is not good news for defendants. That said, it's Colorado. I won't be surprised if it's life w/o parole (or weed).

tlynn78 wrote:

SpacemanSpiff wrote:Colorado theater shooter's sentence to be announced 7pm ET (5pm local time). Jury deliberated six and a half hours, according to the AP report (one hour yesterday, the balance today).

I'm no expert, but I figure with that brief a time for deliberations points to the ultimate punishment.

In general, a quick verdict is not good news for defendants. That said, it's Colorado. I won't be surprised if it's life w/o parole (or weed).

t-girl called it. They gave him life without parole. (Sounds like the waste of a prison cell to me.)

Barf. Really

silvercamaro wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:

SpacemanSpiff wrote:Colorado theater shooter's sentence to be announced 7pm ET (5pm local time). Jury deliberated six and a half hours, according to the AP report (one hour yesterday, the balance today).

I'm no expert, but I figure with that brief a time for deliberations points to the ultimate punishment.

In general, a quick verdict is not good news for defendants. That said, it's Colorado. I won't be surprised if it's life w/o parole (or weed).

t-girl called it. They gave him life without parole. (Sounds like the waste of a prison cell to me.)

A waste, for sure.

silvercamaro wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:

SpacemanSpiff wrote:Colorado theater shooter's sentence to be announced 7pm ET (5pm local time). Jury deliberated six and a half hours, according to the AP report (one hour yesterday, the balance today).

I'm no expert, but I figure with that brief a time for deliberations points to the ultimate punishment.

In general, a quick verdict is not good news for defendants. That said, it's Colorado. I won't be surprised if it's life w/o parole (or weed).

t-girl called it. They gave him life without parole. (Sounds like the waste of a prison cell to me.)

Not surprising. The guy clearly has lots of loose screws. Put him in an asylum and throw away the key.

Life without parole is best. Colorado has executed only one person since we reinstated in the 70s. If he'd been sentenced to death, there would have been a pricey, protracted series of appeals, during which time Holmes would have spent costly prison time on death row. I googled this: It costs approximately $90,000 more a year to house an inmate on death row than in the general prison population.

I was relieved when the sentence was announced, mostly because the nightmare would have continued through years of appeals, all on Page 1 or the lead story on the nightly news with every decision. I get the sense that this one is done, unless Holmes is murdered in a few years as Dahmer was.

SportsFan68 wrote:Life without parole is best. Colorado has executed only one person since we reinstated in the 70s. If he'd been sentenced to death, there would have been a pricey, protracted series of appeals, during which time Holmes would have spent costly prison time on death row. I googled this: It costs approximately $90,000 more a year to house an inmate on death row than in the general prison population.

I was relieved when the sentence was announced, mostly because the nightmare would have continued through years of appeals, all on Page 1 or the lead story on the nightly news with every decision. I get the sense that this one is done, unless Holmes is murdered in a few years as Dahmer was.

Agreed.

Earlier this year the neighboring state of Nebraska ended the death penalty, becoming the first conservative state in over 40 years to do so. And they did it for conservative reasons, such as eliminating the cost of the appeals process. One could also argue that life in prison without parole is actually a harsher punishment than an early death.

All we know from the verdict is that the jury didn't unanimously support the death penalty for Holmes. Does anyone know the jury's numerical division? Or was the jury unanimous in favor of life without parole? --Bob

elwoodblues wrote:Earlier this year the neighboring state of Nebraska ended the death penalty, becoming the first conservative state in over 40 years to do so. And they did it for conservative reasons, such as eliminating the cost of the appeals process. One could also argue that life in prison without parole is actually a harsher punishment than an early death.

I believe that's true. Law and Order did an episode called Genius, where the murderer demands the death penalty. I thought it was extremely well written.

elwoodblues wrote:Earlier this year the neighboring state of Nebraska ended the death penalty, becoming the first conservative state in over 40 years to do so. And they did it for conservative reasons, such as eliminating the cost of the appeals process. One could also argue that life in prison without parole is actually a harsher punishment than an early death.

We should fix the cost of the appeals process. But life without parole, for me, would be worse than the death penalty.

The death penalty is only effective as a deterrent when administered timely. And we should keep prisons uncomfortable. I agree they should not be inhumane, but they certainly should not be comfortable.

The problem is too many people will sacrifice thousands of innocent lives to make sure they don't take one. Foolish thinking. In crime and punishment as well as national defense (or war).

BackInTex wrote:

elwoodblues wrote:Earlier this year the neighboring state of Nebraska ended the death penalty, becoming the first conservative state in over 40 years to do so. And they did it for conservative reasons, such as eliminating the cost of the appeals process. One could also argue that life in prison without parole is actually a harsher punishment than an early death.

We should fix the cost of the appeals process. But life without parole, for me, would be worse than the death penalty.

The death penalty is only effective as a deterrent when administered timely. And we should keep prisons uncomfortable. I agree they should not be inhumane, but they certainly should not be comfortable.

The problem is too many people will sacrifice thousands of innocent lives to make sure they don't take one. Foolish thinking. In crime and punishment as well as national defense (or war).

You first five sentences I agree with 100%. The last paragraph may be true, but I would hesitate to make such a sweeping generalization without solid data to back it up.

I don't see any way to make the death penalty a deterrent without an unacceptable increase in the error rate. One innocent person executed by the government is too many. If that places me in your last category, so be it. I can live with that characterization.

Your point about prisons is kind of like what often gets me in trouble with my liberal friends. I do believe the US needs a safety net for the poor. The trouble is the fine line we walk between providing a safety net and providing a safety apartment with three bedrooms and a hot tub. The way out of poverty is not comfort. But it is also difficult to determine how to offer programs that allow people to emerge from poverty without providing so much that people will be content to live in constant high-poverty.

I do not support the death penalty in any instance that I can think of, but I come a lot closer in some cases (serial sex offenders, especially involving children; domestic abusers, especially of children; etc.) than in others. James Holmes should not have gotten the death penalty. The guy in my home town, who just got off death row due to a plea deal after murdering his ex-wife and their two children, comes a lot closer to deserving it than Holmes did.

I don't think the death penalty is a deterrent, nor meant to be. It removes egregious monsters from the population.

And, I've reconsidered this over the years. Was on a capital murder jury in which the death penalty was waived for 40 years in prison without parole. It's not easy deliberating even when it's cut and dried. We all had the shakes, cries and just...knowing that you are sealing a fate is onerous.

Plus, even tho I know they chose jurors who indicated they didn't have an objection to the death penalty in hypotheticals, I'm not sure what I would have done if it had been on the table.