Just heartbroken for everyone, and yes, for the Holmes', as well. Schizophrenia is a catastrophic disease. The state killing Holmes isn't going to bring back those innocent victims--it will simply add one more dead.

... what you are saying.

This is a man with a documented history of severe mental illness. As abhorrent as his actions were ... this guy was truly, truly desperately mentally ill.

That guy fits MY definition of legally insane to the point of not being culpable. Any honest person can see that just looking at him for a few minutes.

He SHOULD have been getting mental care long before the incident.

Yes he should have been getting care. What kind of facility would provide the security WE ALL need and the care that HE needs. It seems there are fewer and fewer "institutions' that for decades kept the mentally infirm away from the rest of us. This after locking one's "crazy" relative in the attic fell out of favor.
What to do??

I, too, oppose the death penalty. Period.

They are equally responsible as James Holmes.

the federal database used for background checks, how is the gun shop owner able to know that he should not be sold a weapon?

Because nobody involved in treating Holmes, nor anyone around him who knew he had issues identified him as a threat to society there was no way for anyone else to know he had issues.

So his background check came back clean.

If you are really looking for others to blame, look at the mental health provider who worked with him. She testified Holmes told her he had homicidal thoughts several times a day and they were increasing in frequency- and she did nothing, told nobody, warned nobody.

Other than to state that I am against DP.

Anyone who says "I support the death penalty, but only when guilt is certain", is pro-death penalty.

I support the death penalty.

He needs to live with it, own it, and let it fill his troubled mind ad nauseum.

Ever.

No matter what.

I'm a supporter of rehabilitation when possible. Which to me includes mental health care. I don't support the DP ever.

I won't lose sleep over it. But I would rather see him rot in prison.

He's the terrorist who shot up a kids' camp sponsored by one of the liberal parties in Norway. He could be locked up for life, but after 21 years, the authorities are going to review his case, interview him, take into account other factors in determining if he's been rehabilitated.

It's long past time our country had an open discussion of what we're using the prison system for. Is it a profit center? Is it punishment? Is it rehabilitation? Does the lawbreaker mark himself or herself for life, never to be allowed back into society? Or do we allow for the possibility of redemption? Is incarceration meant to be a warehouse for bad actors, or is a remedial program to be followed? Voting rights restored upon release or not? If we can't guarantee living wage jobs for law-abiding citizens, should we similarly handicap ex-cons? What sort of society do we want? Did our current situation of drastic inequality just happen, or is it the natural result of decades of relentless work by certain powerful forces? Can we change it? Do we want to?

Our penal system is a part of all of this.

Holmes needs to be imprisoned to keep other people safe. But his death isn't required to keep others safe.

Do we lock people away forever, or do they get a chance for change or rehabilitation?

But I think society has a right to say some crimes are so heinous that the chance of them being repeated can't be taken.

unable to control his actions. Why should an insanity defense not take that into consideration?

Staying in prison for the rest of his life will protect society.

of the time and we don't even try really. It's only beyond a reasonable doubt in court and we even manage to fuck that up a lot.

than a fish on a bicycle. I couldn't, in good conscience, sentence him to death. He's not capable of telling the difference between night and day, let alone right from wrong.

Me too.

That's the simplest way to go. I believe that the state should not be in the business of killing people for any crime. One innocent person put to death is too many, and there have been many such over time.

End Capital Punishment Now!

It's possibly the one issue I'm entirely consistent on. I don't see any exception to it. It's completely an unnecessary institution.

I don't ever see a valid point, although I know that assuaging the need for revenge on the part of the victim's family, and the public, is often the reason why people DO support killing those convicted of killing.

But then, I don't support a lot that happens, legally and not, in the criminal justice system.

As for Holmes? I wish he'd gotten the help he needed as a child. It sounds like he was getting some mental health services, but they clearly didn't do the job.

I wish our nation had a bigger heart, and a bigger willingness to address, mental AND physical health.

But then, as a middle school teacher, I often see young people needing help, and not getting it. As a matter of fact, I worked with a local agency to ensure that a very troubled young man could see a psychologist just last year, at no cost, and transportation provided, as long as he needed it. His dad refused because it's not "manly." They'd handle it "at home." What are the odds that kid is going to be okay when he comes back next month?

I also don't support solitary confinement; it fits the definition of cruel and unusual. But it is also used way too much as a punishment within prisons for various infractions.

I support prison reform. I want it to be both punishment and rehabilitation. They should get adequate and appropriate medical and mental health care. There is so much neglect of these issues because it would considered "soft of crime", I guess, to treat some lifer's heart condition.

I do know for sure, that prison is not the place for James Holmes. He needs more treatment than any prison is currently providing. So they'll kill him instead.

Execution to me should exist for one reason - to stop someone who is likely to kill again given the chance, from ever having that chance.

And no NOTHING else works. Escapees have killed again. Parolees have killed again. People in solitary and Supermax have killed again. Supposedly rehabilitated model prisoners and religious converts have killed again. Nobody has ever or can ever kill again after being executed.

This means its use should be restricted to career criminals who have killed repeatedly as the culmination of the violent cursus honorum that marks their ilk; serial killers with clear ongoing psychopathies, the Dahmers Gacys and MacDuffs; religious or cause-driven radicals who believe that a higher case than human society wishes them to kill, and perhaps those to whom killing has simply become the default conflict resolution mode by long practice, the Panzrams et al.

While there is not much solid precedent with one-off spree killers, since so few survive capture, there is unlikely to be the same risk of reoccurrence unless counselling demonstrates that this event triggered ongoing need for repeated thrills. That would put them in the ongoing psychopathy camp. I doubt that's too likely however, as most of this lot seem driven by personal feelings of impotent rage and inadequacy that a) killing people doesn't really assuage once attempted and b) is fairly amenable to both counselling and medication. When you kill to lash out out of uncontrolled rage, it's normally fairly doable to control in future given help. When you kill because it's fun or because your victims are mere toys in your view, then we are in the DP is the only fix territory.

I am not a psychiatrist, and even if I were know nothing of Holmes. Unless he's in that latter situation, which from what I know of the case I doubt, killing him won't save lives. If he is, it might be the only thing that does.

I certainly can understand the anger and resentment that the country has toward this person. I could understand someone wanting him to be put to death, but I don't believe that serves any purpose. It won't bring back the dead, and it won't keep the next maniacal gun toter from shooting up a theater.

I'm on the fence about someone like Holmes ever being rehabilitated and released, however. Yes, he should receive treatment, and he should have been receiving treatment. But he still killed a bunch of people in cold blood without provocation.

At what point would I, or could I, honestly ever be made feel safe enough that any treatment that he might receive would be enough to keep him from doing something like that again? That would be my question, and I don't think there is a point that would make me comfortable enough to want to let him go free. What if he were supposed to take medication to support his sanity and then chose not to take it, etc.?

I'd rather err on the side of caution in cases like this, and I'd probably want him kept out of society for the rest of his life. As sad as it is, I think there are some cases where redemption is simply not an option.