Parents of shooting suspect James Holmes' plead against death penalty
Parents of shooting suspect James Holmes' plead against death penalty
March 12, 2013: In this file photo, Robert and Arlene Holmes, the parents of Aurora theater shooting suspect James Holmes, arrive at district court for the arraignment of their son in Centennial, Colo. (AP)
DENVER The parents of Colorado theater shooter James Holmes pleaded Friday for his life to be spared through a plea bargain -- a move that rekindled the long-running, emotional debate about whether the horrific details of the mass killing should be played out at his upcoming trial.
The statement released by Robert and Arlene Holmes emphasized a key legal issue in the tortured history of the case -- whether Holmes was sane when 12 people were killed and 70 others were injured, and whether he should die if convicted of the crime.
"He is a human being gripped by a severe mental illness," the parents wrote in just their second public comments since the 2012 attack. "We have always loved him, and we do not want him to be executed."
The statement also thrust the mass shooting into the spotlight once again at a time of heightened concerns over theater safety. The hackers who prompted Sony to withhold the release of "The Interview" had threated violence against theaters.
Prosecutors previously rejected at least one proposed plea deal made by attorneys for Holmes, criticizing the lawyers for publicizing the offer and calling it a ploy meant to draw the public and the judge into what should be private plea negotiations.
They said the proposal could not be considered genuine because the defense repeatedly refused to give them information needed to evaluate it. No details were provided on the information but attorneys have argued in court previously about access to details concerning Holmes' mental health.
Jury selection is set to begin on Jan. 20 in the trial.
It's hard to know exactly what Holmes' legal defense looks like, since court filings have been heavily redacted and the findings of two court-ordered sanity evaluations have been sealed from public view.
Defense attorneys don't deny he was the shooter but say he was in the grips of a psychotic episode.
The comments by Holmes' parents incensed some survivors of the attack and relatives of those killed. They questioned the timing around the holidays and as 9,000 jury summonses were being delivered for the trial.
"To give a person who committed such a calculated, horrific crime a life sentence, to me that's like giving him a slap on the wrist," said Marcus Weaver, who was shot in the arm and whose friend, Rebecca Wingo, died in the attack.
He called the statement a ploy by defense lawyers to manipulate the jury pool and generate "sympathy for a man who has done a horrific thing."
"For his parents to send us an apology letter three years later is an insult," Weaver said. "It would have been better if they had said nothing at all."
The prospect of a longer legal battle troubled others such as Pierce O'Farrill, who was shot three times. He previously said he would welcome an agreement that would imprison Holmes for life.
"I don't see his death bringing me peace," O'Farrill told The Associated Press in March 2013. "To me, my prayer for him was that he would spend the rest of his life in prison and hopefully, in all those years he has left, he could find God and ask for forgiveness himself."
Prosecutors, who are under a gag order, declined to comment, saying it would hurt the fairness and integrity of the trial.
Holmes has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to the charges filed after the July 2012 attack at the theater in Aurora, outside Denver.
His parents, who live in Rancho Penasquitos, California, say they want to avoid a traumatic trial. One option would be a deal that calls for a guilty plea in exchange for a sentence of life in prison without parole, they said.
"If that happened, our son would be in prison the rest of his life, but no one would have to relive those horrible events at a trial the media has permission to televise," the parents wrote.
They say the best option would be sending their son to an institution for the mentally ill, which could happen if he is found not guilty by reason of insanity.
In addition, they say they have spent every moment since the shooting thinking about the victims and their families and friends.
"We are always praying for everyone in Aurora. We wish that July 20, 2012, never happened," they wrote.
The parents previously issues brief comments through a lawyer expressing support for their son immediately after the attack.
They have not disclosed details of his condition or whether they had any warning that he might become violent.
Some victims questioned their sincerity.
Melisa Cowden, whose ex-husband Gordon Cowden was killed in the shooting, called the statement comical and said she was upset that Holmes' parents have not apologized for what happened.
"He's not mentally ill," Cowden said.
Tags
Who is online
593 visitors
Melisa Cowden, whose ex-husband Gordon Cowden was killed in the shooting, called the statement comical and said she was upset that Holmes' parents have not apologized for what happened.
"He's not mentally ill," Cowden said.
What I'm going to say is very likely to be wildly unpopular with everyone, but I'm going to say it anyway.
I can understand how the families of the victims of this shooting feel. If my family member had been killed in that movie theater, I would want James Holmes to be strung up by his thumbs and subjected to the slow torture of the Chinese death of 10,000 cuts.
I can understand how his parents feel. James Holmes is their son, and they love him. I don't know if, as a mother, I could walk off and leave my child to face everything alone, and know that I would likely try to spare his life, despite what he had done. I would hate what he had done, and, knowing me, pray for death myself, just so I don't have to suffer any more over it.
So, we have the moral quandrary: Should we execute someone who is mentally ill?
As far as the plea of "Not guilty by reasons of insanity"-- aren't all mass murderers insane somehow to begin with? I mean, looking at all of those who have killed a lot of people-- they are all insane, to some degree, or they wouldn't have done it.
To me, the courts have an obligation to protect society by removing those people who would do harm to society. If he never sees the light of day as a "free" man, I would be ok with it. He needs to be put in a Hannibal Lector type of institute for the criminally insane, lock the door, and throw away the key.
I have a REAL problem with executing those who are found to be mentally incompetent. As an example, adults with Down's Syndrome, or some other genetic/environmental ailment that impairs their ability to function in society. To me, that is wrong. I feel the same way about the mentally ill, but to a lesser extent.
I guess, in this case, whether or not he was having a psychotic break is the key question. I don't know how to answer that question, nor do I have any idea how anyone could tell... I think the absolute best we could do would be to lock him up for the rest of his life in a place for the criminally insane...
So why have a trial?
Because we in the US, are not yet the ISIS. We are a constitutional republic....not a screaming mass of hysterical zealots.
Yeah! We need to be more like North Korea here in the U.S.A. . Is that right?
Innocent until charged?
The only one of those Constitutional Amendment we need is NUMBER 2
NUMBER 2!
Let's start skipping those damned pesky trial things and go right to the gallows! Is that the idea?
No rational person is suggesting this guy should not be given the maximum in the way of punishment once convicted in a fair trial. But to go with raw emotion because it feels so good to get it out there, is no way to run a country.
Would you want someone in, say, your family, to be sentenced by a self-appointed judge-jury-and-executioner or lynch mob?
Why have a trial?
I'll go out on a limb and take a stab at it Because we live in America could that be it?
Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]See the reason we need to deliberate things objectively?
I believe there is a case to be made for a verdict of "Guilty by reason of insanity," but conviction and punishment without a trial dangerous idea.
Is this correct - only Holmes has claimed he was insane at the time of the mass killing? His attorneys are saying it was an "emotional episode" and he is calling it insanity.
Have tests been performed to determine his sanity?
Paragraph 8 above
Thank ya.
Yes; so let's improve it by doing away with
I mean, we always know who's guilty WTF is this trial and burden of proof crap? Waste of time and money. What could possibly go wrong?
There he is; that's the guy. String his ass up.
Next.
Hey, Pro Bono, no charge 'cept for the rope, the lethal injection, electricity, tips for the firing squad dudes.
All that I can add to this is..several months ago, one of my Nephews was stabbed to death by a 19 y/o....I can't count the number of things I would like to see done to this punk.
No argument.
So let's now have the discussion that should logically follow based on the following
So, what needs to be done to prevent the LEGAL purchase of such weaponry by an individual who has a documented history of mental illness? How does this guy, et al, pass a background check?
I didn't hurl any insults; I asked questions and commented based on your comments.
The "loose canon" comment was tongue-and-cheek, it indicted the irony of your getting pissed off at and insulting people for simply disagreeing with you, while expressing outrage over a fair trial and legal system.
That's a fairly objective recount of how this has evolved/devolved.
Yup, yup and yup!
What should I be looking for? The irony I cited is straight forward; you believe some crimes are simply not necessary to adjudicate and that, to save taxpayer dollars, should go right to the conviction and execution phase.
And, you went to name-calling to anger because some disagreed with you. A crazy that kills because of his mental-illness-induced rage is, according to your opinion, an automatic, money-saving "guilty-with-death-penalty" verdict/outcome candidate. Yet you, a sane individual, can't get through a heated debate without inviting me to kiss your ass.
I'm not generally in favor of the death penalty but in cases like this, I almost find it warranted so we sort of agree there. But on suspending the following because you are (justifiably) outraged by a heinous act
to suspend that and tell me to kiss your ass because we don't agree with trashing that portion of the Constitution
just what should I have read in this thread to make me feel otherwise about some of your respones?
Or, better yet - what if one of your family members had been killed by someone such as Holmes? Would you have the same opinion?
Or, better yet - what if one of your family members had been killed by someone such as Holmes? Or some 19 year old punk..
That's one reason why judges recuse themselves from certain cases and potential jurors are rejected.
The concept of "Justice is Blind" addresses that. Convicting based on anger and emotion is a slippery slope (as they say).
Going there again.
Yes the discussion got "aggressive," (if that's part of your objection) the nature of the subject matter made that inevitable. I commented specifically on your comments, not about you personally. And never came close to the "kiss my ass" invitation you offered.
Sarcasm directed at specific comments are not personal insults. They constitutethe use of irony to mock or convey disagreement not to make personal insults.
The comments all got too aggressive and to personal, hence why all the purple. Please tone it down.
You said it yourself "as a last ditch effort."
I'd put War Criminals down
Why did we never get along? Because we often disagree on particular issues.
I'll be happy to apologize when you post an example. I specify always what I object to and my reasons. Anyone is free to rebut point-for-point.
A huge percentage of those incarcerated are minorities who get convicted of the same crimes for which whites who commit the same crimes, are exonerated.
A black man is 30% more likely to be convicted.
Face it, at some point you are going to not only demand that the guilty be put down, but that the nonsense in the legal system that allows for executions of clearly guilty murderers to cost "X" be changed, so that it costs 0.01X like it should for a sane person who was caught red handed murdering an innocent person.
Ah-ha! Wrong you are, sir! Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I'm crazy. If god/Jesus/Allah/Zeus/etc. shows up in person some day, I will definitely change my mind about not believing in them. That doesn't mean that I'm not 100% sure that won't happen, it just means that the chances are just as good that the Flying Spaghetti Monster will show up in person.
I feel like the chances that you may change your position on capital punishment, should the direct monetary and personal costs to you get to a certain threshold, are a bit better.