Colorado shooter to face 24 counts of first-degree murder, 116 counts of attempted murder (1 Viewer)

[WhoDat9to12]

Centennial, Colorado (CNN) -- Colorado movie shooting suspect James Holmes was charged Monday with 24 counts of first-degree murder -- two counts for each of the 12 people killed in the shooting.

Twelve of the murder counts cite "deliberation," and 12 cite "extreme indifference" to the value of human life.

The 24-year-old former doctoral student also was charged with 116 counts of attempted murder -- two for each of the 58 moviegoers wounded in the attack. Finally, he was charged with one count of felony possession of explosive devices and one count related to the use of an assault weapon, a shotgun and a handgun during the incident.

The 142 counts are all in connection with the July 20 massacre in the Century Aurora 16 multiplex.

Shackled around his wrists and ankles, Holmes was escorted into Arapahoe County Courthouse by two sheriffs deputies. Five other sheriffs deputies were standing in the courtroom.

More:
Colorado movie shooting suspect charged with murder - CNN.com

 

[El Caliente]

I hope that the victims, and the families of the fallen victims are allowed to decide the punishment. Seems fair.

 

[Louisiana Joseph]

Cruel and indecent punishment is OK in this case.

 

[DavidM]

I hope that the victims, and the families of the fallen victims are allowed to decide the punishment. Seems fair.

You posted something similar in another thread. Is it just some appeal to emotion or do you actually wish the system was geared towards letting survivors and family members of victims decide the punishment? With twelve people killed, and numerous others shot, what if they don't all agree on what is appropriate? My opinion is that while some in that position might welcome the opportunity, it could be an unwanted burden to put on others already dealing with grief or trauma. Do you have a reason to not trust the criminal justice system to mete out appropriate punishment for this crime?

You've piqued my interest now that I've seen it a couple of times.

 

[DaveXA]

I hope that the victims, and the families of the fallen victims are allowed to decide the punishment. Seems fair.

No, that's what a judge and jury are for. What if they want to chop off his head and put it on a pike in public? What if they would rather forgive him and not make him go to jail? I'd rather the courts mete out justice according to the laws of the land. But that's me.

 

[El Caliente]

Let the jury determine if guilty or not but I would rather let the family decide the punishment because how often is a jury of your peers really a jury of your peers? So how will they get the punishment right? Let the families decide the punishment, and if they can't come to a conclusion what says a jury will do any better?

I am just dubious with the court system due to previous personal experience.

 

[DavidM]

I would rather let the family decide because how often is a jury of your peers really a jury of your peers? Let the families decide, and if they can't come to a conclusion what says a jury will do any better?

I am just dubious with the court system due to previous personal experience.

It just doesn't seem to make much sense, especially in this case where there are so many victims.

Sentencing via jury or judge seems to work well in our system, usually. It isn't perfect, but then what you're describing doesn't even seem plausible.

Which family members are selected? What is the process for them to make a decision? What if they don't want the responsibility of sentencing somebody to prison or death?

 

[El Caliente]

I don't know. All good questions, but with all those questions, who is to say the jury will even get it right? Look at Casey Anthony. Look at OJ part I. The court system we have now is the best one out there for sure, but how often is justice truly served.

 

[DavidM]

I don't know. All good questions, but with all those questions, who is to say the jury will even get it right? Look at Casey Anthony. Look at OJ part I. The court system we have now is the best one out there for sure, but how often is justice truly served.

Still doesn't make sense.

Now you're not just talking about sentencing, but also the rendering of a verdict.

If you think juries don't always hand down the right verdict and fair sentencing (and they don't, of course) how in the world do you think grieving family members and traumatized victims are going to lead to a more fair system of justice?

Again, is this just some appeal to emotion?

 

[El Caliente]

This should be a pretty open and shut case right? No need to waste too much time and money on it. I haven't heard any of the victims or their families say go easy on the guy, and 2 of the victims who have been interviewed on tv have said he should be killed. I don't think you will get much of a variance among the 100+ victims. For a jury to deny them what they want would be a shame.

 

[DavidM]

This should be a pretty open and shut case right? No need to waste too much time and money on it. I haven't heard any of the victims or their families say go easy on the guy, and 2 of the victims who have been interviewed on tv have said he should be killed. I don't think you will get much of a variance among the 100+ victims. For a jury to deny them what they want would be a shame.

So basically you're saying you don't believe in due process?

 

[El Caliente]

I believe in due process as many times it is done right, but there is still that fraction of the time when a guilty person is set free, and an innocent person is put behind bars. You have corrupt judges, crappy attorneys, crazy jury's. Like I said our system is the best one out there, but even then the wrong verdict is dealt.

Say the victims and the families wanted this guy set free. Would you have a problem with that? What if they wanted him hung from a tree in the middle of the desert. Would you have a problem with that? I say they are the ones suffering right now, so let them decide the punishment.

 

[DavidM]

I believe in due process as many times it is done right, but there is still that fraction of the time when a guilty person is set free, and an innocent person is put behind bars. You have corrupt judges, crappy attorneys, crazy jury's. Like I said our system is the best one out there, but even then the wrong verdict is dealt.

Say the victims and the families wanted this guy set free. Would you have a problem with that? What if they wanted him hung from a tree in the middle of the desert. Would you have a problem with that? I say they are the ones suffering right now, so let them decide the punishment.

I have a problem with your whole fundamental premise of handing off justice to victims and/or their family members.

You say you are for due process. You say America has the best criminal justice system. Then you point out that it has its flaws (which it does, any system would) and then advocate for some radically altered method by which we convict and sentence the accused; by deferring outcomes to the victims and or their relatives. One of the flaws you cite is that sometimes the wrong verdict or unfair punishment is dealt. Your solution? Let people with a deep emotional interest in the case make the decision instead. Seriously, that occurs to you as some kind of remedy for the specific flaws you perceive?

I'm trying to understand your position but the rationale doesn't seem at all cohesive or thought out.

 

[El Caliente]

Like I asked before, how often is a jury of your peers really a jury of your peers?
What problem do you have with the victims or their families (if the victim is dead) dealing out the punishment if the person is found guilty?

 

[El Caliente]

Your from Louisiana right? Did operation wrinkled robe not shake your faith in the judicial system?

NVM, I see your from Texas. You familiar with Judges Limas and Jones who are going to prison? Does that not shake your faith in the system?