Other

Actually, in cases involving the insane I do not agree Dolly. Here is where I have a problem with your logic. A person who is by clinical definition insane is not of reasonable mind, especially at this very early age when for example the onset of schizophrenia begins to take hold. Which, by the way, is what is believed to be the case with Mr. Holmes thus far. If this is in fact true then why is it our obligation to simply get rid of the human being instead of treating the human being? Why is it morally justifiable to murder one human being who may have not understood his own actions to appease the deaths and victims of others? An eye for an eye? If we use this moral justification in the biblical sense then you and I should have been put to death long before now as prescribed by law in both the Old and New Testaments in the books of Leveticus and Deuteronomy respectively. What about the contradictions? Whilst in one part of the bible we are instructed to stone some to death for their immoral actions we are also instructed by the Ten Commandments that "Thou shalt not kill". To my knowledge there was no underwriting beneath the Ten Commandments with an asterisk stipulating that this particular commandment was null and void should it be for the purpose of wreaking justice upon the condemned? All I'm asking is that if we have a moral obligation to Mr. Holmes, should it not be to help or rehabilitate a person who may not have been under true moral and mental faculties at the time he made such an irrational and terrible decision? Should we be so quick to judge those and their circumstances that we barely know? If indeed he was not of sound mind at the time of his horrific actions why does it then become justifiable to simply stick a needle in his arm as opposed to food in his mouth? If we go by "wrong is wrong" then why do we cheer and celebrate women who kill their husbands after years of physical and mental abuse, but a man whose mind is genetically predisposed to mental illness should be strapped into a chair and told to take deep breaths?

As far as deterrence is concerned I do not see your logic there either. Remember that the death penalty is a punishment by law. Parole officers, registries, and house arrests are exactly as you said... ...restrictions. They are in place to provide future protection from those who are eventually released. Death penalties are pretty much finalistic. If the law and penalty are rescinded then they spend the rest of their natural lives in prison without possibility of parole. Just as being put to death, no possibility of parole still removes them permanently from civilization.

As for your determination that we should not have to feed, clothe, and house such individuals I also see a lack of judgment as well. Is it because of tax dollars spent to accommodate these men and women? By that same rationale should we also simply put to death those who have been sentenced to life for various crimes which did not warrant the death penalty? For example, there are plenty of men and women who have been convicted of lesser crimes such as tax evasion, mail fraud, pedophilia, and involuntary manslaughter, etc. that have received sentences that go well beyond a normal person’s lifespan at the time of their incarceration. Should we save a few more dollars and gas them as well? Why is it morally right to feed, clothe, and house these individuals? Murder, whether first degree, mass, or capital, etc. are far more reprehensible crimes and thusly the death penalty is the only viable solution? I am only asking that you be more specific.

In answer to your last question concerning different factors I did state previously that several of the studies took different variables into consideration:

“Rick - 7/21/12 @ 1:38 PM:
Several of the studies go way beyond just what appears on the surface. Many of them consider crimes other than the typical first degree murder or capital murder in order to get the death penalty.”

I’m not being sarcastic, mean, or facetious. You stated what you considered a very valid argument, and I agree to an extent on some of the content, but I am simply replying in answer to some of your questions, and would only ask that you elaborate on some of the points. At the very least I responded just so that I might both clarify my position and suggest thoughts for you to consider as well.

Surprisingly enough... ...yes, they can. The fact that he stockpiled weapons, ammunition, and various other elements to booby-trap his apartment only go further to prove that he was clearly not in a stable mindset. There are several ways a defense team may go about using the insanity plea or defense. There is a difference. I'm not sure about Colorado. I'll have to look it up. What I do know is that an insanity plea means the defense will have to prove that their defendant did not know right from wrong and cannot be held fully responsible for the crime committed. An insanity defense may mean his attorney's acknowledge that he may have known right from wrong, but due to mental illness he should not face the full penalty of the law for the crime. Either way there are several ways to go about proving mental illness, temporary insanity, volitional insanity, incompetence, etc.

Make no mistake, the district attorney will use his meticulous planning to try to prove some sort of premeditation and knowledge of right from wrong. However, that being said, when it comes to an insanity defense none of that means anything, and will more than likely confuse the jury anyway. A little tidbit of information I found out though: 60-70% of insanity pleas are used in non-violent proceedings. Only 20% of those who try to use the insanity plea for cases involving murder are actually acquitted.