Colorado to seek death penalty for Holmes

Holmes offered to take life in prison under a plea deal, the prosecutor has rejected it and will seek the death penalty--an uphill battle with a Colorado jury, especially with Holmes raising mental health challenges that may not avoid guilty verdicts, but will make the death penalty a much, much harder sell.



What disturbs me are the whisperings in the Colorado bar that the rejection of the plea may be a political move with an eye towards gun control. With a plea deal, the details of the theater shooting and the apartment will largely remain under the gag order and would only come out in a trickle over the next decades. With a full-blown trial, the open courts laws make all that testimony public domain and get the gore into the newspapers and onto the internet. It's no surprise gun-control advocates want to sell the gore to get their legislation moving---Biden's even said "if you could see the Newtown pictures I've seen," "I wish I could show you the pictures" and Feinstein regularly refers to the pictures from Newtown. But Newtown will never come out all at once because they have no one to prosecute, and no trial to help them disseminate the images to stimulate a emotional knee-jerk response.



If this is the motivation behind seeking the death penalty for Holmes, it's a sad statement for the Colorado prosectorial bar where national politics play a role in prosecutorial discretion. They risk Holmes walking for the gun-control benefit of further sensationalizing what Holmes did, and sensationalization is exactly what Holmes wanted when he put this plan together.

Pathetic. Shocked, but not surprised. It's a commentary on todays national environment, and it is sad.



Thx for the effort and insight in your post.

I don't have a problem with the decision, in fact I agree with it 100%. If this case doesn't go to a death penalty trial, no case in Colorado ever should. If Coloradoans want a state without the death penalty, they need to go to the ballot box, and have it removed. The DA is saying that one doesn't get to plan out a shooting extravaganza, and then strong arm the DA to an outcome that the bad guy wants.

snoscythe wrote:
Holmes offered to take life in prison under a plea deal, the prosecutor has rejected it and will seek the death penalty--an uphill battle with a Colorado jury, especially with Holmes raising mental health challenges that may not avoid guilty verdicts, but will make the death penalty a much, much harder sell.



What disturbs me are the whisperings in the Colorado bar that the rejection of the plea may be a political move with an eye towards gun control. With a plea deal, the details of the theater shooting and the apartment will largely remain under the gag order and would only come out in a trickle over the next decades. With a full-blown trial, the open courts laws make all that testimony public domain and get the gore into the newspapers and onto the internet. It's no surprise gun-control advocates want to sell the gore to get their legislation moving---Biden's even said "if you could see the Newtown pictures I've seen," "I wish I could show you the pictures" and Feinstein regularly refers to the pictures from Newtown. But Newtown will never come out all at once because they have no one to prosecute, and no trial to help them disseminate the images to stimulate a emotional knee-jerk response.



If this is the motivation behind seeking the death penalty for Holmes, it's a sad statement for the Colorado prosectorial bar where national politics play a role in prosecutorial discretion. They risk Holmes walking for the gun-control benefit of further sensationalizing what Holmes did, and sensationalization is exactly what Holmes wanted when he put this plan together.

The simpler conclusion is that this was a heinous crime and if this is not death penalty worthy, what is?

BoiseBYU wrote:

What disturbs me are the whisperings in the Colorado bar that the rejection of the plea may be a political move with an eye towards gun control.

The simpler conclusion is that this was a heinous crime and if this is not death penalty worthy, what is?

See the bolded statement. This isn't me reading tea leaves. This is me passing on what I've heard through friends in the Colorado criminal bar, including those in the county prosecutor's offices encompassing Aurora.



So yes, in the absence of the bolded statement you are right, but you missed the meat of where I am coming from.

snoscythe wrote:

snoscythe wrote:
What disturbs me are the whisperings in the Colorado bar that the rejection of the plea may be a political move with an eye towards gun control.

The simpler conclusion is that this was a heinous crime and if this is not death penalty worthy, what is?

See the bolded statement. This isn't me reading tea leaves. This is me passing on what I've heard through friends in the Colorado criminal bar, including those in the county prosecutor's offices encompassing Aurora.



So yes, in the absence of the bolded statement you are right, but you missed the meat of where I am coming from.

Understood. I took the bar whispering as conjecture on their part and to me it does not make sense. The options are either what I suggested or the whisperings that CO has some prosecutors willing to sacrifice their ethics and integrity to pursue a political agenda. Might that happen? Sure but it is a more complicating rationale, yes?

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:

What disturbs me are the whisperings in the Colorado bar that the rejection of the plea may be a political move with an eye towards gun control.

The simpler conclusion is that this was a heinous crime and if this is not death penalty worthy, what is?

See the bolded statement. This isn't me reading tea leaves. This is me passing on what I've heard through friends in the Colorado criminal bar, including those in the county prosecutor's offices encompassing Aurora.



So yes, in the absence of the bolded statement you are right, but you missed the meat of where I am coming from.

Understood. I took the bar whispering as conjecture on their part and to me it does not make sense. The options are either what I suggested or the whisperings that CO has some prosecutors willing to sacrifice their ethics and integrity to pursue a political agenda. Might that happen? Sure but it is a more complicating rationale, yes?

"May" was the operative word for me. It May have some political purpose, but ultimately it is the right move, irrespective of the politics

ABYUFAN wrote:

snoscythe wrote:

snoscythe wrote:
What disturbs me are the whisperings in the Colorado bar that the rejection of the plea may be a political move with an eye towards gun control.

The simpler conclusion is that this was a heinous crime and if this is not death penalty worthy, what is?

See the bolded statement. This isn't me reading tea leaves. This is me passing on what I've heard through friends in the Colorado criminal bar, including those in the county prosecutor's offices encompassing Aurora.



So yes, in the absence of the bolded statement you are right, but you missed the meat of where I am coming from.

Understood. I took the bar whispering as conjecture on their part and to me it does not make sense. The options are either what I suggested or the whisperings that CO has some prosecutors willing to sacrifice their ethics and integrity to pursue a political agenda. Might that happen? Sure but it is a more complicating rationale, yes?

"May" was the operative word for me. It May have some political purpose, but ultimately it is the right move, irrespective of the politics

But have you considered what will happen if the prosecutor loses an un-losable case? Whatever happens next will be emotionally driven.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

tww wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:

What disturbs me are the whisperings in the Colorado bar that the rejection of the plea may be a political move with an eye towards gun control.

The simpler conclusion is that this was a heinous crime and if this is not death penalty worthy, what is?

See the bolded statement. This isn't me reading tea leaves. This is me passing on what I've heard through friends in the Colorado criminal bar, including those in the county prosecutor's offices encompassing Aurora.



So yes, in the absence of the bolded statement you are right, but you missed the meat of where I am coming from.

Understood. I took the bar whispering as conjecture on their part and to me it does not make sense. The options are either what I suggested or the whisperings that CO has some prosecutors willing to sacrifice their ethics and integrity to pursue a political agenda. Might that happen? Sure but it is a more complicating rationale, yes?

"May" was the operative word for me. It May have some political purpose, but ultimately it is the right move, irrespective of the politics

But have you considered what will happen if the prosecutor loses an un-losable case? Whatever happens next will be emotionally driven.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Its tht way with every high profile case. Good cannot back down from evil just because it is high profile. A D.A. cannot let the perp unilaterally dictate the terms of the plea deal. It cannot be done. This one has to go to a jury

I can certainly understand the fear that the jury may give a not guilty by reason of insanity, in which case Holmes would go to a mental institution instead of death row. However, are we sure that he wasn't insane? By that, I mean, is there evidence that he knew right from wrong at the time of the incident? I would have to say there is more than ample evidence--such as suiting up in body armor. The difference between a sociopath and an insane person is one knows right from wrong but doesn't care, and the other cannot mentally distinguish right from wrong. The former gets the death penalty, the other is not culpable under laws requiring a mens rea, or state of mind, of a "knowing" act such as murder.



While the jury system has gone against popular opinion in two fairly recent cases (Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson), in both cases the jury did not have actual eyewitness accounts of what happened. This case will be far different, and I would wager there will be ample evidence of premeditation and coherent thought that strikes against any argument of insanity. Remember, mental illness, in and of itself, does not get you off the hook.



I also take great comfort in knowing that justice and mercy are served in the final analysis of things by the Supreme Judge, no matter what we imperfect people on a jury may decide.

ABYUFAN wrote:
Its tht way with every high profile case. Good cannot back down from evil just because it is high profile. A D.A. cannot let the perp unilaterally dictate the terms of the plea deal. It cannot be done. This one has to go to a jury

So are you okay with the Jared Loughner plea deal that took the death penalty off the table? Is a plea bargain more or less palatable depending on who is the first to make the offer?

snoscythe wrote:

Its tht way with every high profile case. Good cannot back down from evil just because it is high profile. A D.A. cannot let the perp unilaterally dictate the terms of the plea deal. It cannot be done. This one has to go to a jury

So are you okay with the Jared Loughner plea deal that took the death penalty off the table? Is a plea bargain more or less palatable depending on who is the first to make the offer?

As stupid as it may sound... yes. I'm always OK with plea deals, and there is a value to resolving things before trial, even in death penalty cases. When the prosecutor initiates the plea deal discussion it is done with an eye toward potential issues in the prosecution, or at the wish of the families of the victims. When it is initiated by the defendant, it smells to me like the bad guy is trying to strong arm the prosecution into doing things as the defendant wants, rather than with an eye towards society as a whole.



If tomorrow the D.A. said that a majority of the victims' families have asked him to accept the requested plea, then I'd be OK with it. But just to accept the plea request because the guy wants it is not a good precedent.