James Holmes, Insane?

[Katzndogz]

There is often a bit of a difference between our normal, everyday meaning and understanding of "insane" and the legal definition of that term.

In a common, everyday way, it sure seems like anybody who would place such great stock in the fictional shit of comic books and then act it out in the horrific violent, deadly way that Holmes appears to have acted would qualify as "insane."

But that doesn't translate into a winning legal defense, necessarily.

In Colorado a person is insane if the person is suffering from a mental disease or defect that makes the person “incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.”

-- Colorado Criminal Law – Understanding Basic Colorado Criminal Defenses - Criminal Attorney Specializing in Sex Crimes Law in Denver, Colorado

It is often very hard to "sell" that a guy who supposedly couldn't grasp the distinction between right and wrong was able to plan out his conduct including efforts to conceal or escape.

My guess (pure guess) is that it is going to be damnably difficult for this "joker's" criminal defense lawyers to make out the claim before a judge or a jury. I suspect the effort will fail.

I think you are also misinterpreting. Holmes is not insane because he committed acts of mass murder and was able to plan the crime and a get away. He is insane if he imagines himself to be a cartoon character. If, acting as the Joker, you can prove that the Joker was able to grasp the distinction between right and wrong and was able to conform his conduct to the law, now you have an argument. Had Holmes remained under the delusion that he's the Joker he would never stand trial. He wouldn't be competent to stand trial. Recently Holmes shows indication of no longer being under that delusion. He doesn't know what happened and doesn't believe he's the Joker. Now he is able to communicate with his attorneys and participate in his defense. Now he can be tried.

If this keeps up, this is going to become more like a multiple personality syndrome defense in which one manifestation of personality has absolutely no idea, or memory, of what any of the other personalities have done.

 

[Liability]

There is often a bit of a difference between our normal, everyday meaning and understanding of "insane" and the legal definition of that term.

In a common, everyday way, it sure seems like anybody who would place such great stock in the fictional shit of comic books and then act it out in the horrific violent, deadly way that Holmes appears to have acted would qualify as "insane."

But that doesn't translate into a winning legal defense, necessarily.

In Colorado a person is insane if the person is suffering from a mental disease or defect that makes the person “incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.”

-- Colorado Criminal Law – Understanding Basic Colorado Criminal Defenses - Criminal Attorney Specializing in Sex Crimes Law in Denver, Colorado

It is often very hard to "sell" that a guy who supposedly couldn't grasp the distinction between right and wrong was able to plan out his conduct including efforts to conceal or escape.

My guess (pure guess) is that it is going to be damnably difficult for this "joker's" criminal defense lawyers to make out the claim before a judge or a jury. I suspect the effort will fail.

I think you are also misinterpreting. Holmes is not insane because he committed acts of mass murder and was able to plan the crime and a get away. He is insane if he imagines himself to be a cartoon character. If, acting as the Joker, you can prove that the Joker was able to grasp the distinction between right and wrong and was able to conform his conduct to the law, now you have an argument. Had Holmes remained under the delusion that he's the Joker he would never stand trial. He wouldn't be competent to stand trial. Recently Holmes shows indication of no longer being under that delusion. He doesn't know what happened and doesn't believe he's the Joker. Now he is able to communicate with his attorneys and participate in his defense. Now he can be tried.

If this keeps up, this is going to become more like a multiple personality syndrome defense in which one manifestation of personality has absolutely no idea, or memory, of what any of the other personalities have done.

I have no idea what you imagine I may have "misinterpreted." I have no idea if Joker-boy Holms is insane period, much less "legally insane."

I do think it quite likely that he is insane (minimally) -- in the non-legal sense -- if he acted out of some notion about the wisdom of comic book plots and characters.

I also maintain that even IF he IS legally insane, it will be damnably difficult for the defense to make out that claim. And a jury is likely to reject it. I also think that a jury in Colorado will very probably "find" that the State has met their burden of disproving his insanity defense.

But, none of us know what evidence there is of his legal insanity and none of us know what a jury might ultimately conclude about his alleged insanity.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is often a bit of a difference between our normal, everyday meaning and understanding of "insane" and the legal definition of that term.

In a common, everyday way, it sure seems like anybody who would place such great stock in the fictional shit of comic books and then act it out in the horrific violent, deadly way that Holmes appears to have acted would qualify as "insane."

But that doesn't translate into a winning legal defense, necessarily.

-- Colorado Criminal Law – Understanding Basic Colorado Criminal Defenses - Criminal Attorney Specializing in Sex Crimes Law in Denver, Colorado

It is often very hard to "sell" that a guy who supposedly couldn't grasp the distinction between right and wrong was able to plan out his conduct including efforts to conceal or escape.

My guess (pure guess) is that it is going to be damnably difficult for this "joker's" criminal defense lawyers to make out the claim before a judge or a jury. I suspect the effort will fail.

I think you are also misinterpreting. Holmes is not insane because he committed acts of mass murder and was able to plan the crime and a get away. He is insane if he imagines himself to be a cartoon character. If, acting as the Joker, you can prove that the Joker was able to grasp the distinction between right and wrong and was able to conform his conduct to the law, now you have an argument. Had Holmes remained under the delusion that he's the Joker he would never stand trial. He wouldn't be competent to stand trial. Recently Holmes shows indication of no longer being under that delusion. He doesn't know what happened and doesn't believe he's the Joker. Now he is able to communicate with his attorneys and participate in his defense. Now he can be tried.

If this keeps up, this is going to become more like a multiple personality syndrome defense in which one manifestation of personality has absolutely no idea, or memory, of what any of the other personalities have done.

I have no idea what you imagine I may have "misinterpreted." I have no idea if Joker-boy Holms is insane period, much less "legally insane."

I do think it quite likely that he is insane (minimally) -- in the non-legal sense -- if he acted out of some notion about the wisdom of comic book plots and characters.

I also maintain that even IF he IS legally insane, it will be damnably difficult for the defense to make out that claim. And a jury is likely to reject it. I also think that a jury in Colorado will very probably "find" that the State has met their burden of disproving his insanity defense.

But, none of us know what evidence there is of his legal insanity and none of us know what a jury might ultimately conclude about his alleged insanity.

In Colorado once the defense raises the issue of insanity, it is up to the prosecution to prove that the defendant is sane. One would think that it would be the other way around. That the burden of proof is on the defense. Not in Colorado. The state does not have to disprove insanity, but prove sanity.

At the time of the commission of the offense was the accused able to distinguish right from wrong and have the ability to conform his conduct to the law? If he was able to distinguish right from wrong did he lack the ability to conform his conduct to the law because of an irresistable influence.

 

[SW2SILVER]

"Should his attorney SHOOT for", that might be a tad insensitive. I don't know any more who is sane, or isn't . That jackass killed people that were no threat to him for no reason. This guy shouldn't have had ANY firearms, period. Despite all the rhetoric, HE NEVER should have had ALL those guns, at all. I had this insight : If we want to get back to the 2nd Amendment, we should only legalize the sale of arms that were available when the constitution was written. Single shot muzzle loaders. No more AR-15's, those weapons aren't in keeping with the spirit of the second amendment. I really doubt our founding fathers had such things in mind here. The JOKER had green HAIR, not orange, by the way. How much of sick devoted a fan can this James Holmes guy really be anyway?

 

[whitehall]

The shooter in the worst massacre in history at Va. Tech exhibited signs of insanity that the local Police ignored and Va. Tech administration avoided addressing. Professors were afrad to lecture while he was in the room and yet the shooter was able to "legally" purchase weapons because the University refused to take responsibility and the stupid local Police went along with whatever the University said. The liberals in the Commonwealth determined that an instant name check to purchase a weapon should not include psychiatric data and the individual could lie on an ATF form to purchase a weapon because psychiatric problems were covered by a privacy issue. I understand that the concern has been quietly revised and there is no sign of an ACLU suit about it but I wonder if Holmes exhibited erratic behavior that was covered up by institutions of higher learning and ignored by local and campus Police.

 

[Crackerjack]

Sure, insane, go with that.

In that case, he's so insane that he cannot exist among other humans, as he has shown by his actions.

Take him out back behind the courthouse and shoot him down like the rabid dog he is.

I understand and appreciate insanity as a defense to other offenses, but I draw the line at murder.

 

[whitehall]

If Holmes is insane and he "legally" purchased the weapons he used to commit the atrocity we need to ask ourselves if the privacy rights of insane people interfere with the safety of the public. Shouldn't psychiatric care and related prescriptions be enough to confiscate weapons from the individual and prevent him/her from purchasing a weapon?

 

[George Costanza]

There is often a bit of a difference between our normal, everyday meaning and understanding of "insane" and the legal definition of that term.

In a common, everyday way, it sure seems like anybody who would place such great stock in the fictional shit of comic books and then act it out in the horrific violent, deadly way that Holmes appears to have acted would qualify as "insane."

But that doesn't translate into a winning legal defense, necessarily.

-- Colorado Criminal Law – Understanding Basic Colorado Criminal Defenses - Criminal Attorney Specializing in Sex Crimes Law in Denver, Colorado

It is often very hard to "sell" that a guy who supposedly couldn't grasp the distinction between right and wrong was able to plan out his conduct including efforts to conceal or escape.

My guess (pure guess) is that it is going to be damnably difficult for this "joker's" criminal defense lawyers to make out the claim before a judge or a jury. I suspect the effort will fail.

I think you are also misinterpreting. Holmes is not insane because he committed acts of mass murder and was able to plan the crime and a get away. He is insane if he imagines himself to be a cartoon character. If, acting as the Joker, you can prove that the Joker was able to grasp the distinction between right and wrong and was able to conform his conduct to the law, now you have an argument. Had Holmes remained under the delusion that he's the Joker he would never stand trial. He wouldn't be competent to stand trial. Recently Holmes shows indication of no longer being under that delusion. He doesn't know what happened and doesn't believe he's the Joker. Now he is able to communicate with his attorneys and participate in his defense. Now he can be tried.

If this keeps up, this is going to become more like a multiple personality syndrome defense in which one manifestation of personality has absolutely no idea, or memory, of what any of the other personalities have done.

I have no idea what you imagine I may have "misinterpreted." I have no idea if Joker-boy Holms is insane period, much less "legally insane."

I do think it quite likely that he is insane (minimally) -- in the non-legal sense -- if he acted out of some notion about the wisdom of comic book plots and characters.

I also maintain that even IF he IS legally insane, it will be damnably difficult for the defense to make out that claim. And a jury is likely to reject it. I also think that a jury in Colorado will very probably "find" that the State has met their burden of disproving his insanity defense.

But, none of us know what evidence there is of his legal insanity and none of us know what a jury might ultimately conclude about his alleged insanity.

I agree with everything you are saying here, but would suggest that there is no burden on the state to disprove an insanity defense - the burden is on the defense to establish it. Yes, the state will oppose the defense attempt to establish the insanity defense (if that's the way the defense decides to go), but the only burden involved is the one that rests on the defense to prove insanity.

It's kind of like referring to the burden on the defense to disprove the prosecution's case at trial. There is no such burden on the defense.

I am quick to point out that I am parsing words here but, hey, isn't that what we do?

 

[Crackerjack]

If Holmes is insane and he "legally" purchased the weapons he used to commit the atrocity we need to ask ourselves if the privacy rights of insane people interfere with the safety of the public. Shouldn't psychiatric care and related prescriptions be enough to confiscate weapons from the individual and prevent him/her from purchasing a weapon?

He was never diagnosed with any sort of mental problem.

 

[George Costanza]

If someone thinks he is a comic strip character (The Joker), but, in the comic strip, The Joker demonstrates time and time again that he knows the difference between right and wrong, can it be argued that since Holmes thought he was The Joker, and since The Joker knows the difference between right and wrong in the comic strip, that ability to know right from wrong must, then, be attributed to Holmes and, as such, he is not legally insane?

In other words, if Holmes is claiming he truly thought he was the joker, then take him at his word, but that means 100%, i.e., if he is mentally claiming to be The Joker, then he takes the entire persona of The Joker - including The Joker's ability to tell right from wrong.

An interesting issue, but in real life, I doubt that a court of law would adopt such a position, especially in light of the battery of defense shrinks who would be testifying that the defendant was flat insane and also did not know the difference between right and wrong.

I do know this - when someone commits a specific intent crime while in an alcoholic blackout, the test is whether or not they were able to form the requisite specific intent even though they were in a blackout. And it is entirely possible to do that. Just because you don't remember what you did does not meant that you could not have formed the specific intent to do it at the time.

So I say again - how many angels was it that we are trying to decide can dance on the head of a pin?

 

[westwall]

"Should his attorney SHOOT for", that might be a tad insensitive. I don't know any more who is sane, or isn't . That jackass killed people that were no threat to him for no reason. This guy shouldn't have had ANY firearms, period. Despite all the rhetoric, HE NEVER should have had ALL those guns, at all. I had this insight : If we want to get back to the 2nd Amendment, we should only legalize the sale of arms that were available when the constitution was written. Single shot muzzle loaders. No more AR-15's, those weapons aren't in keeping with the spirit of the second amendment. I really doubt our founding fathers had such things in mind here. The JOKER had green HAIR, not orange, by the way. How much of sick devoted a fan can this James Holmes guy really be anyway?

The Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Ammendment so we would allways have the ability to overthrow a corrupt government. You know the kind of government that funnels weapons to drug cartels.

 

[Ariux]

The Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Ammendment so we would allways have the ability to overthrow a corrupt government. You know the kind of government that funnels weapons to drug cartels.

Right, the purpose of the Second Amendment isn't so the people have the ability to shoot deer or Travyons, but preserve their freedom against enemy governments, foreign and domestic.

Second Amendment:
A well regulated armed population being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

 

[Katzndogz]

I think you are also misinterpreting. Holmes is not insane because he committed acts of mass murder and was able to plan the crime and a get away. He is insane if he imagines himself to be a cartoon character. If, acting as the Joker, you can prove that the Joker was able to grasp the distinction between right and wrong and was able to conform his conduct to the law, now you have an argument. Had Holmes remained under the delusion that he's the Joker he would never stand trial. He wouldn't be competent to stand trial. Recently Holmes shows indication of no longer being under that delusion. He doesn't know what happened and doesn't believe he's the Joker. Now he is able to communicate with his attorneys and participate in his defense. Now he can be tried.

If this keeps up, this is going to become more like a multiple personality syndrome defense in which one manifestation of personality has absolutely no idea, or memory, of what any of the other personalities have done.

I have no idea what you imagine I may have "misinterpreted." I have no idea if Joker-boy Holms is insane period, much less "legally insane."

I do think it quite likely that he is insane (minimally) -- in the non-legal sense -- if he acted out of some notion about the wisdom of comic book plots and characters.

I also maintain that even IF he IS legally insane, it will be damnably difficult for the defense to make out that claim. And a jury is likely to reject it. I also think that a jury in Colorado will very probably "find" that the State has met their burden of disproving his insanity defense.

But, none of us know what evidence there is of his legal insanity and none of us know what a jury might ultimately conclude about his alleged insanity.

I agree with everything you are saying here, but would suggest that there is no burden on the state to disprove an insanity defense - the burden is on the defense to establish it. Yes, the state will oppose the defense attempt to establish the insanity defense (if that's the way the defense decides to go), but the only burden involved is the one that rests on the defense to prove insanity.

It's kind of like referring to the burden on the defense to disprove the prosecution's case at trial. There is no such burden on the defense.

I am quick to point out that I am parsing words here but, hey, isn't that what we do?

What you said is the state of the law in California. It is not in Colorado where once an insanity defense is asserted it s up to the state to prove sanity. You don't have to accept what I say, look it up yourself. The defense doesn't have to prove anything.

 

[gallantwarrior]

A normal fast execution is too good for this piece of shit. Hopefully soon, he will be burning in hell for what he did.

O'yes, insane as all hell.

How about we draw and quarter him on the 50-yard line at some football stadium that holds over one hundred thousand people? In addition, put it on pay T.V. for about $150 bucks per view. The proceeds could go to the RNC. My God, think of the possibilities here.

I'd agree on just about all your points except the proceeds might be better contributed to the victims and their families. It would be one way for this nutball to pay some miniscule restitution.

 

[LAfrique]

For somebody to do something like that, wouldn't they almost have to be insane? I know the man is brilliant, and that can be just one tippy-toe removed from unhinged. Do you think that's the case here, and should his attorney shoot for an insanity plea?

In other words, how can he have done what he did and be sane.

I would say James Holmes was under influence of medications or electronic manipulation. Insane? Naw. Too meticulous for me to lean towards insanity-

However, I am very aware that insanity would be plea if James Holmes is puppet of some militia group. Remember Jared Lee Loughner?

 

[Ariux]

It's insane that we can't take a Jew like James Holmes and hang him within a month of a crime like this.

 

[High_Gravity]

For somebody to do something like that, wouldn't they almost have to be insane? I know the man is brilliant, and that can be just one tippy-toe removed from unhinged. Do you think that's the case here, and should his attorney shoot for an insanity plea?

In other words, how can he have done what he did and be sane.

You can be both insane and brilliant.

 

[Crackerjack]

For somebody to do something like that, wouldn't they almost have to be insane? I know the man is brilliant, and that can be just one tippy-toe removed from unhinged. Do you think that's the case here, and should his attorney shoot for an insanity plea?

In other words, how can he have done what he did and be sane.

You can be both insane and brilliant.

The two seem to coincide pretty frequently.

Exhibit A: Nikola Tesla.