Previous Post
Next Post


From “Colorado jurors rejected the death penalty Friday for movie theater shooter James Holmes. They sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole.” And he’ll live at taxpayer expense for the rest of his days. Good enough?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. If a mass killing isn’t enough for the death penalty, what is? Must have been some bleeding hearts on the jury.

    • That is a true miscarriage of justice. This heartless scumbag planned and carried out the cold blooded murder of 12 innocent people, by walking into a dark movie theatre armed with 2 guns and a bomb and started slaughtering people that he did not even know. He was not satisfied with killing 12 people as he came armed to kill many more, and was attempting to kill even more when his gun failed. He at no time showed any concern for the victims and had set traps at his apartment to kill or maim the police that (after the fact) went to search his residence, and it was only luck that no police died. Over 100 family members are left the pain and suffering of losing loved one’s, many are children. I have to ask “what crime do you have to commit” to earn the death penalty? This jury gave a hard slap in the face to the family and friends of the victims.

    • A true lack of proper justice has occurred here.

      “Whoever sheds the blood of man,
      by man shall his blood be shed,
      for God made man in his own image.” (Genesis 9:6)

      Note that this commandment comes from the covenant between God and Noah (not the Mosaic covenant). It is thus given to all mankind not to the Israelites alone.

  2. Well, if they keep him alive, they’ll be able to trot out stories about him and mass theater shootings even year or two, maybe even inspire more copy-cats. If they give him the death penalty, he’ll only make the news once more.

    • …can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or have such a warped mind to think that a death sentence (as opposed to LIFE imprisonment) is the only thing stopping crazy people from doing crazy things.

      Most of these shooters kill themselves anyway.

  3. An obscene result. Twelve dead and seventy injured and the bastard gets life? Maybe he should have shot more children.

    I guess the air is too thin in Colorado. There’s no other reasonable explanation for this decision.

    • It is truly astounding that a lawyer who is most likely familiar with the fallibility of the legal system can support the death penalty. It says a whole lot about the arrogance of the legal profession. It is sort of understandable for the average brainwashed idiot to believe the legal system will get it right 100% of the time, but a lawyer? Really?

        • The existence of a flawed system means it will be abused even if there exists some cases of clear guilt. Blackstone’s formulation does not deal with individual cases, but the system as a whole.

          You might want to look up the number of people freed by the Innocence Project, even with the massive hurdles they face.

        • Non sequitur. We’re not talking about others, nor are we talking about the system as a whole; we’re talking about Holmes. What are the chances Holmes was wrongly convicted?

        • On the contrary, your argument is the irrelevant one. You are using a single case to justify a system that has infamously got it wrong many times. Holmes is most certainly guilty, but many others were killed by the government on flimsy or manufactured “evidence”.

        • Try to keep up. I am discussing the propriety of a theoretical death sentence for one person, James Holmes, based on conviction for the crimes he committed.

          Rail against the system all you want. You’ve proven quite adept at demolishing that particular straw man – but it has nothing at all to do with this article, or its related comments.

        • Heh. Nice movement of the goalposts and then yelling strawman when you’re doing it yourself. I’ve always been criticizing the death penalty as a whole, while you desperate cite an individual case in an attempt to defend it. By your logic, Ted Bundy/James Holmes/Adolf Hitler was guilty, ergo the death penalty is justified.

          Also LOL @ the death penalty system not being relevant in a capital murder case. So what you’re saying is all discussion of the death penalty must be viewed through a narrow prism of individual cases, preferably of people who were caught red-handed as to diminish the idea of government fallibility.

        • I would recommend that you re-read the post title, and the post content. It is specifically about the sentencing of James Holmes, and asks whether he should have gotten the death penalty instead of life without parole.

          You’re the one bringing up the justice system as a whole. Whether anyone else, ever, in the history of executions, was unjustly executed, has absolutely nothing to do with James Holmes. Whether or not James Holmes is deserving of the death penalty is a matter determined by the specific facts and evidence of his act.

        • to “good riddance”: yes, the death penalty would be justified in the cases you cite. You are doing a terrible job of making the case that the death penalty is not justified by using Ted Bundy and Adolf Hitler as some sort of example.

          OTOH, itmis enjoyable warhcing you make an ass of yourself.

        • Yeah, I brought up the system. You’re the one trying to defend the system by yelling ‘stay on topic’. 🙂

        • Then why did you ask, in response to criticism of the whole system, my opinion on the guilt of James Holmes the individual?

          Of course your question isn’t really meant to clear up anything, as the man was caught red-handed. It was just a really terrible attempt to prove government omniscience on capital cases. James Holmes is 100% guilty, so the system is infallible. Something like that. “LA-SER”.

        • bovine scatology. the gov’t is not omniscient, but the facts of this case are not in dispute.

          you seem to forget that the gov’t is made of people. some brilliant, some dull. some have integrity, some are venal. your constant gov’t bashing belies the point that they are just people, too. they aren’t always right, but like most people, most of them are trying to do a good job.

        • You can’t decouple these two things. If you permit that Holmes should be executed for what he did, then from that the system that allows such a thing to happen inevitably follows, and such system will just as inevitably execute innocents, as well.

        • nonsense. the facts are not in dispute in this case. This isn’t a case in which a jailhouse snitch claims to have overheard a confession, or some other debatable situation. Even the defense admits Holmes did it. Death
          enalties under such unambiguous circumstances do NOT equate to innocents invariably being mudered by the state.

          IMO, the only mitigating factor is that Holmes appears to actually be nuts to some degree.

      • Don’t care. The benefit to society from executing murderers far outweighs the harm of the occasional bit of collateral damage. The problem is that we don’t execute enough people and not publicly enough. It has ceased to be a deterrent like it is supposed to be. I say we break out the Vlad special. Publicly. On national TV.

        • The vast majority of psycho spree killers either kill themselves when they face resistance or go into it planning to die when the cops show up. How would the death penalty be a deterrent to that mindset? I have a hard time imagining a potential mass murderer who is held in check only by the fear of being put to death by the state. If you’re f—ed up enough to want to kill a dozen or so innocent people, you’re probably not the kind of person who really thinks about consequences.

        • I loathe the term “collateral damage”. It’s mealy mouthed weasel words specifically coined to cover up the the “accidental” killing of someone who didn’t deserve it.

          It’s especially popular with generals after photos of dead children from the war zone turn up in the press.

          “Collateral damage” should be no where near our justice system.

        • So, if I understand what you are saying, it is OK to execute innocent people. Hmmm, sorry, can’t go with that. the next step from there is absolute immunity for officers of the state mowing down people in the street in order to catch a criminal–those innocents being nothing more than “collateral damage.” Also, there has been capitol punishment for thousands of years, yet people still commit murder and mayhem–yet you believe that it is a deterrent? China has a very efficient execution system–death is almost immediate after conviction, yet there are still thieves, murderers, drug dealers, corrupt officials, and all the other people whose crimes are punishable by death. The death penalty only deters the person who is executed, and there is no evidence that it does anything more.

        • There is a difference between being “put down by the state” and taking three days to bleed out with a pike up your ass. Televise the latter every time someone is executed and it’s going to make people a lot more hesitant. It won’t stop psychos, but psychos are not a major problem to begin with.

      • I’ll just take this as an opportunity to point out the fact that a poster that goes by “Good Riddance” is opposed to getting rid of bad rubbish.

      • Are you dumb enough to really think that James Holmes isn’t guilty? Surely some innocent people have been convicted wrongly, but Holmes is not one of them.

  4. This is ridiculous. If youre gonna keep him alive at least have a stipulation to it. Like any family member of a victim gets to take a vegetable peeler to his penis whenever they please. Or some similar clause. That way he’d probably kill himself lessening the burden on the taxpayers and it would set a precedent for all the other sick individuals out there who think its okay to go on rampages because they’re “misunderstood”

    • @Luke: I imagine the potato peeler to the penis would be considered “cruel and unusual punishment”. Which would be in violation of the 8th amendment. Difficult to defend the 2nd Amendment and not include the rest of the Bill of Rights. The 8th amendment was a response to the torture tactics that the Upper Class in England used on people who did not agree with them.

  5. From the past, I know folks have differing viewpoints on the death penalty, but I’m really not understanding the jury’s choice on this one.
    Now what’s gonna happen in a few years when some libtard judge decides that life without possibility of parole is “cruel and unusual”?

    • They would probably have to release him in a place like Mongolia, otherwise, if the public found out about his release, he’d be dead within 24 hours!

    • Especially considering how lifetime of pointless existence amongst violent, raping animals, completely devoid of free will is FAR more cruel (though sadly, not unusual) than a quick death. There was a time when liberty was valued higher than life, and anyone sane would see death for a grievous crime as a mercy, preventing them from doing any more wrong before judgment day. And society at large loses the costs of housing or suffering repeat offenders, and the victims get finality of justice in a timely manner.

      • That really is a great point. Life in prison is a cruel and unusual punishment. A quick death penalty is fair and proper. It renders justice to the victims, it treats the guilty with basic human decency (which he sill deserves since he is made in God’s image), and it upholds the universal moral law laid down by the Creator in Genesis 9:6.

  6. I bet he’ll be offed by the inmate population far quicker than the appeals and slow death penalty process will take.

  7. Seems like the wrong call alright. But when you consider our liberal government that does not want to punish criminals and the fact that he is more than likely mentally ill it is probably about the best we can hope for. Besides, from what I understand, it costs less to keep someone in prison than the money that gets spent on endless appeals after a deal penalty sentence is passed. Probably won’t go that well for him in prison anyway. Crazy guy in with a bunch of hard asses will probably not be what most would consider an easy sentence. The real question “Is there a way to prevent this kind of thing in the future?” If not, then you better be packing if you decide to see a show or go anywhere in public.

    • “Our liberal government” did not decide the penalty, a jury of twelve did. “Our liberal government” was pushing for death. Yes, he is crazy as a loon, and had to be medicated to even get him in the courtroom–he has adult onset paranoid schizophrenia. Without mes, he hallucinates. Yes, it is cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than it is to try to execute someone. It will cost maybe $2,000,000 to keep him in jail for 60 years, $5 – $20 million to run through the death penalty appeals.

      Is there a way to prevent this in the future? Absolutely not. Crazy is as crazy does, and mental illness, at this stage, is not curable. Taking guns away? We’ve been down that road here many times. Requiring mental health exams to get a gun? Really? The only thing that stops something like this is pure chance that the insane person is discovered before a crime is committed or an armed citizen stops him in his tracks.

      • So why are we paying for his death penalty appeals? The way I see it, he should be taken out behind the courthouse and shot five minutes after the guilty verdict.

      • If I understand this case correctly, the jury rejected his insanity plea. If he was not insane, he should be put to death. If he was insane, which I believe he was,than life in prison is appropriate. It is too bad he ever was able to possess guns. But, one might say, such is the cost so others are to remain free under 2a ( some nut bags are allowed to purchase guns) – so be it, then, likewise, some murderers should be allowed life in prison under our system. We cannot have it both ways I think.

        • It appears to be one or perhaps two jurors who refused to impose death. It isn’t unusual for jurors to not want that death on their conscience, often due to religious belief, regardless of what the perp did.

        • You have to understand that legal insanity is very different than medical sanity. Under the ancient M’Naughten test applied inmost states, including Colorado, one is legally sane if he knew what he was doing and understood the wrongfulness of his conduct. That’s it. The fact that he is a paranoid schizophrenic with hallucinations who had to be medicated in order (a) to assist in his defense and (b) be subject to being tried is irrelevant to the legal determination. In fact, there are very few people who can “successfully” meet the test. and those that do are committed to mental institutions for life or nearly so.

    • If he is as crazy as they say I doubt he will last very long in prison. Either killed or suicide is my guess. But then Charlie Manson is still around so maybe he has a chance. Time will tell.

      • Manson is not schizophrenic; he is a sociopath. He has never been charged with killing anyone, only manipulating others to do so.

      • Manson was in and it out of jail before his crimes and learned how to survive. He also has the ability to bring people under his sway. Holmes appears to be loner/nut bag. Not nearly the same thing.

  8. Great. Now we have to maintain his worthless hide for life.

    Scum pond like him should be given a slow acting poison that requires a daily antidote and make him work his ass off to pay society. If he tries to get away, no antidote and he croaks by his own decision.
    Easy, peazy, rice & cheesy.

  9. “And he’ll live at taxpayer expense for the rest of his days”

    Just like millions of vets and they killed a lot more people than James Holmes. 🙂

  10. “And he’ll live at taxpayer expense for the rest of his days”

    Just like millions of military welfare queens and they killed a lot more people than James Holmes.

    • Oh, that same military that fought for your freedom to post that? If you had any real conviction to that opinion, you’d say it at a VA hospital or at 29 Palms.

      • Heh, feel free to explain how murdering hundreds of thousands of people in some hellhole halfway around the world protected free speech in any way.

        But… the Iraqis would have sailed over here in sheepskin boats and invaded the US. LOL.

        • Why don’t you go down to your local American Legion Post and say that? I thinks we’d be scraping your ingrate face off the pavement.

        • Anyone that had served is the ones who have protected your rights, regardless of their theater of operation. Waging war is distinctly different than committing murder, by the way.

        • Heh. The logical gymnastics by the militarist crowd is truly astonishing.

          Somehow the rightful mistrust of politicians magically becomes absolute faith when it comes to the idiots in the military who follow orders from the exact same politicians. They crap on the Constitution every day, but they engage in wars that protect the Constitution, no doubt. LOL.

        • To ” good riddance”, if you wanted to write a screed about “idiots in the military”, you should have chisen a better venue than an article about James Holmes, for whom even his defense team admitted he did it.

          your knee-jerk reversion to anti-government and anti-military screeds, even when discussing unrelated topics, says more about your personal shortcomings and insecurities than it says about anything else.

  11. “And he’ll live at taxpayer expense for the rest of his days.”

    That’s actually cheaper than the millions of taxpayer dollars that would be spent on a decades-long death penalty appeal process.

      • Too bad about that pesky “due process” bullshit, eh?

        I have no problem with the death penalty from a moral, theoretical standpoint. But I’m not super comfortable giving the power to execute its own citizens to a government that has proven itself completely corrupt and untrustworthy.

        • ^^THIS

          I’m painting with a broad brush here, but violent criminals should die. Publicly and quickly.

          Someone else here said an eye for an eye solves nothing. I beg to differ. Dead violent offenders do not become repeat violent offenders.

          I’m just not into the state having that power, we all know the state is petty, agenda driven, quick to just to the wrong conclusions, etc. Maybe if prosecutors were awarded the sentence a wrongly convicted innocent received, due care would come before advancing their careers.

          I could fix the country, but everyone would hate me.

        • IMO, I think it is not accurate to say OUR government has proven itself corrupt. It’s far less corrupt than most governments in the world.

          Governments are made of people. People tend to be corruptable, especially in so far as their interests bias their perceptions (example: prosecutor needs to “win” to make a name for himself/herself, wheras seeking justice means nit advancing their career). The founders recognized this and tried to institute checks and balances. Where you find systemic corruption is where there are weak – or no – checks and balances. This applies to cops and even more so to prosecutors. BUT, in the case of Holmes, the concern about corruption is irrelevent as the facts are not in dispute.

  12. An entirely appropriate result. He’s a fruitcake, crazy as a loon, bats in the belfry. Paranoid schizophrenic. He did not do what he did because he was cruel and evil, an El Chapo who kills people because it amuses him, but because he was mentally ill. The death penalty is not, as has been proposed, a deterrent to anyone else, particularly since any other crazy loon will do whatever he is going to do no matter what anyone else ever did, nor will it deter some young punk from killing the clerk at the 7-11 who thinks he won’t get caught. Yes, it will deter Holmes, but then so will life in prison. Life in prison is much cheaper for the State than trying to impose a death penalty. In California, inmates are dying on death row of old age. So what’s the point of spending millions of dollars even trying to kill him? The death penalty has become a useless anachronism.

  13. They sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole.” And he’ll live at taxpayer expense for the rest of his days. Good enough?
    Actually I wish they would send him and other dangerous prisoners to Dead Horse Alaska for a Polar Bear Genital kicking contest. Polar Bears actually do enjoy being kicked in the nuts.

  14. If the joker didn’t deserve death no one does-and I think the death penalty should be rare. A veritable poster boy for execution. Oh well-he didn’t kill anyone I know…NO lol.

  15. Since it would be more expensive to go through the process of putting him to death, I am fine with it. No automatic appeals, no death row, no fuss.

  16. I don’t know where anybody got the idea that a long streatch in prison was a vacation at taxpayers expense. It ain’t.

    I’d rather be dead than doing life in that place.

    • I’d actually give them the option of voluntary euthanasia (not just lifers, but anyone there for long enough – say, 20 years and above). Less suffering for them, if they’re smart enough to see it (especially if they’re actually guilty and have no chance of proving their innocence etc – and they know for sure), and less expenses for everyone else.

  17. Oh, so we do not have to wait 15 years for him to die in prison while he goes through mandatory appeals. And Pat in cell block D gets some alone time with him before he is beat to death.

  18. I blame all idiocy emanating from Colorado on the hordes of Californians who’ve managed to ruin it over the past 40 years. This cretin should’ve been hanged publicly.

  19. The problem with the death penalty today is that it is about the same as the process you use to put your loyal old dog to painless sleep when he is in terrible pain.

    The problem with prison today is that it comes with canteens, television, books, etc.

    I would prefer a penalty called “living death”. Put them in a 5 x 10 foot box with no human contact and no sunlight with one meal of bread and water per day.

  20. Two things;

    1. I think being imprisoned until you die of natural causes is a far worse penalty than being sentenced to death.

    2. It actually costs less to incarcerate your average prisoner for their natural life than to execute them.

    The first is my opinion, no problem if you disagree. The second is a fact.

    • The second is only “fact” because we let every single murdering scumbag run up billable hours on the public’s dime. I don’t see a reason to do that.

      • Then advocate for eliminating the automatic appeal process. Of course this will result in more innocent people being put to death by the state. Why not just let murderers rot in prison until the die and not worry about either?

        • If you get rid of the automatic appeal process you bring the statute that calls for death closer to being ruled unconstitutional. In many states their death penalty statutes were essentially destroyed by not giving the convict enough rights, its sad but it happens. Then you have states like Illinois where Governors push to get rid of the death penalty and commute all of death row. I live in NY State and we had the death penalty until some prosecutor and Judge gave the jury confusing information on whether they had an option for life without parole instead of just death penalty or no charges so it got ruled unconstitutional and the legislators took that time to make sure no revised statute was ever introduced.

        • @Nate

          That sounds like a reason to execute SJW judges. The idea that the death penalty could be unconstitutional is absurd.

  21. Why don’t we send him over to ISIS country, and cook up a story about how he killed innocent Muslims (maybe some of his victims were Muslim?)
    Maybe they will behead him with a short bladed Xacto knife.

  22. “… Good enough?”

    Meh. I would have preferred a different sentence but then I wasn’t on the jury.

  23. They can’t put him to death. After all, there is the teeny, weeny chance that he didn’t do it. I mean all that evidence against him can’t be 100% true can it? #sarcasm

  24. WRH,
    Your probably right, I should have thought along those line, but if the son of a bitch really IS crazy, he’ll probably do something to really piss them off, and that we be his end!
    In the meantime he can sweet talk 14″ Bubba.

  25. An eye for an eye solves nothing. I worked at a 900 bed inpatient mental health facility and the fact is, James didn’t ask to get the disease. It is real and it sucks. Keeping people like him around may one day help us to understand the disease and find a solution which in turn will play out well for the pro-2A people.

  26. Clearly the guy isn’t right in the head but that doesn’t absolve him. There’s no shortage of paranoid schizos in the world living rather peaceful existences; we don’t see them concocting elaborate plots to build pipe bombs and shoot up movie theaters.

    At no point was Holmes’ guilt in question, he publicly murdered multiple people with eyewitnesses all over the place, and no one accepted his insanity plea. I agree that capital punishment has been administered wrongly in the past and that it shouldn’t be an easy thing to hand out but let’s be honest here: This is the kind of case the death penalty verdict exists for.

  27. SO…

    Shoot a bunch of people for no reason, win free room and board, with three meals a day for the rest of your life all on the expense of the tax payers


  28. So the debate focuses on the expensive aftermath of insanity. Wouldn’t it be better if we were institutionalizing and medicating schizos, rather than ketting them run amok?

    Every single time you read about a subway pusher in NYC, it’s always a paranoid schizo, often homeless,

  29. WTAF, but honestly not that surprised once I thought about it a little more (but I do think he should burn).

  30. Even convicted murderers, clearly guilty or not, have the right to appeal. So you can tout the whole 3 hots and a cot at taxpayer expense dribble in order to get an emotional response all you want, but it is a proven fact that life in prison is FAR cheaper to let them rot in a cell for the rest of their life. And it is not a pleasant existence and some of y’all seem to think.

  31. I was firmly on the death penalty side…..but then I heard an argument that said, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” and that God wishes “none would perish and all would come to repentance.” There is always the chance, though as slim as it could be, that this guy may come to a saving faith in Christ while in prison. He might even bring others to Christ. If that occurred, even if it was my son that was shot and killed by this guy, I would have to say that while my son didn’t deserve to die, my son’s death eventually led to others’ salvation. That would bring more closure to me than to see the murderer executed.

    • Dan, I near ya, but there are a few psychopaths out there who would FAKE religion just to get favors. And the kind of guy who shoots up a movie theater is either a paychopath (e.g. evil), or psychotic (e.g. bonkers).


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here