• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge approves use of 'truth serum' on accused Aurora shooter James Holmes

DDD said:
Would make a point to future mass murderers that there shall be no escape to pleading for insanity for them for they will be cleansed of their lies with the use of the "truth serum."
Click to expand...

I think you are over estimating the effectiveness of this type of drug.
 
My guess is the government sees no risk is pursuing this and hopes to get "truth serum" legalized in this manner knowing any court would be hard pressed to reverse a conviction for such a hedious and publicly known trial. The government always wants more power - and this is a power move to play on the panicky nature of people.
 
DDD said:
Well let it apply to all cases related to mass murderers man!
Click to expand...


If legal in this case then it is is legal in any case.
 
How stupid can a person be to support this? The guy may very well be obviously guilty and all but even criminals have rights. And this is a violation of several of them. No one should EVER be allowed to violate anothers right no matter the reason.
 
There should be a pscyhological analysis of the judge for sanity. What next? Waterboarding to determine if a witness is telling the truth?
 
winston53660 said:
He was allowed to leave the hospital for supervised visits with his parents in 1999, and longer unsupervised releases in 2000.[3] These privileges were revoked when he was found to have smuggled materials about Foster back into the hospital. Hinckley was later allowed supervised visits during 2004 and 2005. Court hearings were held in September 2005 on whether he could have expanded privileges to leave the hospital. Some of the testimony during the hearings centered on whether Hinckley is capable of having a normal relationship with a woman and, if not, whether that would have any bearing on what danger he would pose to society.
On December 30, 2005, a federal judge ruled that Hinckley would be allowed visits, supervised by his parents, to their home in Williamsburg, Virginia. The judge ruled that Hinckley could have up to three visits of three nights and then four visits of four nights, each depending on the successful completion of the last. All of the experts who testified at Hinckley's 2005 conditional release hearing, including the government experts, agreed that his depression and psychotic disorder were in full remission and that he should have some expanded conditions of release.
After Hinckley requested further freedoms including two one-week visits with his parents, as well as a month-long visit, U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman denied that request on Wednesday, June 6, 2007; he did not deny the request out of a concern that Hinckley was not ready.[clarification needed]
On June 17, 2009, a federal judge ruled that Hinckley would be given the ability to visit his mother for a dozen visits of 10 days at a time, rather than six, spend more time outside of the hospital, and have a driver’s license.[17] The court also ordered that Hinckley be required to carry a GPS-enabled cell phone to track him whenever he was outside of his parents’ home, and he was forbidden to speak to the news media.[17] This was done over the objections of the prosecutors, who said that he was still a danger to others and had unhealthful and inappropriate thoughts about women. Hinckley recorded a song, “Ballad of an Outlaw,” which the prosecutors claim is “reflecting suicide and lawlessness.”[18]
It was reported in March 2011 that a forensic psychologist at the hospital had testified that “Hinckley has recovered to the point that he poses no imminent risk of danger to himself or others.”[17] Hinckley returned to court in the spring of 2011 for further direction[17] and was granted additional family visits in May 2011.[19] On November 30, 2011, a hearing began in Washington to determine Hinckley’s future.[20]

John Hinckley, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your attempt, but there is a significant difference between the two offenses - the obvious difference being that Hinckley didn't actually murder anyone. Anything's possible, I suppose, but I don't believe it's ever likely that a judge will grant Holmes any type of release in the future, should he be determined to be unfit to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity.
 
TheNextEra said:
Lol like THAT is the reason mass murders commit those murders. Because they care about pleading insanity
:roll:

These people are Intent to do what they do regardless of their punishment. Do you know what type of mind it takes to shoot a kid multiple times at close range in the face? Do you REALLY think they are worried about pleading insanity or not?
Click to expand...

This is silly. The mass murderer appealed for insanity plea already. That is why they want to use the serum anyway!
 
Helix said:
I guess I don't understand why they even need him to confess.
Click to expand...

Logic question. If someone booby trapped their own apartment why would they say, "My house has a bomb in it!" while being arrested? Wouldn't the defeat the main purpose of a TRAP. Wasnt the guy naked when found? How do you know some assassin/kidnapping cell didnt kidnap this dude, set up bombs in his house and tell him go with the story or they go off killing all his friendly neighbors? Hitman gets in a van and they throw this naked guy out on his ass along with incriminating evidence.

I dont get why everyone instantly says, "Oh he's guilty" because of something they saw on the news.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Logic question. If someone booby trapped their own apartment why would they say, "My house has a bomb in it!" while being arrested? Wouldn't the defeat the main purpose of a TRAP. Wasnt the guy naked when found? How do you know some assassin/kidnapping cell didnt kidnap this dude, set up bombs in his house and tell him go with the story or they go off killing all his friendly neighbors? Hitman gets in a van and they throw this naked guy out on his ass along with incriminating evidence.

I dont get why everyone instantly says, "Oh he's guilty" because of something they saw on the news.
Click to expand...

didn't they bust him in the parking lot with guns in tow?

as for your "kidnapping cell" conspiracy theory, I find it to be much less likely.
 
DDD said:
This is silly. The mass murderer appealed for insanity plea already. That is why they want to use the serum anyway!
Click to expand...

And like I said before, is this used in EVERY case that someone pleads insanity? Why only use it in this one? What precedence does that set as far as consitutional rights go?
 
DDD said:
Why can't it be legal for mass murderers only?
Click to expand...

Because we have this terrible thing known as the constitution, you know that little piece of paper most people ignore, that doesn't allow for such distinctions.
 
TheNextEra said:
Because we have this terrible thing known as the constitution, you know that little piece of paper most people ignore, that doesn't allow for such distinctions.
Click to expand...

Your constitution does not allow for distinctions to occur between a convicted mass murderer and someone who does pity pocketing?
 
DDD said:
Your constitution does not allow for distinctions to occur between a convicted mass murderer and someone who does pity pocketing?
Click to expand...

He's not convicted, and that's the entire point.
 
DDD said:
I meant indicted with strong evidence.
Click to expand...

Innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW. There IS a difference. As much as you hate it, this scum deserves the same legal treatment as any other murderer out there.
 
DDD said:
I meant indicted with strong evidence.
Click to expand...

If you're willing to treat accused differently where they're guilty beyond any and all doubt, why not just skip the entire legal procedure and lock him up/execute him on the spot?
 
Paschendale said:
Completely unconstitutional. A suspect or defendant must be of sound mind when speaking with police, or else Miranda is not preserved. Use of drugs or chemicals is no less coercion than a beating. This is a violation not only of fifth amendment rights against self incrimination, but fourth amendment rights against unreasonable search seizure.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm not the most familiar person ever with these tactics, but I'd hate to see it become a standard practice. I understand the laws are a bitch, innocent until proven guilty, you don't have to incriminate yourself etc. and those can present problems for prosecutors, but suck it up and do your ****ing job. The guy is as guilty as guilty gets, but if they use this **** on him I can't honestly believe that he got anything close to a fair trial.
 
We should dump the "not guilty by reason of insanity" nonsense and adopt a "guilty but insane" policy. The only difference being where the convict spends their time, in a prison or in a very secure asylum.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
We should dump the "not guilty by reason of insanity" nonsense and adopt a "guilty but insane" policy. The only difference being where the convict spends their time, in a prison or in a very secure asylum.
Click to expand...

If you commit a crime, you're guilty. "Not guilty by reason of insanity" is insane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom