• 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

Pilot said:
Are there situations where this should be allowed? Personally, I think it is unconstitutional and I don't like the precedent it sets.
Click to expand...

I wonder what side effects this drug has. Could the accused say "Come here, Judgie Wudgie, I wanna kiss you", and would that be admissible in court?
 
What's the point of having freedom of speech if nobody pays attention to what you say?

Did you read anything I posted that advocated "against his will"? Quite the contrary, I suggested it might help him escape the death penalty. I believe I also said: Like a lie detector device, the results can not be 100% certain and thus can not be used to convict.



Mr.Nick said:
What's the point of having a Fifth Amendment then when it can just be violated at will?

I'm really getting fed up with people only using the Bill of Rights when it applies to their argument but then acting like the document doesn't exists when it suits their argument or opinion on an issue.

James Holmes is a horrible person without question but to take his civil liberties away would make all of us horrible people and tyrants...
Click to expand...
 
mike2810 said:
There should be no not guilty by reason of insanity. A person either committed the crime or they did not. Guilty but insane would be a more appropriate.

Even the most insane person makes decisions. The insane may not understand our laws, but that does not excuse them.

As far as using the truth drug. Not sure it should be done. I can see the defense ready to appeal.
Click to expand...

The real question is "weather or not the alleged perpetrator was in a sane frame of mind during the act of a crime" - not are they presently "sane."

"Insanity" is a de facto plea of guilt... It is just left to the jury to decide weather the alleged perp was in the right frame of mind while committing the alleged crime.
 
Judge William Sylvester ruled that in the event of Holmes pleading insanity his prosecutors would be permitted to interrogate him while he is under the influence of a medical drug designed to loosen him up and get him to talk. The idea would be that such a "narcoanalytic interview" would be used to confirm whether or not he had been legally insane when he embarked on his shooting spree on 20 July last year.
Click to expand...

The ruling of the Judge is a crime.

Colorado Constitution - Article 2 Section 18 – “No person shall be compelled to testify against himself in a criminal case…”

United States Constitution – 5th Amendment – “…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…”

The entire stated purpose is to drug him in order for prosecution to compel him to testify against his plea of insanity. If he is guilty without doubt, then no such action is required. And frankly, a person who does what he did surely cannot be considered “sane”… that’s like some rabid dog.
 
Mr.Nick said:
The real question is "weather or not the alleged perpetrator was in a sane frame of mind during the act of a crime" - not are they presently "sane."

"Insanity" is a de facto plea of guilt... It is just left to the jury to decide weather the alleged perp was in the right frame of mind while committing the alleged crime.
Click to expand...

IMO, I don't care what frame of mind someone is in. If they murder, they should be held accountable.
 
specklebang said:
What's the point of having freedom of speech if nobody pays attention to what you say?

Did you read anything I posted that advocated "against his will"? Quite the contrary, I suggested it might help him escape the death penalty. I believe I also said: Like a lie detector device, the results can not be 100% certain and thus can not be used to convict.
Click to expand...


This is not a First Amendment issue It's a Fifth Amendment issue.

James Holmes has every right to keep his mouth shut and not incriminate himself.... If he chooses to talk on his own free will than that is his own problem but he cannot be forced to talk with "truth juice."

Even if they did give it to him nothing he says could be used against him without causing a mistrial. So the whole point would be moot, not to mention open the doors for a massive lawsuit(s) against the state via civil rights violations.
 
Lutherf said:
What a ridiculous ruling.

Why would such a thing even be necessary? They caught him with guns and ammo. He had freaking red dyed hair so he was relatively easy to pick out in a crowd. They know that his apartment was all booby trapped. He's guilty. Put him in front of a jury and get the damned verdict.
Click to expand...

It's not to determine guilt, but rather to see if he's trying to fake a mental illness that would shield him from the consequences of his actions. As I read it, it's only IF he pleads insanity.

Even so, it's a bridge too far in my book.
 
clownboy said:
It's not to determine guilt, but rather to see if he's trying to fake a mental illness that would shield him from the consequences of his actions. As I read it, it's only IF he pleads insanity.

Even so, it's a bridge too far in my book.
Click to expand...

I don't care what his excuse is. Crazy or not the guy needs to either go away forever or, preferably take a seat on old sparky.
 
Lutherf said:
I don't care what his excuse is. Crazy or not the guy needs to either go away forever or, preferably take a seat on old sparky.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but the reality is, if he's found to not have had the capacity for mens rea during the crime, he might not be going away for long.
 
mike2810 said:
IMO, I don't care what frame of mind someone is in. If they murder, they should be held accountable.
Click to expand...

Intent is what matters. What you did and why you did it is extremely applicable to a charge and a defense.

Here are a couple of mock examples of my point.

Someone could slap me across the face and when I punch them back in the head for being stupid I could kill them... Would I be guilty of murder if my intent was just to punch them and not kill them?

Now lets use the same scenario - a guy slaps me across the face, I pull out a gun and shoot him in the face. Am I guilty of murder?

Same scenario - I hate a guy who I know will slap me, I concoct a plan for him to slap me just so I can shoot him.

The end in all these scenarios ended up with a guy dead but is the intent the same in all of them? no.
 
TML said:
The ruling of the Judge is a crime.

Colorado Constitution - Article 2 Section 18 – “No person shall be compelled to testify against himself in a criminal case…”

United States Constitution – 5th Amendment – “…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…”

The entire stated purpose is to drug him in order for prosecution to compel him to testify against his plea of insanity. If he is guilty without doubt, then no such action is required. And frankly, a person who does what he did surely cannot be considered “sane”… that’s like some rabid dog.
Click to expand...

They could probably get away with drugging him, they just couldn't use anything he says at his trial considering such a drugging would violate the Fifth Amendment and would be classified as "coercion."

IMO, this tactic is no different than beating a confession out of someone. It's just a different method.

If the state even continues with this plan they will be battling lawsuits for eons. I bet they're already to go the second they put that needle into his arm...
 
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.
 
Mr.Nick said:
The simple fact this judge pulled this stunt will allow Holmes to "walk free" (temporarily)...
Click to expand...
After i thought about it a little more it might not be true that this could cause a problem for keeping him imprisoned. This is an attempt to discredit the claim he was insane, and not that he did not do it. The first part of a plea of insanity would be admitting guilt. He has to admit to doing it to plead insanity. Then the argument becomes more about how he will be imprisoned or if he will be executed. because he will make the claim of insanity it probably opens up this line of questioning to determine his mental state. I would imagine this claim opens the defendant up for a number of different types of examinations into his state of mind.

Still, i agree he won't be free for long if he is ever let out.
 
clownboy said:
Agreed, but the reality is, if he's found to not have had the capacity for mens rea during the crime, he might not be going away for long.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't even be a consideration. He booby trapped his residence, did a whole bunch of planning and completed the deed. It wasn't an "accident" of a lapse of judgement.
 
tererun said:
After i thought about it a little more it might not be true that this could cause a problem for keeping him imprisoned. This is an attempt to discredit the claim he was insane, and not that he did not do it. The first part of a plea of insanity would be admitting guilt. He has to admit to doing it to plead insanity. Then the argument becomes more about how he will be imprisoned or if he will be executed. because he will make the claim of insanity it probably opens up this line of questioning to determine his mental state. I would imagine this claim opens the defendant up for a number of different types of examinations into his state of mind.

Still, i agree he won't be free for long if he is ever let out.
Click to expand...

James Holmes doesn't have to say a word and if the state tries to force him to say a word A) it would be inadmissible at trial and B) the state will get their ass sued off by every civil rights attorney in the country..

IMO, the Judge in question is more insane than Holmes. He just screwed himself. This nutball Judge will be working at Burger King before Holmes is even sentenced.
 
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...


Actually, this door is opened up by his claims of insanity. They are nto questioning him at that point about his guilt in the incident as he has to admit to doing it to plead insanity. this would not be a questioning to gather evidence about the crime itself. the defendant would make a claim about his state of mind, and the prosecution would have a right to question that claim in many ways to discredit it. It has little to do with the fifth as he has to incriminate himself to claim insanity. Also, there is no actual physical search going on.

If it worries you it cannot be used against you unless you are claiming insanity and admitting to guilt. he is not pleading innocent by reason of insanity, he would be pleading guilty by reason of insanity. Really, this has become more of an issue of where he spends the rest of his life. Will he be executed, go to prison, or go to a booby hatch for the criminally insane? It makes sense for the defense because they know he shot the place up, and they know he booby trapped his house to cause further injury. They have no real argument he wasn't guilty of doing the crime.
 
tererun said:
Actually, this door is opened up by his claims of insanity. They are nto questioning him at that point about his guilt in the incident as he has to admit to doing it to plead insanity. this would not be a questioning to gather evidence about the crime itself. the defendant would make a claim about his state of mind, and the prosecution would have a right to question that claim in many ways to discredit it. It has little to do with the fifth as he has to incriminate himself to claim insanity. Also, there is no actual physical search going on.

If it worries you it cannot be used against you unless you are claiming insanity and admitting to guilt. he is not pleading innocent by reason of insanity, he would be pleading guilty by reason of insanity. Really, this has become more of an issue of where he spends the rest of his life. Will he be executed, go to prison, or go to a booby hatch for the criminally insane? It makes sense for the defense because they know he shot the place up, and they know he booby trapped his house to cause further injury. They have no real argument he wasn't guilty of doing the crime.
Click to expand...

Holmes doesn't have to prove he's insane. That is for the jury to determine.
 
Mr.Nick said:
James Holmes doesn't have to say a word and if the state tries to force him to say a word A) it would be inadmissible at trial and B) the state will get their ass sued off by every civil rights attorney in the country..
Click to expand...

Actually, wrong. If they want to claim insanity they have to prove he was in some altered mental state. Silence does not prove that. he has the freedom to face the charges and plead innocent and shut his trap. That has not changed. he is not pleading not guilty and invoking the fifth to protect himself from incrimination. in order to say he was insane at the time of the crime he has to admit to doing the crime. It is sort of like zimmerman. In order to make the claim of standing his ground he has to admit to shooting treyvon. It is a matter of a state of mind at the time, and that requires the defendant to say something to prove their state of mind. Pleading the fifth would destroy their case for insanity as it would give them no way to show their state of mind, and remaining silent would show sanity and a realization holmes was aware of his actions at the time.
Mr.Nick said:
IMO, the Judge in question is more insane than Holmes. He just screwed himself. This nutball Judge will be working at Burger King before Holmes is even sentenced.
Click to expand...

You are just afraid it will blow up in their faces. Though i can agree with those fears it just is not about guilt or innocence when a state of mind defense is claimed. gult is already determined in the claim. It is just how the excuse will mitigate the punishment.
 
Besides does this guy really look sane to anyone?

photo.jpg
 
tererun said:
Actually, this door is opened up by his claims of insanity. They are nto questioning him at that point about his guilt in the incident as he has to admit to doing it to plead insanity. this would not be a questioning to gather evidence about the crime itself. the defendant would make a claim about his state of mind, and the prosecution would have a right to question that claim in many ways to discredit it. It has little to do with the fifth as he has to incriminate himself to claim insanity.
Click to expand...

It doesn’t matter that he incriminates himself by pleading insanity; a verdict has not been read yet, thus no conviction. The entire point is to question him for evidence AGAINST his plea – that he was in fact sane. Being put on trial and questioned to discover the extent of that insanity, and drugging him to make him talk, is two completely different things.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Holmes doesn't have to prove he's insane. That is for the jury to determine.
Click to expand...

If the jury determines he was insane he is guilty and will go to a booby hatch. if they determine he was sane he faces life in prison or execution. he doesn't get to walk away if he is declared insane. As a matter of fact his determination of insanity would put him under the control of psychiatrists who never have to declare him sane again. Also, the jury will not have to go through the process of becoming psychological professionals. they will base their conclusions on the testimony of psychological professionals. you seem to be under the misperception that an insanity plea lets you off the hook entirely if they do find you insane. insanity is one of the many ways thy can use to strip you of all of your rights by making you incapable of making your own decisions.
 
tererun said:
Actually, wrong. If they want to claim insanity they have to prove he was in some altered mental state. Silence does not prove that. he has the freedom to face the charges and plead innocent and shut his trap. That has not changed. he is not pleading not guilty and invoking the fifth to protect himself from incrimination. in order to say he was insane at the time of the crime he has to admit to doing the crime. It is sort of like zimmerman. In order to make the claim of standing his ground he has to admit to shooting treyvon. It is a matter of a state of mind at the time, and that requires the defendant to say something to prove their state of mind. Pleading the fifth would destroy their case for insanity as it would give them no way to show their state of mind, and remaining silent would show sanity and a realization holmes was aware of his actions at the time.


You are just afraid it will blow up in their faces. Though i can agree with those fears it just is not about guilt or innocence when a state of mind defense is claimed. gult is already determined in the claim. It is just how the excuse will mitigate the punishment.
Click to expand...

James Holmes the individual doesn't have to prove anything or say anything - his attorneys do.

James Holmes doesn't have to take the stand or say a word to anyone about why he did what he allegedly did.

It's not weather Holmes defense is viable it's weather or not it's relevant and that is for a jury to decide.
 
tererun said:
If the jury determines he was insane he is guilty and will go to a booby hatch. if they determine he was sane he faces life in prison or execution. he doesn't get to walk away if he is declared insane. As a matter of fact his determination of insanity would put him under the control of psychiatrists who never have to declare him sane again. Also, the jury will not have to go through the process of becoming psychological professionals. they will base their conclusions on the testimony of psychological professionals. you seem to be under the misperception that an insanity plea lets you off the hook entirely if they do find you insane. insanity is one of the many ways thy can use to strip you of all of your rights by making you incapable of making your own decisions.
Click to expand...

"Insanity" is already a plea of guilt, I stated that a few pages back.

The question is - Is James Holmes really insane??

He doesn't have to prove he is insane - all he has to do is raise a reasonable doubt that he is sane.
 
TML said:
It doesn’t matter that he incriminates himself by pleading insanity; a verdict has not been read yet, thus no conviction. The entire point is to question him for evidence AGAINST his plea – that he was in fact sane. Being put on trial and questioned to discover the extent of that insanity, and drugging him to make him talk, is two completely different things.
Click to expand...

being from texas you should appreciate this. if he is insane they cannot execute him. I will also note that he is not pleading not guilty by reason of insanity, he is pleading guilty by reason of insanity. You don't need a jury or a verdict to be reached to plead guilty at any time and be convicted. I know you have watched a bunch of lawyer shows and think he will just walk free because he proves he is insane, but it simply is not true. once you establish you are insane in a legal sense you are no longer under your own control. They are not going to release a person who hosed down a movie theater with bullets with a prescription on outpatient status. if he is insane, he goes to a max security booby hatch.
 
tererun said:
being from texas you should appreciate this. if he is insane they cannot execute him. I will also note that he is not pleading not guilty by reason of insanity, he is pleading guilty by reason of insanity. You don't need a jury or a verdict to be reached to plead guilty at any time and be convicted. I know you have watched a bunch of lawyer shows and think he will just walk free because he proves he is insane, but it simply is not true. once you establish you are insane in a legal sense you are no longer under your own control. They are not going to release a person who hosed down a movie theater with bullets with a prescription on outpatient status. if he is insane, he goes to a max security booby hatch.
Click to expand...

I think this whole fiasco is an issue of weather or not he spends the rest of his life in a mental institution or a prison...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom