Aurora Shooting Trial

[Denver]

The trial has been underway for a month. James Holmes has plead not guilty by reason of insanity to the charges that on July 20, 2012, he killed 12 people and injured 70 others at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado.

The trial itself has been airing live on local (Denver) broadcast tv, and is also streaming live. I've been watching here and there. So far, the prosecution is still making their case.

I know little of law, and mental illness standards, and maybe because of that the case seems strange to me. From what I understand, the defense is not contesting that Holmes did the deeds. Yet, because he has pled not guilty, the prosecution must go through every little detail to prove he did all of this (testimony from victims, responders, people who know him, etc). And on top of that, they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was NOT insane when he did it (more interviews, more evidence). I think the estimate is that, after 4 weeks, they are roughly half way through. Then the defense starts.

My feeling is that proving he was not insane is going to be all but impossible. True, mental illness is not the same as insanity, and he was under treatment for mental illness. But proving, behind a reasonable doubt, that his illness and his treatment and his medications and the potential medication side effects and some subsequent pyschotic episode were not involved, or at least does not raise a serious doubt... i don't know.

In any case, I think this will be a landmark case involving mental illness, with potential impacts to early detection and treatment, public understanding of such, and maybe new laws, or changes in funding, country wide.

 

[Travis]

I'm not sure why the prosecution wants to prove he was sane. Wouldn't it be better to just concede he is nuts and let him be confined to an institution for the rest of his life?

 

[Aepervius]

I'm not sure why the prosecution wants to prove he was sane. Wouldn't it be better to just concede he is nuts and let him be confined to an institution for the rest of his life?

That would not be retribution. Since the US justice system is primary based on punishment and retribution, prosecutor will go at long length to have that retribution even if that include having mentally handicapped people get death penalty (I am speaking of past cases here - not judging present case) and it feels at time that the bar for "rationality" is set very very very low. As such it is very rare that the "insanity" defense works.

 

[Denver]

I'm not sure why the prosecution wants to prove he was sane. Wouldn't it be better to just concede he is nuts and let him be confined to an institution for the rest of his life?

Again I don't know much about this stuff, but am very interested in learning how all the mental illness analysis comes out. I think (but am not sure) that if you are judged 'insane', then you are confined for the time you need treatment, and released when you are no longer insane. Which could mean anyone could commit an atrocity, plead insanity under current law and your scenario, go get treatment, and then be free.

 

[BStrong]

The trial has been underway for a month. James Holmes has plead not guilty by reason of insanity to the charges that on July 20, 2012, he killed 12 people and injured 70 others at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado.

The trial itself has been airing live on local (Denver) broadcast tv, and is also streaming live. I've been watching here and there. So far, the prosecution is still making their case.

I know little of law, and mental illness standards, and maybe because of that the case seems strange to me. From what I understand, the defense is not contesting that Holmes did the deeds. Yet, because he has pled not guilty, the prosecution must go through every little detail to prove he did all of this (testimony from victims, responders, people who know him, etc). And on top of that, they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was NOT insane when he did it (more interviews, more evidence). I think the estimate is that, after 4 weeks, they are roughly half way through. Then the defense starts.

My feeling is that proving he was not insane is going to be all but impossible. True, mental illness is not the same as insanity, and he was under treatment for mental illness. But proving, behind a reasonable doubt, that his illness and his treatment and his medications and the potential medication side effects and some subsequent pyschotic episode were not involved, or at least does not raise a serious doubt... i don't know.

In any case, I think this will be a landmark case involving mental illness, with potential impacts to early detection and treatment, public understanding of such, and maybe new laws, or changes in funding, country wide.

The prosecutor has no obligation to prove Holmes was sane at the time he committed the act.

The prosecutor is only required to prove that Holmes committed the act.

The Holmes defense team has to prove he was insane at the time of the act.

 

[Denver]

The prosecutor has no obligation to prove Holmes was sane at the time he committed the act.

The prosecutor is only required to prove that Holmes committed the act.

The Holmes defense team has to prove he was insane at the time of the act.

Apparently that is not the case in Colorado.

Under Colorado law, prosecutors must prove Holmes was sane in order to have him executed or spend the rest of his life in prison.

 

[casebro]

"Quote:
Under Colorado law, prosecutors must prove Holmes was sane in order to have him executed or spend the rest of his life in prison."

Can we get a more expert opinion than a media statement?

 

[Denver]

"Quote:
Under Colorado law, prosecutors must prove Holmes was sane in order to have him executed or spend the rest of his life in prison."

Can we get a more expert opinion than a media statement?

That would be best, and I am certainly not the one to interpret the Colorado Statutes. But if it helps, here is the statute I have seen the media quoting:

From C.R.S. 16-8-105.5 (2014):

...
Every person is presumed to be sane; but, once any evidence of insanity is introduced, the people have the burden of proving sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.
...

 

[Travis]

Again I don't know much about this stuff, but am very interested in learning how all the mental illness analysis comes out. I think (but am not sure) that if you are judged 'insane', then you are confined for the time you need treatment, and released when you are no longer insane. Which could mean anyone could commit an atrocity, plead insanity under current law and your scenario, go get treatment, and then be free.

In practice that doesn't happen though. If you kill a theater full of people they are never declaring you sane enough to be released.

 

[Denver]

In practice that doesn't happen though. If you kill a theater full of people they are never declaring you sane enough to be released.

I don't have any experience or examples to be able to tell what 'in practice' means. But the statute notes:

...the court shall commit the defendant to the custody of the department of human services until such time as the defendant is found eligible for release

Again, I don't know what exactly that implies. It sounds a bit subjective, and that the department of human services wouldn't be able to retain a person who, at some point, is determined to no longer be legally insane.

 

[casebro]

Was it Hinckly that shot Reagan? And another one? "Still (adjudged) crazy after all these years"

 

[fuelair]

I'm not sure why the prosecution wants to prove he was sane. Wouldn't it be better to just concede he is nuts and let him be confined to an institution for the rest of his life?

No.

 

[fuelair]

Again I don't know much about this stuff, but am very interested in learning how all the mental illness analysis comes out. I think (but am not sure) that if you are judged 'insane', then you are confined for the time you need treatment, and released when you are no longer insane. Which could mean anyone could commit an atrocity, plead insanity under current law and your scenario, go get treatment, and then be free.

Correct.

 

[Puppycow]

I'm not sure why the prosecution wants to prove he was sane. Wouldn't it be better to just concede he is nuts and let him be confined to an institution for the rest of his life?

Again I don't know much about this stuff, but am very interested in learning how all the mental illness analysis comes out. I think (but am not sure) that if you are judged 'insane', then you are confined for the time you need treatment, and released when you are no longer insane. Which could mean anyone could commit an atrocity, plead insanity under current law and your scenario, go get treatment, and then be free.

Right. Not guilty by reason of insanity is not supposed to be a "life sentence" in principle, although a person could be placed in an institution for a long time. The man who shot Reagan is free. Hinckley is not entirely free, but he is allowed out of the institution for up to eight 17-day visits per year.

 

[luchog]

In practice that doesn't happen though. If you kill a theater full of people they are never declaring you sane enough to be released.

It depends greatly on the jurisdiction. I'm not aware of any where there is a provision for life institutionalization as a result of a criminal trial.

I don't know about Colorado; but typically the provision for an insanity defense is that the defendant must demonstrate that his state of mind at the time of the offense was such that he was, through no fault of his own, incapable of recognizing the enormity of his actions, or of differentiating between right and wrong, and was therefore unable to control his actions at the time. A very difficult bar to get over in most places.

 

[Kestrel]

James Holmes is insane by any reasonable definition of the word. But since legal definitions don't have to be reasonable, James Holmes is probably not insane under Colorado law. Just as John Wayne Gacy was found to be sane in Wisconsin.

The law has a convoluted definition because John Hinkley got away with shooting Reagan by faking insanity and everybody knew that he would be out in a matter of months.

 

[luchog]

The law has a convoluted definition because John Hinkley got away with shooting Reagan by faking insanity and everybody knew that he would be out in a matter of months.

Being mentally ill does not necessarily mean that one is not responsible for one's actions. It is perfectly possible to be crazy and still understand the difference between right and wrong, and the consequences of one's actions. To be legally insane, one has to be mentally ill to the point where that understanding is not possible. That is not very common, even among the seriously disturbed; and if you have a good clinical psychologist as the examiner, not easy to fake either.

 

[HenryLee]

James Holmes is insane by any reasonable definition of the word. But since legal definitions don't have to be reasonable, James Holmes is probably not insane under Colorado law. Just as John Wayne Gacy was found to be sane in Wisconsin.

The law has a convoluted definition because John Hinkley got away with shooting Reagan by faking insanity and everybody knew that he would be out in a matter of months.

You either mean Jeffrey Dahmer or Illinois.

 

[Kestrel]

You either mean Jeffrey Dahmer or Illinois.

I was thinking of Dahmer. I get my murderous nut jobs confused at times.

 

[Kestrel]

Being mentally ill does not necessarily mean that one is not responsible for one's actions. It is perfectly possible to be crazy and still understand the difference between right and wrong, and the consequences of one's actions. To be legally insane, one has to be mentally ill to the point where that understanding is not possible. That is not very common, even among the seriously disturbed; and if you have a good clinical psychologist as the examiner, not easy to fake either.

At the Federal level, the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 was passed after Hinkley was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Before that change the burden of proving sanity was on the prosecution. The prior standard also required that the defendant have "substantial capability" to control their actions in order to be found sane.

Similar changes were made by many states around this same time.

You are right that a good clinical psychologist can make this determination. The problem is that much of the public believes it is easily faked. A perception that has more to do with how TV script writers create drama than reality.