Gabrielle Giffords confronts shooter Jared Lee Loughner in court

[IDemo]

Source: Washington Post

Former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her husband confronted the man who shot her and killed six people in Tucson nearly two years ago, telling him in a dramatic courtroom session Thursday that he had “failed to extinguish the beauty of life.”

Reading from prepared remarks, Giffords’s husband, Mark Kelly, made an impassioned statement on behalf of the couple that was both highly personal and deeply political in its appeal for stricter gun control. In it, they told the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, that although he had changed Giffords’s life forever, he had not succeeded in his mission.

“Mr. Loughner, by making death and producing tragedy, you sought to extinguish the beauty of life, to diminish potential, to strain love and to cancel ideas,” Kelly said. “You tried to create for all of us a world as dark and evil as your own. But know this, and remember it always: You failed.”

Kelly called on politicians across America to tackle the issue of gun violence — the first time he or Giffords had spoken so forcefully on the issue.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/gabrielle-giffords-confronts-shooter-jared-lee-loughner-in-court/2012/11/08/09968fe2-29c7-11e2-b4e0-346287b7e56c_story.html

[Stainless]

1. They treated him with way too much respect

He should be looking forward to execution.

[Ken Burch]

2. Execution would just make him a Tea Party martyr

They should release everybody else from Gitmo and keep him there on his own 'til he dies...make him into America's Rudolf Hess.

[PavePusher]

27. "Execution would just make him a Tea Party martyr"

I really doubt that. I've met and known plenty of "tea party" people; none of them approved of his acts, and all thought he should collect a bullet in the back of the head and be buried in an unmarked desert grave.

Pushing false stereotypes doesn't do justice for anyone, and makes you look vile.

[Paladin]

30. You Know Some Tea Party People?

Imaagine my total lack of surprise......

[Posteritatis]

39. Imagine, an American knowing members of a major American political movement. How scandalous.

I know this place likes hurling around stupid innuendo instead of directly challenging arguments, but that's got to be the dumbest one I've seen this week.

[PavePusher]

43. Oddly, I don't insulate myself completely from others, even ones I disagree with.

Your world sounds far too binary for me. Have a nice day.

[PavePusher]

44. P.S.

I'm in the military, and we have all shades of the political spectrum.

Feel free to insult them all, that's such a winning strategy....

[Ken Burch]

52. OK, then-executing him would just bring the rest of us down to his level.

There's no such thing as righteous killing.

[nolabear]

3. I disagree. Hatred holds you hostage, and killing someone does no one any good.

[MicaelS]

11. Execution prevents someone from killing again, doesn't it?

I'd say that does some good. If Capital Punishment is completely eliminated, then what further punishment would you mete out to someone who kills another prisoner, or a guard in the prison?

We already have Life Without Parole in a cell 23 hours a day. What else would you do? Can't withhold mail. Can't deny them a lawyer. Can't deny them medical care. Willing to deny them all visitations except their lawyer?

If you put them in Solitary for Life with no other human contact, someone will claim that is inhumane and protest that. If you try to feed them the minimal food to stay alive, like bread, water and vitamins, someone will claim that is inhumane and protest that.

So what is your solution?

[GodlessBiker]

21. That, of course, may be true only if you execute the right person.

As they say, bad facts make bad law.

Would you only execute those who plead guilty to their crimes? How many people do you think would plead guilty?

Would you raise the burden of proof to "beyond all doubt" for someone to be executed?

Or would you just continue on with the current system, where time and time again people are rescued from death row thanks to the seemingly random participation from groups like The Innocence Project?

How many people have been wrongly executed throughout our history? Or is that a statistic you are willing to live with in order to get the known bad guys who really deserve it?

[MicaelS]

28. You're dodging my main question.

If we eliminate the DP, then what punishment will you replace it with?

What will you do if the inmate kills a guard, or another inmate?

I'm willing to eliminate the DP, provided it is replaced with Life Without Parole. 23 hours a day in a cell for the rest of their life. One hour out for exercise, alone, in an area with no other human contact. Minimal privileges. But I'm wiling to bet that if we did do that, someone would be protesting that is inhumane, and then want to let convicted murderers into the general prison population where they might kill again.

As to your questions...

I'm willing to execute those whom their guilt is without question. Did you catch them in the act? Right afterwards, that is within seconds or minutes? Did they confess? Do you have incontrovertible evidence?

I have no idea how many have been wrongly executed throughout our history. I'm wiling to bet no one does.

I do believe that some people are beyond rehabilitation, and the only proper punishment is death. My problem is with those who are utterly and completely philosophically opposed to the DP, and for whom no standard would be acceptable.

And before you drag out that old saw about "State Sponsored Murder", Murder is "Unlawful killing of another human being, with malice aforethought." If the state says certain acts of homicide are lawful, then it isn't "State Sponsored Murder". Just like Law Enforcement, or the Military, or even Civilians are allowed to use "Justifiable Homicide".

[GodlessBiker]

40. Many states have eliminated the death penalty. What do they do if a lifer commits murder in prison?

I worked in the criminal justice system for many years. It is so fucked up. Race, not only of the defendant but also of the victim, plays a large role in sentencing, whether we want to admit it or not. Moreover, humans make mistakes in perception, identification, memory, judgment, all kinds of things.

I've seen when someone is released from prison for 17 years after being found not guilty of the crime of which he was convicted. The damage is incredible, but at least the person can try to reestablish his life. There is no reason to believe that while we make mistakes with long and life prison terms, we don't make mistakes when it comes to the death penalty.

I just don't trust human beings to make these death decisions.

[kurtzapril4]

24. Capital punishment

will never make a murderer pay the ultimate price. Murderer's dead, his troubles are over. There is no true justice to be had for a murder victim's family. There is only one thing that could that could be justice..if the death of the murderer brought his victims back to life. That's not happening. So, IMO we should call capital punishment what it really is....revenge, and live with the ugliness that word describes.

[NYC Liberal]

25. Yet Canada, France, the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, Australia, the Netherlands,

Finland, Norway, Sweden, Ireland (to name just a few) manage to do fine without it and even have lower murder rates.

[Ash_F]

36. Solitary in a super maximum security prison is what usually happens

to extremely dangerous inmates. I don't know of any cases where an inmate managed to harm a guard in one. And they don't have contact with other inmates. The quality of life is much worse than medium or maximum security prisons.

The point is that yes there is further punishment if you commit a crime while in prison. Your pro-dp argument is based on a premise that indicates lack of understanding of the prison system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermax_Prison

[fascisthunter]

48. agreed!

[IfPalinisAnswerWatsQ]

6. He's clearly very mentally disturbed

I'm still glad he got life in prison, however, instead of lifetime confinement in a psych ward. If you're serving a life sentence then you might as well serve it in the most miserable place possible.

[slackmaster]

7. He's not so disturbed that he doesn't know right from wrong

Prisons are full of people who are mentally disturbed.

[antigone382]

14. How do you know that?

He may know it now. Did he know it at the time?

Also, our prisons are full of a lot of people, and they're making a lot of other people a lot of money. The severely mentally disturbed should not be in there, at least not until we vastly improve the quality of medical and psychological care available to prisoners.

[slackmaster]

15. My statement is based on the court's determination

That's all.

[antigone382]

18. Well, in this case he plead out.

I don't know the reasons why, and I will not try to speak to this unique case. But it doesn't necessarily follow that he wouldn't have been found not guilty by reason of insanity. I know from personal experience that a lot of pressure gets put on defendants to plea rather than taking their case to trial, regardless of whether the evidence to convict them at trial exists.

Loughner could have plead because the defense attorney suggested he do so (and they don't always do this in the actual best interest of their clients), or he may have had his own personal reasons. But in any case, his decision to make a plea means that the question of his culpability and his capacity to understand what he did will never be tested in court.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

33. I agree with you ...

Yours and mine may be unpopular opinions, but the man was clearly mentally disturbed (schizophrenia). I, in my opinion, think he should spend the rest of his life in a mental hospital and get treatment. I don't think he belongs in prison and left to the devices of men who would do him harm.

I don't know. I just think this country has a problem with mentally ill people, and that is the "white elephant" in the room. People, our side included, would rather use one of our basest emotions, anger, to seek revenge, than to use reason and intellect (along with other emotions such as empathy and compassion) to resolve these issues.

I don't see this guy as a cold blooded murder; I see him as extremely mentally disturbed.

[IfPalinisAnswerWatsQ]

17. No, that is ridiculous

If someone is guilty of murder (in this case, multiple murders), there is absolutely nothing wrong with them spending the rest of their life in prison.

I'm against the death penalty because I don't want to execute innocent people. I support life without parole. We are not going to go down the road of Norway or somewhere where some asshole like Anders Brevik can kill 70 people and get out of prison in 20 years

Sorry, that is not happening here.

[antigone382]

19. OK, point 1: Anders Brevik will not get out in 20 years.

His sentence can be extended as long as he is deemed a threat--which will certainly be for the rest of his life. There is a DUer here from Norway who has explained how their system works multiple times, and he is absolutely confident that Anders Brevik will never see the outside of his cell.

Point 2: Jared Loughner is not Anders Brevik. He did not commit the acts that he did because of right wing ideology. He was not capable of rational thought, based on his own youtube ravings and his diagnosis as a schizophrenic, which is not the same as psychopathy or sociopathy. A psychopath is capable of clear and ordered thinking, knows right from wrong, and commits whatever heinous acts they commit for personal gain, whether because they enjoy it or because it gets them some other reward.

When a schizophrenic turns violent due to their illness (and I should mention here that the vast majority of schizophrenics are not dangerous, or at least not to others), it is out of fear and confusion stimulated by their disordered thinking. They are not responsible for their actions. Andrea Yates's illness was recognized, and Jared Loughner's should have been as well. If you do not believe that legitimate mental illness designates a certain degree of mercy--and more importantly TREATMENT--then I really don't have anything else to say to you.

Our prisons are utterly wretched places where all kinds of horrific human suffering takes place, at this point to line the pockets of a few. They are not places where mentally ill people should go. Read Michelle Alexander's "The New Jim Crow" for a little overview of what our prison industrial complex has become, and then tell me you think it is a good place to send people, especially those who are vulnerable. If that changes, then I will reconsider my position.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

34. I'm recommending your post, antigone.

Very well said.

Thank you for saying it.

[IfPalinisAnswerWatsQ]

46. I already said Loughner was mentally ill

And I suppose wouldn't have a problem with him being confined to a mental institution where he can receive treatment for the rest of his life.

What I definitely DO have a problem with is the fact that sometimes we end up releasing murderers from mental hospitals, and I just have a real problem with that. People who murder other people in this country should never be released, regardless of whether they are serving time in a prison or a hospital. Do you agree?

I don't think it is fair to impose that risk on the public, and I do believe that life sentences are appropriate for murder.

[antigone382]

47. I think it depends...though I don't know how often we do that.

Speaking specifically of mentally ill people who kill (I decline to call it murder, as I believe that signifies a level of intention that a mentally ill person may not be capable of), I don't know how often they are released, but I doubt it is very frequently. However, if the cause of their violence is identified and effectively managed, I see no reason that they should be forced to remain locked away once their sanity has been established.

For murders committed by sane people: even then I think that there are mitigating factors. If one of Jerry Sandusky's victims had one day come back to murder him, would we really say that person deserves to spend the rest of his or her life in jail? If a victim of spousal abuse "murders" his or her partner in their sleep (I put murder in quotation marks, because where there is a significant difference in strength, you could argue that murdering a spouse when they are incapacitated is really a form of self defense), does he or she deserve to rot in prison? What about a victim of rape who has seen her attacker go free despite pressing charges, as so often happens?

I do not believe in mandatory minimum sentences, zero tolerance policies, or any other across the board rule that removes consideration of mitigating factors. I believe in determining a just response to each individual situation. I believe that people going into and entering out of the justice system should be equipped to lead crime free lives, rather than be driven to lives even more dependent on crime, as is now the case (though of course I understand that individuals may not change no matter what options are made available to them). In short, I believe in restorative justice rather than retributive justice.

Edit: I recall now that in your initial post you advocated Loughner being in "the most miserable place possible" despite full acknowledgement of his incapacitated mental state. I realize it may have been something you said while upset or "fired up." But it is regardless a fundamentally inhumane and unjust position to take. In retrospect, I'd like to know how can you possibly advocate deliberately putting a paranoid and delusional person in a miserable environment likely to worsen their mental state? Do you retract that statement now, or do you stand by it?

[IfPalinisAnswerWatsQ]

50. If one of Sandusky's victims exacted revenge

I suspect a lot of Americans, myself included, would find it very difficult to even convict. Jury nullification. Yeah, it's vigilantism, but it's a heavily modified version of Grisham's "A Time to Kill" novel and movie, where a father was acquitted for murdering the scum that raped and attempted to kill his daughter.

There is no way to identify the causes of violence and effectivey manage them with 100% certainty. The risk to the public is too great. I agree with you that if mentally ill people had no idea that what they were doing is wrong, and it was 100% certain that they would never commit violence again, that they should be released. But color me skeptical, okay? While we do lead the developed world in our homicide rate, most Americans manage to get through life without murdering other Americans.

I already addressed Sandusky's victims above. If a victim of spousal abuse murdered their abuser and the abuse was heavy and fully documented, I would probably refuse to convict them as well. Jury nullification again. For your last scenario, no, I would definitely vote to convict if evidence was presented. If someone is acquitted of a crime by a fair and impartial jury, and the alleged victim then proceeds to murder the alleged rapist, that is unacceptable in my opinion, and that person should be convicted. It isn't justifiable unless her life or bodily injury (including another attempted rape) are threatened.

I believe in life sentences without parole for murderers who have been convicted on strong evidence that knew what they were doing. I suspect you probably already know this, but your opposition to life without parole sentences for murderers is an extreme minority position in the US. The death penalty is becoming less popular, but that is because life without parole is becoming more popular. Most Americans would find it distasteful to ever release a murderer. There are plenty of other people that could be released first if costs are at issue: armed robbers, those convicted of drug dealing, etc.

I fall into the restorative justice camp for those convicted of NON-VIOLENT crimes. Those who stole should pay restitution plus heavy interest. Those who use hard drugs (excluding marijuana) should have the option to go into voluntary rehabilitation. But those who commit serious acts of violence against other people should be punished severely. This type of behavior is never justified and it must be punished.

[antigone382]

51. I would not say that I object to live without parole in all cases.

And I do not think the scenario you addressed in your first paragraph would necessarily work out that way. A Time to Kill is a novel written to make money. I understand that Grisham is a lawyer, but he nevertheless takes liberties with legal realities and "sexes up" the judicial process to make his work entertaining. The reality is that people in situations such as those described above are brought up on murder charges quite frequently; and the mechanism for acknowledging that their acts had some justification is in reducing their sentences due to "mitigating circumstances." A scenario where the only options for addressing homicide were jury nullification or mandatory life without parole would not really be adequate.

Also, as to the mental health issue, I again wonder how frequently individuals are released from mental hospitals after having committed murders. Do you have any statistics that demonstrate that this is a significant likelihood?

[Posteritatis]

38. If you think that about Breivik you need to actually read some about their system. (nt)

[Diclotican]

41. IfPalinisAnswerWatsQ

IfPalinisAnswerWatsQ

I have tried to explain again and again that people like Breivik, who did what he did in 2011, would never se the day as a free man.. Mostly because Norway can, and possible will keep him locked up for as long as it is deemed necessary.. And in the case of mr Breivik - he will be kept under lock and key as long as he live - mostly because the crime he did is so horrible that we have never experienced anything like it in past world war two years... Even then, the germans was not just killing 70 people on the fly, for the most part it was war related in one way or another... And compared to other places in german occupied Europe, Norway got off easy..

Breivik will live out the rest of his life, as a lonely prisoner as I doubt he will be allowed to be even send into a regular prison population, the possibility for anything happening to him, is to large.. Just days after he did his horrible crime, some put a prise on his head - 500.000 Norwegian kroner on his head - like 75.000 US dollar.. And that prise is still on his head... So even seasoned criminals was not exactly happy about what he did two years ago..

But, then again - in Norway our goal is to rehabilitate criminals, and give them tools to make the life on the outside better than it was before they got in - the whole concept is to make it possible to have a human prison time, not sit in a cell for 23 hours a day - with little or no contact with the world outside, or with contact inside the prison.. And compared to what is regular in the US I suspect Norwegian prisons is like a luxury hotel..

Diclotican

[TinkerTot55]

31. The young man who committed those horrors...

...is deeply disturbed, severely mentally-ill. If I remember correctly, he is only able to stand trial because of the administration of drugs for his condition. Antigone is spot on! Well-said.

[LeftinOH]

4. It's nice that this wasn't one of those "forgiveness meetings"

which are so popular; some things are not forgiveable.

[Posteritatis]

37. Of course, if it was, the survivors' opinions would matter rather more than ours. (nt)

[onehandle]

5. No more legal purchases of assault clips for him. nt

[Paladin]

9. Prepare Yourself For Incoming Gun Enthusiasts......

....whining about the oh-so-critical difference between "clips" and "magazines."

[yellowcanine]

8. Ok that is one tough woman.

[YankeyMCC]

10. Well said Mr Kelly

[antigone382]

12. You know, I'm kind of saddened by this thread.

I have no issue with the response of Gabrielle Giffords or Mark Kelly. They were victims and they have a right to express their anger and sadness.

But there is no way you can know anything about Jared Loughner and think that he was anywhere near lucid enough to really understand what he was doing. He is a diagnosed schizophrenic, in a society that has NO provisions for the mentally ill, largely thanks to Reagan. The responses in this thread are as disgusting to me as the people who rabidly wanted Andrea Yates to burn. Mental illness is real, and you do not dispose of mentally ill people like you do "mad dogs" for one simple reason: human beings are not dogs.

For those who want to portray him as a Tea Party warrior: the few strands of political ideology that made their way into his disordered thoughts were incoherent (and yes, much moreso than the incoherent political idiocy of the tea party). He should be receiving quality psychiatric care in a facility where he cannot harm anyone or himself, not generating a paycheck for some prison industry executive in the halls of a profit driven prison.

[libodem]

16. Very well said

I agree.

[Melinda]

22. You are not alone, antigone. The streets of America are filled with those suffering mental illnesses

Mentally ill Americans fill our bus stations, subways, downtown's, train stations, food banks and soup kitchens... they sleep in the parking lots of churches, at rescue missions, under bridges and over-passes. We see them from our car windows, when we are at the mall, pushing carts down sidewalks, in our towns, all over our cities; they are our neighbors.

I often feel, hell I know they are among the least of us and that most Americans prefer they stay invisible. It will require a radical change in economical, political, social, and dare I say even cultural thought processes before we see the issue of caring for those suffering from mental illness addressed at any realistic level.

I'm with you.

[efhmc]

26. I remember when reagun did that. Who knows what amount of tragedy

has come from his actions.

[nolabels]

29. That might have even been part of solution to the problem before it happened

If he was that mad dog that is kind of scary then it is also to resolve such problems. It is also harder to train a mad dog or even a beaten and timid dog. Of course people are much more complex but most living things can recognize when their lives might be threatened (or at least think that). The problem Loughner might have experienced something long ago when he was in need of help and instead found some kind of aggression to him. The brain which also acts as a large sponge also just grows them seeds so its prepared for that next time it gets those confusing signals. Sometimes in people who are diagnosed with schizophrenia they have that recognition of aggression and it gets processed in strange or unthoughtful ways. Without the help or care for people with such problems they sometimes grow worse and or violent like in this case.

To me it seems kind of ignorant to be putting all the owness of the problem on Loughner, especially in that it solves not too much. As a civilization and a society WE failed in what happened here. Sure he knew on some level what he did was wrong as he was doing it. The problem was his measurement of what was more wrong was confused by faulty information he received during the process all through his life.

If you don't think i am correct with this opinion about getting bad information, then please explain to me why all those people were a gasp and thought Romney was going to win the election

[burnsei sensei]

32. A Tea Party warrior? I think not.

He is a diagnosed schizophrenic, in a society that has NO provisions for the mentally ill, largely thanks to Reagan.

The most powerful truth about Loughner.
Did he know the difference between right and wrong when he shot all those people?
Well, isn't it convenient that we don't know?
We do know that he had to endure several months of treatment before he could come to realize that what he did was wrong.
And, of course, once treated, he was fit to be charged, tried, convicted and punished.
Our prisons and jails hold a large number of the mentally ill.
Loughner is just one more of these. The only thing that distinguishes him is his crime. A crime done when he was roaming about untreated thanks to our social and medical neglect.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

35. Bravo to you for having the courage to speak up.

The opinion may not be popular, but in my view, is absolutely correct.

Thank you for speaking up.

[antigone382]

49. Thank you for your support on my posts, Fantastic Anarchist!

Honestly, I understand the reaction. One of our own went down (along with a lot of other innocent people) as a result of senseless violence. It is just human instinct to lash out at the person who committed those acts of violence, and that instinct is heightened in a society that calls so deafeningly for retributive justice and ignores the existence of restorative justice. But a little reflection on the information available to us makes it clear that two things: 1) compassion for this individual, and 2) a commitment to change the social structures which failed to meet his needs (and the needs of so many others), are what is needed--both in terms of our progressive values and in terms of the broader goal of cutting violence such as this.

[meow2u3]

13. I hold the Tea Party ultimately responsible

Between their hatred of the President and the Democratic party and their violent rhetoric, they're the only who provoked a mentally ill man to pull the trigger that killed innocent people, including a 9-year-old girl, and almost killed Gabby Giffords.

The Tea Party should be brought up on RICO charges, including incitement to commit violent crimes.

[efhmc]

20. I lay this tragedy and the Oklahoma city bombing at the feet of

that pusher of violence and hate: rush limbaugh. The tea party is his direct decedent.

[Tanuki]

23. Don't forget Sarah Palin, who famously published a graphic with Giffords' district

in the crosshairs of a gun.

[Major Hogwash]

42. Loughner was sentenced to life imprisonment.

I think he is probably insane, but at least now, he won't harm anyone in public anymore.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

45. Republicans won't do a thing because it was a Democrat that was the target.