James Holmes' Insanity Plea Accepted by Court in Colorado Theater Massacre
Source: ABC News
A Colorado judge has accepted accused theater shooter James Holmes' plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, a move that could spare him from the death penalty.
The decision sets in motion a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation of Holmes, a process that could take months.
Holmes is accused of opening fire last July 20 during a midnight screening of "The Dark Knight Rises" Batman movie, killing 12 people and injuring another 70. He faces a total of 166 counts, including murder and attempted murder.
If tried and convicted of the murders, Holmes could face the death penalty. The insanity plea could help him avoid execution, if convicted.
Holmes spoke for the first time since his initial appearance in July 2012.
Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/james-holmes-insanity-plea-accepted-court-colorado-theater/story?id=19320525#.Ua4a3djNkWU
tblue
(16,350 posts)How in the world can this man claim he was incapable of knowing shooting strangers in a theatre was a crime? If he didn't know it was wrong, why'd he sneak?
alp227
(31,959 posts)And this trial is a sign that someone should've intervened in Holmes's life beforehand. I think a psychiatrist at his college knew about his craziness.
msongs
(67,193 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)To be "Guilty" of a crime, means you did a criminal act AND KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN IT WAS WRONG. It is this second step in finding someone guity that insanity comes into play.
You have to understand, in an insanity plea, you admit you did the act, the issue then becomes did you understand what you were doing.
A good way to look at this is if you are driving a car, and the breaks give out. You try to steer and guide the car to a stop, but while doing so you run over someone. Was running over that person your intent? No, but it was the car you were driving that ran over him. In any trial in such a situation, you would admit to running the person over, but deny it was your INTENTION to run him over. No intent no crime.
Side note: Gross negligence, gross recklessness can be all the "intent" needed to convict someone. Thus if the car's break did not work because you did not check them, that can be Gross Negligence or Gross Recklessness can be all the "intent" needed to convict someone of a crime. The above example assumes no such Gross Negligence or Gross Recklessness was involved.
Thus when it comes to Not Guilty due to insanity, you are admitting the act occurred, but you did not have the "evil mind" (Mens rea) to make it murder.
For more on Mens Rea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
that crime was "generally constituted only from concurrence of an evil-meaning mind with an evil-doing hand."
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/342/246/case.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morissette_v._United_States
Thus the reason why it is "NOT guilty do to insanity", for you must be sane to have the necessary "evil mind" to commit a crime. No evil mind not crime (with certain exceptions, loot as Morissette v United States for the Supreme Court went into details both as to crimes that need intent and crimes that do not).