Because Holmes acted deliberately and also with extreme indifference, he was found guilty on two counts for each victim -- bringing his total charges to 24 counts of murder, 140 counts of attempted murder, and one count of possession of explosives -- as well as a sentence enhancement for a crime of violence. With this resounding verdict, the trial will now move into its sentencing phase later this week. The jury will hear arguments from the defense for life in prison and from the prosecution for the death penalty, which The Denver Post reports has not been sought in a Colorado trial since 2009.
In the time that passed between the shooting, the trial, and the verdict, a concept that has always confused and frustrated me has taken center stage: the use of the term "alleged." I'm fully aware that it's a fundamental right in our judicial process that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Let's say that a blue car speeds away from a bank robbery with a masked man behind the wheel. Suspects who meet vague descriptions and who drive blue cars are brought in, but witnesses are unable to tell who actually did it. Those suspects would appropriately be classified as "alleged" robbers because there is reasonable doubt.
However, in a rare case like this -- with plentiful witnesses and absolutely no other suspects -- I don't understand why the legalese and the media kept calling Holmes the "alleged" shooter, especially after he confessed. It was a three-year slap in the face to the families who lost loved ones and to the people still recovering physically and emotionally that we had to consider this man "innocent" until the verdict was delivered last Thursday.
Adding sting to that slap is how the jury will ask Holmes to answer for his crimes. I've always been staunchly divided in my opinions about the death penalty. I'm neither completely for it nor completely against it, but it's a valid option when considered on a case-by-case basis. The idea of a criminal spending the rest of his life behind bars and being tormented every day by the things that he's done seems like it would be a fate worse than the easy way out brought by death. Holmes, on the other hand, shows no signs of regret or remorse for his actions, so what would he think about or learn from this kind of sentence?
Holmes even had the audacity to claim insanity when he spent months cruelly calculating how to most effectively carry out this sickening assault. Spending his life in prison seems wasteful to the system and to the taxpayers. Would it be easier for everyone if he simply no longer plagued the world with his darkness and his hatred? Then again, killing him would make us no better than he is. I go round after round after round with myself on every case where I think about the death penalty, and the answers don't come any easier with time.
We are at a critical intersection in our society. Gun-related violence is more prevalent than ever, and it has increasingly been a hot-button issue at every level -- locally, nationally, and even globally. There is more at stake and more for this jury to consider than ever before. Yes, we have the constitutional right to bear arms, but even the most gung-ho Second Amendment purist can surely concede that there are certain responsibilities to safely and successfully guarantee that privilege. The pervasive nature of this kind of violence over the last few decades leads me to speculate just how ingrained these destructive tendencies are in "civilized" populations, and why Americans seem to be the most predisposed to it when compared with crime rates in other countries.
Therefore, it is absolutely essential that these jurors look inside themselves and genuinely reflect on the weight of their decision. The obvious knee-jerk reaction is to fry Holmes as soon as possible, but this verdict and this sentence are about sending a message. Not just to criminals, but to our allies around the world. America used to stand for many ideals, but freedom and opportunity have given way to fear and instant gratification. As long as the jury approaches its sentencing from a place of promoting a sense of lasting peace and justice -- rather than swift but empty vengeance -- they will be right in the eyes of the law and their fellow humans.
At this point, it may be too soon to say that the worst is behind us, but hopefully the healing process can begin anew. Whether the jury decides in favor of life or death for Holmes, we can rest assured that it's finally an official acknowledgement of his guilt, without question. Either outcome is suitable for someone who so callously and violently stained another page in our nation's unfortunate recent history.
No comments:
Post a Comment