Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity

On May 13th, Colorado mass murderer James Holmes's attorney entered Holmes plea of "Not Guilty", by reason of insanity. His attorney said Holmes was "mentally ill". Well, I have a problem or two with that, and other cases like it.

To start with, while "the law" entitles him to a fair trial with the burden of proof on the "state" to prove he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I am not a court and I KNOW he is guilty as hell. He was found at the scene, by the police with his weapons, identified by people at the scene, and ALL information points to him killing all those people. There's a lot more to that, but NO ONE has any question that he killed those people. NO ONE! So there really isn't ANY doubt, but he must have his day in court (which I do support).

Secondly, in some respects, any person who would commit such a heinous crime like the murders in a Colorado movie theater, must surely have something wrong inside. But, I believe that "something", is just evil that gets in a persons head. But that doesn't mean by itself that the person is "insane" and had no reasoning skills to know that what they were doing was right or wrong. They just didn't care and maybe even took evil delight in such a deed. Did Homes know right from wrong? From the information that has come to light, his plan to commit such a murderous deed, was formulated and prepared for, for some time. That took planning. And "planning" sounds like he knew full well what he was doing.

Then, there's the whole "Not Guilty" aspect of such an insane act and plea. Doesn't that seem wrong? Doesn't that "Not Guilty" part seem all wrong, when all the evidence proves they did it? Seems to me, we need to change that part of the system, and make it a plea of "Guilty, but Insane". At least that way, a finding of actual guilt for the deed could be determined, and then the court could address the insanity part for any sentencing. People died at the hands of another, and there must be a reckoning.

I could buy into a "Guilty but Insane" plea one hell of a lot better than that whole "Not Guilty" part. People died. In fact, 12 people died and dozens were wounded. There has to be an accountability for such crime. "Guilty, but Insane", could also mean that if he should ever be "healed", he would still pay for the crime his ass committed. Otherwise, if found "insane" enough to not be held responsible for the murders, he could again walk the streets one day. THAT would be a bigger crime, at least in my view.