Slashdot Mirror


Using Truth Serum To Confirm Insanity

xclr8r writes "James Holmes representation did not enter a plea today in with regards to the Aurora, Co. Movie theater shooting so the Judge entered a plea of not guilty for James that could be changed at a later date by Holmes' attorney. The judge entered an advisory that if the plea was changed to Not Guilty by insanity that Holmes would be subject to a 'narcoanalytic interview' with the possibility of medically appropriate substances could be used e.g. so called truth serums. Holmes defense looks to have initially objected to this but as the previous article seems to infer that some compromises are being worked out. This certainly raises legal questions on how this is being played out 5th, 14th amendments. The legal expert in the second article states this is legal under Co. law but admits there's not a huge amount of cases regarding this. I was only able to find Harper v State where a defendant willingly underwent truth serum and wanted to submit the interview on his behalf but was rejected due to the judge not recognizing sufficient scientific basis to admit the evidence."

308 comments

  1. Good luck for Holmes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If he's willing to submit to drug-enhanced interrogation, he's certified crazy!

    1. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Alranor · · Score: 5, Funny

      There's somebody called Yossarian on the phone, I think he wants to talk to you ...

    2. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Barsteward · · Score: 0, Troll

      I'd just ask a few questions (a "yes" to any proves insanity):

      1. Do you believe there is a god?
      2. Do you approve of or a member the N.R.A.?
      3. Do you believe the earth is only 6000-10000 years old?
      4. Would you vote for Sarah Palin as president? (yes for her performing in a porno is fine)

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    3. Re:Good luck for Holmes by TheCarp · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      1, 3, and 4 definitely show a person, at least isn't paying much attention. However, being lied to by the people who raised you and misinformed doesn't really make one insane.

      Talking about the NRA as if its some nutjob group though? Well that doesn't show insanity either, but it does show one to be almost as misinformed as the people in categories 1, 3, and 4. The NRA is just a lobby group....and one which represents a huge cross section of society.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    4. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      1) This isn't "not paying attention", there is no absolute proof that God does or does not exist, so believing one way or another is fine
      2) Yeah, this is certifiably crazy. The N.R.A. goes overboard and uses overboard scare tactics with it's members. If you aren't crazy when you join, you will be fairly quickly. A recent amusing conversation:
      Friend: Damnit, why do they keep trying to restrict what guns we can own? As long as we are responsible, what is the problem?
      [I try to argue a moderate position for a while... long story short, it ends with]
      Me: You know, people in the N.R.A. want these guns too.
      Friend: Oh, right. I see your point.
      3) Yeah, ok, yean, that's not paying attention
      4) Umm... bitch was/is a batshit crazy hypocrite. To what extent do you have to "not pay attention" to fail to notice that. Insane.

    5. Re:Good luck for Holmes by bsane · · Score: 2

      2) because 'the other side' doesn't use overboard scare tactics?

    6. Re:Good luck for Holmes by ByOhTek · · Score: 2

      *Shrug*

      Probably, because if he were sane, he would be likely to fail, and it'd be useless.

      I don't see how saying "take the test or that plea won't be acceptable" violates the 5th or 14th though. The right to not incriminate yourself, or the right to liberty (except when denied by due process) is not violated by such an option. The mispercieved "right to be believed in what you say" and possible "get away with it" are violated, but we aren't given those rights. All this is, is an attempt by the court, to establish a strong verification of the truth. The person isn't required to take the test.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    7. Re:Good luck for Holmes by oldhack · · Score: 1

      Pro-tip: don't take no calls from crazy Armenians.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    8. Re:Good luck for Holmes by artfulshrapnel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I guess my biggest complaint would be: How good is truth serum at verifying the type of insanity claimed, and what qualification does the judge have to diagnose the suspect's mental condition? The human brain and psychoactive drugs are a horribly complex nest of interconnected issues, and even trained professionals can't always predict the effect they'll have on abnormal brains or in abnormal combinations

      For example:
      Let's say he really is insane, but the truth serum they use temporarily stabilizes him by suppressing an overactive region in his brain. Now during the test he'll be perfectly sane and normal, but as soon as the drug wears off he goes back to crazytown.

    9. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2) because 'the other side' doesn't use overboard scare tactics?

      Really? You obviously have not been paying attention to "the other side" then, have you?

    10. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have. And when they're not lying their asses off, they're using scare tactics, and it's usually some combination of the two.

    11. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have to because when they say things like "Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." people balk.

    12. Re:Good luck for Holmes by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      Well then it's a good thing the judge would not be administering the test itself!

      (I hope he wouldn't be)

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    13. Re:Good luck for Holmes by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      GP didn't mention the other side. Anyway, in this topic there are many sides, and
      (a) just because an extreme on one side does something inappropriate, doesn't justify the extreme on the other side doing the same
      (b) There are moderates on both sides, who pull that bullshit.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    14. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And somehow, that justifies the NRA and extremist groups on that side doing the same thing?

      Two wrongs make a right?

      Makeing yourself and your group look like a bunch of spazzed out idiots is OK, because your opponents do it too?

    15. Re:Good luck for Holmes by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      The serum is to verify EVENTS not sanity. Once he declares "insane" he goes to being a ward of the state and he cannot be CONVICTED of crimes.

      As a ward of the state he can be physically compelled to give evidence or have test done to ensure truthiness. That evidence WILL be used to show he methodically planned and hid his actions... So it will keep him locked up ... Forever. But that's not CRIMINAL evidence, that is phychiatric evidence used for the CIVIL determination he is unsafe.

      Also, this wil allow the court to know if anybody else was involved or contributing as this guy will be immune from prosecution.

    16. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bigots like you are WHY there the NRA is necessary. You state outright that disagreeing with you politically is grounds for being judged as insane, and yet you are surprised that people would feel the need to arm themselves against you and people like you?

    17. Re:Good luck for Holmes by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      I don't see how saying "take the test or that plea won't be acceptable" violates the 5th or 14th though. The right to not incriminate yourself, or the right to liberty (except when denied by due process) is not violated by such an option.

      It could be; what if they said "testify against yourself or else we will reject your not-guilty plea"?

    18. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Kreigaffe · · Score: 5, Informative

      Truth serum does not fucking work, period, at all. This has been known for many decades now. If it worked, we would've been using it against Bad Guys in Secret Prisons, and we're not. We're not because it doesn't fucking work and everyone knows that.

      Except apparently the people in this court room.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    19. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Looks like you used a Capitalization Serum.

    20. Re:Good luck for Holmes by patch5 · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's it! Threaten him with being shot! That'll be SURE to demonstrate that you're a rational, level-headed person!

    21. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "How good is truth serum at verifying the type of insanity claimed, and what qualification does the judge have to diagnose the suspect's mental condition?"

      That's two different questions. I don't know the answer to the latter. But as far as how effective "truth serum" is, based on past studies I can say "not very".

      The problem with "truth serum" (usually sodium thiopental, also known as pentothal), is exactly the same problem with with using torture: if you use enough to break down the resistance of the subject, the subject then becomes too cooperative and is likely to say anything the interrogator wants to hear.

    22. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Mitreya · · Score: 2

      Truth serum does not fucking work, period, at all. This has been known for many decades now. If it worked, we would've been using it against Bad Guys in Secret Prisons, and we're not.

      Torture also does not work (well, not for the purposes of getting reliable information ) and that has been known for a while too. Didn't stop our administration(s) from using it.

    23. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the USA do they really treat the insane in such cases much better than convicted criminals?

      I suspect after a few years you're likely to be even more insane than when you went in.

    24. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come to think of it, "says funny things while under the influence of drugs" probably isn't the best criteria for insanity testing.

    25. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do I post my "Best of /." submission vote? As AC of course.

    26. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with "truth serum" (usually sodium thiopental, also known as pentothal), is exactly the same problem with with using torture: if you use enough to break down the resistance of the subject, the subject then becomes too cooperative and is likely to say anything the interrogator wants to hear.

      Sounds like it works fine for most applications.

    27. Re:Good luck for Holmes by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > All this is, is an attempt by the court, to establish a strong verification of the truth.
      > The person isn't required to take the test.

      But where is the evidence that this "Attempt" would be expected to be meaningful?

      He isn't required to take the test, but its being placed as a condition on something he does have the right to do. Its reasonable for a court to take steps to establish truth but, shouldn't they do so in ways that there is evidence to believe would do that?

      The right to due process is most certainly violated when the process is not due. What makes this process, in any way, sound? Why should such a process be taken as establishing anything? If it isn't sound, then it doesn't make sense as a condition.

      I mean, I can shoot you in the face and claim that I was just attempting to tie my shoes, however, I would be shocked if anyone accepted that as a reasonable attempt at putting a knot in my laces.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    28. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How could you possibly take any of the previous ACs comment as threatening to shoot someone? There was nothing of the sort, so settle down and get over yourself.

    29. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rights are not given under the US Constitution. They are recognized as our natural property as human beings, and the government is charged with protecting them and disallowed from infringing upon them. Your misunderstanding of this situation is at the root of nearly every problem we face.

    30. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Golddess · · Score: 2

      You must be one of those "you don't need guns, and if you disagree with me, well, that just proves my case as to why you don't need guns" people. So I expect my words will be falling on deaf ears, but I'll say them anyway.

      AC calmly explaining to Barsteward the notion of defending oneself, of refusing to roll over and letting someone else walk all over them, is not "threatening him with being shot". Actually, if anyone is doing the threatening, it's you and Barsteward, threatening to label us insane for disagreeing with you. Sure, you two may not have the power to make such a threat mean anything, but we're not talking about one or two individuals running around calling people insane. At least, that's not how AC's post came across to me. The way it came across to me is that the person doing the "judging" actually does have the power to do something based on that judgment. And though I often joke about being insane, if someone with the authority to do something about it threatened to have me certified insane, me explaining how I will not sit idly by and let it happen is not evidence of insanity. It is what a rational, level-headed person would do.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    31. Re:Good luck for Holmes by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      The right to not incriminate yourself...

      So you don't see anything wrong with given a truth serum (drugged up out of your mind), and then asked questions? You don't see how that might be perceived as incriminating yourself?

    32. Re:Good luck for Holmes by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      Yes, quality of the truth serum is a huge issue, and should be the primary focus. But that doesn't have to do with #5 and #14.

      Also, I'd argue that a list of acceptable questions should be provided before the serum is administered, and no other questions would be admissible.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    33. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess my biggest complaint would be: How good is truth serum at verifying the type of insanity claimed.

      Presumably the plan is to dope the defendant up until he doesn't have the wherewithal to lie and ask him "Are you really crazy or are you just trying to beat the system?". The premies being that if he's lying he'll admit it under the influence of the truth serum.

      The main problem with truth serum is that it's about as effective as torture (that is not at all) because unless you can independently verify what you're told you have no way of knowing they didn't just make up something (think about how reliable drunks are as an information source).

    34. Re:Good luck for Holmes by hackula · · Score: 1

      1) This isn't "not paying attention", there is no absolute proof that Big Foot does or does not exist, so believing one way or another is fine

      FTFY

    35. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Immerman · · Score: 1

      You beat me to it, though I was going to go with unicorns.

      On the other hand there is a very, very long cultural tradition of believing in a God or Gods, far, far longer than of believing in things like chemistry or math, and the belief was incorporated deep into the heart of most of our primary social institutions. Moreover the existence and commonalities of the mystic experience suggest that either *something* exists, or our brains are predisposed to experiencing a very particular and compelling type of hallucination which generally has profound positive effects on the individuals lucky enough to have one.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    36. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Immerman · · Score: 1

      The bed is softer, the overseers less likely to allow violence between inmates (or administer it themselves), and your bunkmate is less likely to be Bob the axe-murdering rapist. On the down side you may end up spending the rest of your life in a drug-induced stupor that prevents you from appreciating any of those facts.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    37. Re:Good luck for Holmes by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this is certifiably crazy. The N.R.A. goes overboard and uses overboard scare tactics with it's members.

      (disclaimer: I am an NRA member)

      You do realize that NRA is far more than its lobby arm? It's also an organization that offers training courses and literature, certifies firearm instructors etc. In fact, I would be very surprised if even half of its membership is heavily involved in gun politics. And even when politics is concerned, many members don't toe the party line, especially lately when it's been getting hysterical. What Wayne LaPierre says does not represent the opinions of all of us ,or even most of us. Also, while NRA-ILA press releases are mostly just brainless propaganda, their detailed database on politicians, that keeps track of how each of them voted on any law of relevance to the organization, can be useful regardless of how moderate or extreme you are on gun rights issues (heck, it can even be useful if you're an anti!).

      If you want "certifiably crazy", that's GOA. Now these are the guys who use the world "liberal" as a slur in their press releases.

    38. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Not really. If they think you want to hear that they're actually a sentient mushroom from Mars plotting to overthrow the governments of the world and allow fairies to lay eggs in our brains, that's exactly what you'll hear. With profound earnesty and conviction. Keep in mind that one of the biggest facts in an interrogation subjects mind will be "I have a very good reason not to give you the information you want". Erase the weight of that fact via drugs or torture and you've pretty much obliterated all the others as well.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    39. Re:Good luck for Holmes by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      I was recently talking with a friend, he is a pot head who is dating a substance abuse councillor. We were giving him shit, not because we have any issue with pot heads, just that he lied to her about it and kept the extent of it from her. He went on about how hes changing that now, quiting etc,

      It was pointed out that he started out with the lies to which he said "Well I couldn't exactly tell her that"... but the thing is...no he couldn't have told her that...if he wanted her to date him and sleep with him. Thats the subtext he left off "I couldn't tell her that". It was really "I couldn't tell her that, and still get what I wanted from her".

      Its really the same issue to my mind. If you can't tell people the truth and still have them support your goals, that doesn't really give you license to lie to them. (there are situations I would consider extenuating but, none of them apply to making these sorts of cases for social policy)

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    40. Re:Good luck for Holmes by loxosceles · · Score: 1

      Except that it does work for some purposes in some cases, as long as you're not expecting it to be a literal "truth serum".

      Anything that suppresses higher brain function will make someone more likely to self-incriminate. Anybody who has been to a party with alcohol knows this. It might also cause someone to make stuff up or engage in embarrassing behavior, but that's not the same as "truth serum doesn't work at all."

    41. Re:Good luck for Holmes by stoploss · · Score: 1

      Unlike GOA, the NRA's record for supporting and protecting rights is abysmal. It seems the NRA rarely encounters a compromise on our rights that they don't enthusiastically endorse.

      The NICS federal background check system for gun sales? An NRA idea.

      Gun free school zones? NRA supported those for years.

      Stripping depressed/PTSD veterans of their right to buy firearms without due process? NRA partnered with Charles Schumer on that one (WTF? That's like the NOW partnering with Mike Huckabee on an abortion restriction law)

      The list goes on and on. I was honestly surprised when the NRA decided to take a stand against the current encroachment attempts, given that they almost supported the 1994 Crime Bill "assault weapons" and magazine capacity bans.

      (Disclaimer: I am a GOA lifetime member, so feel free to proceed with your ad hominem attacks)

    42. Re:Good luck for Holmes by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The N.R.A. goes overboard and uses overboard scare tactics with it's members

      Interestingly, in the latest issue of "America's First Freedom" (one of the NRA's magazines, like Guns & Ammo but more political), they dissected Feinstein's new "assault weapon ban".

      Their dissection was so over the top that I assumed they were just trying to scare the crap out of their readers, and so I decided to check thomas.loc.gov for the actual text of the bill...

      The really astounding thing was that the NRA's dissection of the bill was, if anything, an understatement (i.e. the bill, as written, could be read to ban ALL semi-automatic handguns, as well as the early-19th century Colt Revolving shotguns) of the problem.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    43. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have to because when they say things like "Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." people balk.

      In other words:
      "people don't agree with me so I trick them into supporting my agenda by misrepresenting my agenda"

    44. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see how saying "take the test or that plea won't be acceptable" violates the 5th or 14th though. The right to not incriminate yourself, or the right to liberty (except when denied by due process) is not violated by such an option. The mispercieved "right to be believed in what you say" and possible "get away with it" are violated, but we aren't given those rights. All this is, is an attempt by the court, to establish a strong verification of the truth. The person isn't required to take the test.

      To me the question is whether the requirement to take a "truth serum" is a sensible means of determining whether the defendant is or is not sane. As far as I know, it appears to be far outside the normal bounds of psychiatry. For the sake of argument, let's say that there is such a thing as a "truth serum" (it's a silly notion, there is no such thing, but let's grant its existence for the moment). How might the conversation go?

      <gallows-humor>

      Shrink: So, mein freund, you are crazy?

      Defendant: Absolutely. Crazy as a bedbug. Nutty as a fruit bat. Am I a gummi bear? My thumb tastes like one.

      S: I see, so zat is what happened to your zumb. And are you telling us ze truth ven you are saying you are crazy?

      D: Sure. Why would I lie about something like that? You talk funny. Are you a gummi bear too? Lemme taste...

      S: (Sits on his hands.) No! I am not...er. Must concentrate. Must stay on ze topic. You shot and killed many people in ze movie theater. Are you saying a gummi bear is capable of such terrible zings?

      D: Hell no. It was the Evil Master Criminal who did zat...that stuff. Now you've got me talking funny. Nice goatee, by the way.

      S: Ze evil master criminal who fights ze good Fledermaus-man. Are you zis person?

      D: Damn straight I am.

      S: Aha! Aha! I have caught you! You are lying! You have contradicted yourself, you cannot both be ze gummi bear and ze Evil Master Criminal. Everyzing you say is a lie. (Turns to black-uniformed guards waiting in the shadows.) He is sane. Take him and keel him!

      D: (Voice receding as he is dragged down the hall toward the electric chair by henchpersons of the law) Hey! You're crazy too! You expect crazy people to be consistent! OK, I'm sane. If everything I say is a lie then (loud buzzing and crackling, punctuated by screams of "I'm melting!")

      </gallows-humor>

      I freely admit that I might be missing some psychological subtlety here, but I cannot imagine how a "truth serum" (which is basically a drug that lowers inhibition in dosages less than required to produce complete anesthesia) could possibly help to establish whether or not a person is sane. People who are crazy in the psychiatric sense often don't understand that they are crazy, so we would expect them to deny being insane both under normal circumstances and while partially narcotized. Then again, maybe the defendant asserts that he is crazy. That doesn't mean that he isn't crazy. Maybe he thinks he's an insanely evil Master Criminal.

    45. Re:Good luck for Holmes by perceptual.cyclotron · · Score: 1

      Arguably, this might be a much better use of sp than as a 'lie detector'. It doesn't matter that he's going to confabulate and just involuntarily spill out whatever the hell flies through his head. In fact, that's exactly what you might want if you're aiming to determine someone's sanity, mental stability, or what have you. Of course it's completely useless if you're trying to ascertain facts about real events. But if you're simply looking to gauge the state of the mind, cracking that sucker wide open – sans filter – is exactly what you want. It's like an amped up rorschach test...

    46. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      The NRA is just a lobby group....and one which represents a huge cross section of overcompensating nut jobs.
      FTFY

    47. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Drawsalot · · Score: 1

      Looks like you used a Capitalization Serum.



      Now that's funny.
    48. Re:Good luck for Holmes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct but appear to be unaware that such behaviors did vanish under hypnosis during attempts to treat Shell Shock in WWI.

      Although many of the behaviors were physical tics, knee jerks, seizure-like, there were psychotic manifestations too.

      The behaviors returned on waking.

      VisionAndPsychosis.Net

    49. Re:Good luck for Holmes by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      But he was sane enough for the US military ... oh, wait. There's a phone call coming in from some place called "Fort Hood"?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    50. Re:Good luck for Holmes by patch5 · · Score: 0

      Sorry I'm late responding. I'm actually NOT one of those guys. I absolutely believe that the US government has taken far too many liberties in restricting constitutional protections, and I don't want to see the second amendment hamstrung any more than I want to be told what time of the day is acceptable for me to poop. I just thought AC's comment was overemotional.

      IMHO, responding to "you're crazy if you're a member of group X" with, "I'm not crazy, and if you call me crazy again I may do something stereotypically associated with group X" just ain't the way to maintain credibility.

  2. Precedent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Neddy: "You're mad, mad I tell you!"
    Bluebottle: "Little does he know that I'm as sane as the next man."
    Eccles: "Little does HE know that I'm the next man!"

    1. Re:Precedent... by drkim · · Score: 2

      So nice to see a Goon Show quote on /.

      Carry on...!

    2. Re:Precedent... by kramer2718 · · Score: 5, Funny

      “But I don’t want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
      "Oh, you can’t help that," said the Cat: "we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad."
      "How do you know I’m mad?" said Alice.
      "You must be," said the Cat, or you wouldn’t have come here.”

    3. Re:Precedent... by MisterSquid · · Score: 1

      It's hard to explain why you're a madman, even when you're not mad.

      --
      blog
    4. Re:Precedent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come on -- precision, please. The episode is, "The Booted Gorilla". Gryptype-Thynne says of Neddie, as an aside to the audience, "perhaps he's mad." Neddie says, to the audience, "Little does he know, I'm as sane as the next fellow." Eccles then says, to the audience, "Little does he know that I'm the next fellow!"

    5. Re:Precedent... by Evtim · · Score: 1

      "I've been mad for fucking years, absolutely years, been over the edge for yonks, been working me buns off for bands..."

      "I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the
      most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."

    6. Re:Precedent... by mlush · · Score: 1

      I'm not mad

      You can see my discharge papers.

      I've got a complete record of all the pus I ever made.

    7. Re:Precedent... by Garisimo · · Score: 1

      "They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me" -- Nathaniel Lee

    8. Re:Precedent... by sconeu · · Score: 1

      I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested!

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    9. Re:Precedent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, but do oour US friends even know what it is? Now, Montypython they know ....

    10. Re:Precedent... by drkim · · Score: 1

      Without Spike and the lads, there wouldn't even be Pythons.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5zRVd8cvqE

  3. Grammazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    "This certainly raises legal questions on how this is being played out 5th, 14th amendments."

    How about a little less of the colloquial and a little more grammar?

    1. Re:Grammazi by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      Never mind the law, lets just stiff the guy, he's guilty as hell.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    2. Re:Grammazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not the only one in the summary:

      "with the possibility of medically appropriate substances could be used"

    3. Re:Grammazi by mikewilsonuk · · Score: 1

      "This certainly raises legal questions on how this is being played out 5th, 14th amendments."

      How about a little less of the colloquial and a little more grammar?

      The author could look "infer" up in the dictionary while he's at it.

    4. Re: Grammazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Drop the vernacular!"

    5. Re:Grammazi by ajparr · · Score: 1

      a little less of the colloquial and a little more grammar?

      Isn't that an Elvis song??

    6. Re:Grammazi by clarkn0va · · Score: 2

      The whole summary appears to have been authored by Bing Translate.

      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
    7. Re:Grammazi by arth1 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      OH NOES SOMEONE FUCKED UP THEIR GRAMMAR ON /.! Who cares?

      Apparently several good slashdotizens with positive karma did.

      We all know what he meant

      I had to read the sentence and fragments three times.
      It didn't parse on first read; I ran into a wall.
      On second pass, I was too busy added missing words and reshuffling to worry about what he meant.
      On third pass I made a decent guess.

      If you don't think grammar matters, I have a contract for a bridge I would like to sell you...

    8. Re:Grammazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why you can't have nice things.

  4. US judge goes insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    News at 11.

  5. So how's this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you willingly undergo such stuff and try to submit it on your behalf it's "unscientific" but if it may be used against you it's suddenly negotiably fine?

    Yes, compromises abound. I'd say that indeed, the very system is entirely compromised to the point of no longer being a "justice" system any longer--assuming it ever was. QV the justice department's approach to prosecution: To suicide and beyond!

  6. Scientific basis by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sure it's a pretty well known fact that the more I depress your CNS the less you are going to be capable of rationalization and higher thought to answer a question "creatively". However such an undertaking is not reliable or scientific at all, because there is a point at which I can get you to agree with and pretty much answer anything I want you to. Sigh. Americans and their obsession with torture. After all this is just torture in another guise, instead of using pain to interrogate, I am shutting down part of your brain. Either way you are being forced to confess and give testimony against yourself. Whatever happened to I dunno, finding EVIDENCE?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Scientific basis by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Name the country you're from, and I promise you I can find credible evidence of State-sponsored torture. Careful where you point your fingers or you might leave with fewer than you planned.

    2. Re:Scientific basis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is guilty plane and simple, the evidence is there. He is trying to get out of it by pleading insanity; It is possible (hard, but possible) to fake insanity. Should he get a 'get out of jail free' card?

    3. Re:Scientific basis by itsthebin · · Score: 2

      Careful where you point your fingers or you might leave with fewer than you planned.

      it sounds like you intend to pull his fingers off .... gasp ... torturer

      --
      ...I obey the laws of physics....
    4. Re:Scientific basis by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      Wait, truth serum is torture now? I mean putting panties on heads was a stretch, but now this? You sure you're just not an America-hater looking for any hook to hang a cutting remark?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:Scientific basis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He doesn't get to walk away free by pleading insanity. Insane asylums are a form of prison. Some would claim them worse, depending on if you're forcible drugged or not.

    6. Re:Scientific basis by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny

      Careful where you point your fingers or you might leave with fewer than you planned.

      it sounds like you intend to pull his fingers off .... gasp ... torturer

      Please, don't pull his finger.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    7. Re:Scientific basis by demonlapin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I know one of the very few Americans who has ever actually gotten a not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity verdict. Treating the florid paranoid schizophrenia that led him to kill his parents and one of his siblings is a very fine line: if it's undertreated, he becomes incredibly violent, but if it's overtreated, he becomes cognizant of what he did and rapidly becomes suicidal. He has to be left slightly insane in order to live.

      This is crap. It's ineffective at best and profoundly evil at worst.

    8. Re:Scientific basis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alternatively rather than suppress anything you could just give them some lsd
        and mdma and ask them some questions. They'll be happy to answer them. In fact try stopping them.

    9. Re:Scientific basis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Norway!

    10. Re:Scientific basis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this person live in Maryland? If so, my wife knows the family too :( It was one parent though, not both. Two of them then :( :(
      O

    11. Re:Scientific basis by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Whatever happened to I dunno, finding EVIDENCE?

      For what? I don't think someone doubts that Holmes went into the cinema shooting people.

      --
      bickerdyke
    12. Re:Scientific basis by westlake · · Score: 1

      Either way you are being forced to confess and give testimony against yourself. Whatever happened to I dunno, finding EVIDENCE?

      Insanity comes into play only when the guilt of a defendant is no longer in doubt and the only question remaining is whether he should be held responsible for his actions. The burden of proof is on the defense ---- and there is not a whole lot you can do that is likely to be persuasive.

    13. Re:Scientific basis by Sique · · Score: 2
      This is exactly what the grand parent is talking about: Threatening or actually exercising violence to get the opponent adhere to your wishes.

      At least some states still think that torture is so bad that they don't publicly admit to do it. But a state which runs around proudly proclaiming they use special interrogation technics while Friedrich Spee 350 years ago already knew those technics provide no evidence but do nothing else than confirming the prejudices of the interrogator.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    14. Re:Scientific basis by Sique · · Score: 2

      Truth serum has basicly the same ability to uncover evidence than torture: none. It will do nothing more than reinforce the prejudices of the applier.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    15. Re:Scientific basis by Hey_bob · · Score: 1

      Can't argue with your point. But given the choice, I'll take the drug cocktail that makes me think I'm talking to god, and I just want to tell everything I know.
      Certainly sounds better than water boarding. It totally sounds like a trip to Di$ney world compared to having some guy drilling out the joints of my fingers.

      Tho between getting caught on the "it's a small world" ride for an hour and water boarding.. That's a tough call.. maybe feeling like I'm drowning wouldn't be that bad in comparison. :-P

    16. Re:Scientific basis by flibbidyfloo · · Score: 1

      Whatever happened to I dunno, finding EVIDENCE?

      Good question. Just tell us where to find evidence that he's insane...

    17. Re:Scientific basis by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      You think we should just convict him? No trial? No evidence?

      I sort of like the idea of due process and AFAIK, it's still the law (at least on paper). The prosecution must gather and present evidence. The accused has the right to examine that evidence, to confront witnesses and to present evidence and witnesses of their own. Then, it is up to a judge and/or jury to address the question of "doubt".

    18. Re:Scientific basis by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      It totally sounds like a trip to Di$ney world compared to having some guy drilling out the joints of my fingers.

      ... hehe

      Tho between getting caught on the "it's a small world" ride for an hour and water boarding..

      However, the advantage of "it's a small world" is that if the power goes out (to get you stuck for that hour), the music stops too... Btw, is there a "small world" in Eurodisney too, or is that one only in Florida?

    19. Re:Scientific basis by GrumpySteen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Stop redefining words. Torture is the use of pain and/or harm on another living being. Period. Making someone feel dopey to get information from them may be immoral, but it is absolutely not torture.

    20. Re:Scientific basis by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      No of course not. I just wanted to say that there probably is enough evidence on the side of prosecution, so I don't doubt that during the trial judge and jury will agree on the course of the events on that night. Eye witnesses, guns, shells, and wasn't he even arrested on site? So there is probably no need for finding EVEN MORE evidence.

      The question here is his claim of being insane. It's his claim, so he should bring evidence for it.

      --
      bickerdyke
    21. Re:Scientific basis by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Apparently you missed the point that the judge is merely telling them that if he changes his plea to "Not guilty by reason of insanity" (from "Not Guilty" which is the default plea, since he did not enter a plea) he may need to submit to these drugs in order to support the insanity claim. The courts have consistently ruled that when a defendant claims that they should not be held accountable for crimes they have committed because they were insane at the time (and may still be insane) the burden of proof of insanity is on the defendant (the defendant is essentially admitting they committed the crime, but claiming they should not be held responsible because they were not in control of their faculties at the time).
      I will repeat, in this case the "truth serum" will not be administered, if it is administered, to establish whether or not he committed the crime. It will be administered to determine if he is truly insane (or was truly insane) or if he is attempting to fake the symptoms of insanity.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    22. Re:Scientific basis by Aaden42 · · Score: 2

      This isn't a matter of trying to gather evidence to establish guilt. My understanding of the case is that there's no shortage of physical evidence and testimony to find him guilty. Any information gathered through this process would be used to determine if the defendant was legally culpable, not whether he actually committed the offense. The intent is to determine mens rea, and whether he was mentally capable of understanding what he was doing. That he committed the act is considered a given (and something he's separately admitting to through his lawyer without any drugs administered or interrogation carried out).

      Personally, I think insanity defenses are .. well.. crazy, both from the perspective of the accused who plays this rather dangerous gambit and from that of The People who accept such a rationalization. For the accused, in order to attempt an insanity defense, you must first admit that you committed the crime, QED if you're found to be sane, you're toast. From The People's perspective, if you killed a bunch of people, I don't care if you were crazy or just stone cold sane & evil. Either way, I want you removed from society until you're too feeble to be able to try it again.

      Seems silly to split hairs over *why* you did it. If you are or have ever been capable of shooting up a theater full of innocent people just for the lulz, I'd rather you be kept in a small box indefinitely.

    23. Re: Scientific basis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Norway they convicted a recent mass murderer without using truth serum. Apparantly a more civilized country than the legal wild west.

    24. Re:Scientific basis by houbou · · Score: 1

      Sadly, sometimes, some lives can't be saved no matter what and the real humane thing is to euthanize.

    25. Re:Scientific basis by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      This isn't about assessing guilt or innocence of the crime. That will of course be established by the use of evidence in a court of law.

      This is about assessing the truth or falseness of the claim of insanity. Insanity itself is not a crime, and therefore the rules are not the same as for crimes. He will never be convicted (or get off for that matter) for insanity. It would only be used to decide what balance of punishment or treatment should be applied in the case of a guilty verdict.

    26. Re:Scientific basis by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for saying what needed to be said. I'd have modded you up if I had points at the moment.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    27. Re:Scientific basis by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      They have him at the scene with a fired weapon arrested by the police. Guilty for one, guilty for them all... If there's anybody else to catch?

      They don't NEED evidence except to justify 55 consecutive life sentences... So that he NEVER gets paroled.

    28. Re:Scientific basis by Hey_bob · · Score: 1

      .. is there a "small world" in Eurodisney too, or is that one only in Florida?

      Wikipedia indicates that *all* their parks/resort have been infested with the "Small World" ride.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_a_Small_World

      Sorry?

    29. Re:Scientific basis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well

      Played

      Sir ...carry on.

    30. Re:Scientific basis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also wanted to say this. I feel that in just the last few years it's become the favourite global pastime to take words with existing connotations and stick new content into them. Sadly it takes some cognitive effort to recognise the problems with it. It seems most people just dumbly accept that "oh, that's one way to look at it".

    31. Re:Scientific basis by jadv · · Score: 0

      Jack D. Ripper, is that you?

    32. Re:Scientific basis by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2

      He went into a crowded theatre and shot at 100+ unarmed people...,

      Normal people don't do that every day?

    33. Re:Scientific basis by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      But there are people that would "program" the town "idiot" to do something terrible , like say plant a bunch of bags containing bombs.

      Is a mentally handicap person capable of understanding that the heavy bags were bombs? Or just that somebody gave them cookies to carry stuff around town as "birthday presents".

      That's the true insanity defense. The court tolerates it because much of the time a person was directed by someone else.. Or they really had a psychotic episode.

    34. Re:Scientific basis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm honestly curious, would you happen to have any links to descriptions of that treatment protocol?

    35. Re:Scientific basis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't think they really need *evidence* in this trial for a convistion - he was caught in the theater with the weapons or something like that, no?

      this is probably a 'are you just saying your nuts so you get to live it up in the mental hospital' interrogation

      but .. when does a 'sane' person ever run around shooting lots of people in a movie theater?

      so the whole argument (and indeed the 'criminal' vs 'insane' false dichotomy) is a bit of a moot point.

    36. Re: Scientific basis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more civilized maybe, but they still had a mass murderer.

    37. Re:Scientific basis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but it is possible that the boats get jammed and stop moving, but the music continues.

    38. Re:Scientific basis by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      How about being water boarded in the boat on the "it's a small world" ride?

    39. Re:Scientific basis by jbengt · · Score: 1

      However, the advantage of "it's a small world" is that if the power goes out (to get you stuck for that hour), the music stops too.

      A man I know hates that song because he was on the Disney ride when it stopped for more than an hour, but the song went on and on and on and . . .

    40. Re:Scientific basis by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but there is still the possibility that some series of weird Twilight Zone circumstances caused him to be in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong gear, and it was actually someone else who committed the crime. Dark theater, mass confusion/chaos, it's entirely within the realm of possibility IMO. There are serious penalties on the line here, so minds need to be kept open and every single bit of possible evidence examined.

    41. Re:Scientific basis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To play devil's advocate: Your evidence also supports the interpretation that he fired at the person who actually opened fire on the crowd. The fact that there is no one else only confirms that he either hit the person, or that they managed to escape.

    42. Re:Scientific basis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no question:

        -- Holmes is a random mass murderer without a cause

        -- Society has no way to cure or rehabilitate him

      To even ask the question "is he crazy" is itself both irrelevant (in light of the above points) and itself a little nuts (if he's not as wacky as a meth-crazed bedbug who is?).

      In the end he is a danger to the State and an expense to the State, and the only thing between now and his permanent incarceration is a bizarre ritual we perform to perpetuate the hope -- or illusion -- in more ambiguous circumstances a system will be applied that is fair. Holmes himself is dangerous and incurable and should be painlessly transformed into plant food -- the most positive outcome we know how to achieve.
       

    43. Re:Scientific basis by Immerman · · Score: 1

      You are a terrible person and should be subjected to your own torture. Let me know how it goes, I imagine the water-boarding might come as a welcome distraction...

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    44. Re:Scientific basis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Name the country you're from, and I promise you I can find credible evidence of State-sponsored torture.

      We're eagerly awaiting your litany of sins committed by the governments of Iceland, Tuvalu, and Bhutan.

      Careful where you point your fingers or you might leave with fewer than you planned.

      Uh-oh, looks like we've got an Internet Tough Guy here!

    45. Re:Scientific basis by lightBearer · · Score: 1

      I would actually argue that torture is the use of violence rather than pain and/or harm and violence comes in many varieties. Denying one permission to use the bathroom is a well known tactic. You're not preventing them from soiling themselves so it's not like they're going to be physically harmed. Instead, it's psychological violence. Does the lack of pain or harm make it not torture? I'd say torture also encompasses being compelled to answer questions under the influence of drugs. Forcing someone to go through that is violence in my eyes.

      --
      - No Bounce, No Play -
    46. Re:Scientific basis by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Mississippi, although it's been about thirty years.

    47. Re:Scientific basis by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      "Everybody is doing it" is not an adequate defense, especially from a country that claims to be the shining example of peace and freedom in the world and is trying its hardest to impose it on everyone.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    48. Re:Scientific basis by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      There are quite definite criteria used by psychiatrists to determine if a person is sane or not, written in the DSM-IV. There is no need to re-invent the wheel. Of course when said criteria are "inconvenient", lawyers will look for these other methods of making their point.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    49. Re:Scientific basis by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Would you consider sensory deprevation to be violence? I see what you are saying, but I think that relies on you having a very particular definition of violence.

      Oxford has this to say about it, and this is in line with what I think of, personally:

      * involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something
      * strength of emotion
      * unpleasant or destructive natural force
      * (Law) the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    50. Re:Scientific basis by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      OK. You win. We get the governments we deserve. Enjoy.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    51. Re:Scientific basis by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I am saying that courts should not result to bullshit like this. That the man is guilty - he was caught red handed. That the man is sane or not - pull out the DSM-IV and let the psychiatrists decide. Either way he goes into a cage for the rest of his life. But bullshit like this can be used in the future in other cases if we allow it. In most civilized countries you cannot be obliged to testify against yourself. Sticking an IV in someone and shooting them up with drugs should never ever change that basic principle of law.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    52. Re:Scientific basis by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      I ask that people stop redefining the term "torture" to suit their purposes and that somehow makes me a supporter of the US government which is just as guilty of redefining the term to suit their purpose?

      You have suffered a massive comprehension failure.

    53. Re:Scientific basis by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      It's not my fault if you don't get it. What is the difference between me using pain to elicit an answer from you, or me using drugs? It is exactly the same thing. In both cases your will is being subverted by me. "We have ways of making you talk".

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    54. Re:Scientific basis by lightBearer · · Score: 1

      That definition you have there could be used to cover this situation.
      In the case of sensory deprivation, one is eliciting strength of emotion: fear, anxiety and phobia. (among other possibilities). For drugging an unwilling person, one is using physical force and possibly intimidation to administer the drug.
      That being said, violence has been getting applied to a lot of interesting situations by very hippie folks and that muddies the word. Perhaps I've been polluted by the diluted definition.

      --
      - No Bounce, No Play -
    55. Re:Scientific basis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess waterboarding isn't torture then since it doesn't cause pain or lasting harm. Or you can define torture as pretty much any mechanism intended to break somebody's will, and drugs qualify in this case.

    56. Re:Scientific basis by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      Stop redefining words. Torture is the use of pain and/or harm on another living being. Period.

      So that old standby of torturers everywhere, the fake execution, is not torture then? The pain felt is only emotional after all.

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
  7. Think of it this way: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, you lot voted for the latter, not the former. In a republic, no less.

    Thus, the popular vote says it's fine to do the latter, not the former, and since that is what the government is founded upon, yes, it's fully justified. With your vote, even if you voted for the other guy. For see here now, it's not mob rule, y'see now?

    Anyhow, you got to vote (even if it was a Diebold vote) so you got no grounds for complaining. The dead guys, they didn't get no vote. Clearly, they shouldn't've been born UnAmerican, so it's their own damn fault too.

    Of course, since if you are American, if you disagree, your founding father-given recourse is to take up bear arms. So go out and shoot us some bears, or some pinko commie gays, since they's calling themselves bears too or some sort of malarky, it's the duty of a true patriot!

    But seriously, these days, if you really want to do something about it, you need to vote with your wallet. Kickstarter is your friend; go out and buy yourself some representation.

    1. Re:Think of it this way: by Sique · · Score: 2

      This is just an allegation, come up with some proof next time.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    2. Re:Think of it this way: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looking at the news, not a stale argument. And if it's a troll, it's a deserved one right up until the Citizens of the United States of America start doing their duty and make sure their constitution and their government align again. Other calls to arms have not improved the situation, quite to the contrary.

      Oh, and stop bothering the rest of us for their religion ("democracy" with a heavy dose of christianity) that they themselves cannot be bothered to live up to. "Do as I say, not as I do" and all that. That's where most of the beard is in this story, yet all I hear from your direction is a massive whoosh.

    3. Re:Think of it this way: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Election fraud is rampant, there is no doubt, but let's take the latest presedential election as an example; was fraud the overriding factor in Obama winning? Hardly.

      The Republicans presented a weak candidate and campaigned poorly while the Democrats spent enormous amounts of money, had the media covering for them all the way along and in the end won with a not very large margin. Let's face it, voter fraud or not, we lost.

      The question I have to ask is this; why do the Republicans continue to conduct themselves this way? Weak platform, never taking a strong stand on important issues, ostracizing those in the party who really stand for conservatism. The Democrats are well organized, vote almost as a block with near total compliance to party, use every tool they have... and they win.

      It's almost like the Republicans are working to elect Democrats and enact Democrat policies. Sure they talk a good game, especially at election time, but they act and vote like they are pretending. I don't care what they say, I care what they do, and what they do is lose.

      I am not one for conspiracy theories, but Occams razor applies, do you have a simpler explanation? The argument that they are stupid does not apply, these men have been in power for years and years (McCain, Boenher, McConnel you name it). They are clearly acting with intent.

      They like the power their minority status gives them - while it may be "minority" they indeed are very powerful. They don't want to give it up.

      It's not just fraud, it's actually worse.

    4. Re:Think of it this way: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1 Offtopic

      +1 Insightful

    5. Re:Think of it this way: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Democrats are well organized, vote almost as a block with near total compliance to party, use every tool they have... and they win."

      OK, as a non-USian, I can see you've pre-selected what you're going to see.

      Go to, for example, The Young Turks website and look through some of the last four-five years (all under Obama) progressive liberal discussion on Obama and how The Democrats (the party as opposed to the people) loathe and despise the progressives and try to browbeat them into voting as a block and not complaining. the ONLY reason why 90+% of those progressives didn't vote for a Republican (if they even bothered at all) was because the Republican party have responded to a dwindling voter base by becoming even MORE batshit insane, and hence unvotable.

      The reason why Obama won with a small margin was because most of his support base (progressive liberals) did not bother to vote for him.

      All you saw was that every voter for the Democrats voted "as a block" for the Democratic Party. But that's the definition of someone who voted. Even Republicans. 100% of those who voted for a Republican voted "as a block" for the Republican Party.

    6. Re:Think of it this way: by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      How about the fact that the two parties have worked together to create more and more hurdles for independent candidates and candidates from other parties to gain ballot access? What about the fact that no candidates other than Republicrats are allowed to participate in televised debates? How about the whole plurality voting system (as opposed to IRV or approval voting) which, probably more than anything, allows this power duopoly to persist?
      A newly elected government took office in January. If this was by the choice of the people, why does the President have 50% approval rating and how can the approval rating of Congress be even lower?
      The People get to participate in a symbolic ritual, but the whole system is rigged so that nothing really changes.

    7. Re:Think of it this way: by Sique · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You get out of government what you expect out of government, The average U.S. american does not believe the government to do even basic tasks well, and thus there is no reaction at the voting booth on serious failings of the government. There are people elected to Washington who clearly say that you shouldn't expect anything from Washington. There are elected people who proudly claim to have shutdown the goverment, and they are reelected for shutting down the government.

      There is a generally dysfunctional relation between the electorate and the government it chooses. And if there is no government to effectively rule, other, unelected people will fill in the void. There is only one way out of it: Stop the delight in seeing the government fail. Hold everyone elected responsible for everything that happens in the government and also for everything that doesn't happen. He was elected to do a job, and deliberately failing at it should never be a recommendation for another term. Never cheer for people running on a platform of governmental failings. They are hired by the electorate to do their task in government, and not for putting blame on someone else.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    8. Re:Think of it this way: by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      This is just an allegation, come up with some proof next time.

      http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/1954.html

      It has been demonstrated that touch-screen electronic voting machines are not secure and can be compromised. Further, there is strong evidence that they have been compromised.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    9. Re:Think of it this way: by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Right, because Republicans would never murder a civilian or send someone to gitmo. And that's assuming the GP voted Democrat. AND that's assuming there is any difference between the two parties in the first place.

      Anyhow, you got to vote so you got no grounds for complaining.

      Bull. Fucking. Shit.

      If you want to change the corrupt disaster that is the political landscape, you don't need to just vote, you need to get your ass out there and DO something about it. People claim "you got to vote, the other guy won, tough shit". More bullshit. If your guy lost, then you get your ass out there, and help get him (or someone better) elected next time. If your party (such as, say, the Republicans) put forward candidates that were either wholly unlikable, or bat-shit insane that there was no hope they would win... change them.

      But seriously, these days, if you really want to do something about it, you need to vote with your wallet. Kickstarter is your friend; go out and buy yourself some representation.

      If you mean donate to a political committee; now you are on the right track, don't just vote, do something. If you mean find someone to bribe... well... you might be more realistic, even if that makes you as cynical as I am.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    10. Re:Think of it this way: by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Obamacare had to be modified because of objections from right-leaning Democrats, and 34 House Dems still voted against it. Kind of puts a huge hole in your theory of well-organized Dems with total compliance.

      Fact is that on most issues the public leans towards the Democratic position (nb: 'leans towards' does not mean 'agrees completely with'). The public supports legal abortion, tax increases with spending cuts, healthy food in schools, (very slightly) stronger gun control, has pretty much come around on gay marriage, some form of immigration amnesty, a minimum wage increase, believes global warming is real and influenced by humans, etc, etc.. The GOP's big advantage, national security, was wiped out by Obama (basically by coopting or extending the Bush policies, plus bin Laden).

      But yeah, it's all a media conspiracy and because you're not conservative enough.. please proceed.

    11. Re:Think of it this way: by babybird · · Score: 1

      How about the fact that the two parties have worked together to create more and more hurdles for independent candidates and candidates from other parties to gain ballot access? ...
      The People get to participate in a symbolic ritual, but the whole system is rigged so that nothing really changes.

      As for the first case, it's not a conspiracy, it's the natural outcome.

      As for the second part, the system is rigged so that nothing really changes. But it's rigged by human psychology, and exploited by politicians (and businesses, and abusive spouses, and con-artists etc.).

      --
      Keith D.
    12. Re:Think of it this way: by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      You can thank Al Gore for that, adoption of electronic voting machines was touched off by his Florida fiasco.

      Old people in Florida are still going to vote for the wrong people, because they're still fucking idiots.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
  8. Questionable at best by sjames · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How can he be meaningfully represented by an attorney when he's too stoned out of his gourd on pentathal to be sure which disembodied voice is the lawyer and which is the interrogator?

    Are they willing to grant blanket immunity to anything else he might confess? Given that the doses of pentathal used make the person compliant, how do they distinguish an inconvenient truth he might tell from a fabrication he tells because it seems like what the interrogator wants to hear? There's a reason it's not actually used anymore. Perhaps the judge takes TV much too seriously!

    I'd claim it undermines my faith in the criminal justice system, but that ship sailed long ago.

    1. Re:Questionable at best by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      The lawyer and the "interrogator" will agree on questions prior to the "interrogation", and no deviation from that would be allowed. Anything offered by the subject voluntarily would not be submissable.

    2. Re:Questionable at best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how do they distinguish an inconvenient truth he might tell from a fabrication he tells because it seems like what the interrogator wants to hear?

      By asking him questions only the perpetrator would know the answer to.

      No need to thank me, I'm more than happy to put in the 2 seconds of thought that required, if it means saving you the hours of brain straining you clearly put into that post.

    3. Re:Questionable at best by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      Once you declare "insanity" you are safe from prosecution.... BUT you're a permant ward of the State until they feel you are safe to release. As a "ward" you are treated like a child in that you cannot legally "lie" because you are handicap..., but that doesn't mean the court cannot order therapy to attempt to see through the psychosis.

      I think this is a slightly veiled threat that if he chooses the "insanity" defense he is going to be treated like a dumb, violent animal... Forever. After the judge starts the process, you can't undo your declaration, ever.

    4. Re:Questionable at best by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      The lawyer and the "interrogator" will agree on questions prior to the "interrogation", and no deviation from that would be allowed. Anything offered by the subject voluntarily would not be submissable.

      If you stray off topic while under a "truth serum", is that "voluntarily offering" the information?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    5. Re:Questionable at best by jadv · · Score: 0

      Yes it is.

    6. Re:Questionable at best by demonlapin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      People who commit murder under the definition of legal insanity are dumb, violent animals; they have been absolved of their culpability for what they do, and thus of their humanity. I've worked at a psychiatric hospital and met them. "Dumb, violent animals" is a pretty accurate description. "Should never leave custody" is another one. They shouldn't be in jail, but they're not fit for society either.

    7. Re:Questionable at best by eyenot · · Score: 1

      I believe AC's point was that an interrogator can also lead the questioning. This is actually endemic in the U.S. justice system.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    8. Re:Questionable at best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This whole thing is idiotic. Nobody is disputing the facts of the actual events, correct? A guy walked into a movie theater and started shooting wildly into the crowd. Is he insane? Of course he fucking is; that's not the action of a sane person. Why are we having this bizarre argument where the lawyers for both sides start using the word "insane" to mean something completely different than what everyone else means when they say it?

    9. Re:Questionable at best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, this sounds better than my current job.

      Where do I sign up to be a dumb, violent animal? I don't think I'd want to hurt anyone to be awarded entrance, though.

    10. Re:Questionable at best by Cwix · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I see the voluntary part.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    11. Re:Questionable at best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd claim it undermines my faith in the criminal justice system, but that ship sailed long ago.

      I would think it would also risk their entire case. If I was on a jury, I would refuse to consider any evidence obtained that way, and it would make me seriously question the rest.

    12. Re:Questionable at best by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      I don't think you get Internet in there. But you'd probably lose weight and live longer.

      I always wondered how you got to be one of those nutball friends of Dr. Bashir's in DS9. Now that's a sweet life, being cared for and free to pursue intellectual interests.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    13. Re:Questionable at best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tear your clothing and start mauling a mannequin. Also, see if you can assemble a reasonable "den" in the sporting goods department, and raid the food court for sustenance. You'll either become the new mascot for the mall or be safely tazed into submission and put in a padded room.

    14. Re:Questionable at best by void* · · Score: 1

      In law words have very specific meanings, and whether or not particular ordinary layman definitions line up with those meanings is irrelevant in a legal context.

      If the legal definition of insanity were equivalent to the layman's definition you propose, it would be impossible to convict anyone who committed such a crime. Anyone who did would automatically be not guilty by reason of insanity.

      --


      Code or be coded.
    15. Re:Questionable at best by Minwee · · Score: 0

      But either way it's better than your current job at EA.

    16. Re:Questionable at best by sjames · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the the information they want is information only the subject can verify, since it is about his internal state of mind.

      Now, don't you feel a bit like a braying ass?

    17. Re:Questionable at best by sjames · · Score: 0

      Questioning under pentathal is not a recognized therapy for any mental illness.

      Meanwhile, no. If you claim insanity, there is a hearing to decide if that 'insanity' absolves you of guilt. Then there is another to determine if you are still insane.

      The judge wouldn't want to practice medicine without a license, now would he?

    18. Re:Questionable at best by sjames · · Score: 1

      Perhaps that is telling us something about the way our 'corrections system' should work.

    19. Re:Questionable at best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How exactly is this different than a multiple conviction, unrepentant gang leader, who would be considered 'sane' and 'should be in jail' ?

    20. Re:Questionable at best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually being 'of sound mind' is one of the requirements to have a fair trial. This includes testimony/confessions/etc that may happen outside of the courtroom. This is because in Europe (and probably elsewhere) before the US was a thing, it wasn't uncommon to get someone good and drunk before taking them before the local magistrate and bombard with questions until they stutter at which point it is clear they're guilty (innocent people don't get flustered, or stutter) and they get thrown in jail.

      If we're going as far as truth serum, why don't we just secretly dose people with LSD, put them in solitary confinement, and then pretend to be the voice of God through a speaker, saying that they need to confess to this crime or they're going to suffer eternal damnation? Seems like a pretty easy way to 'resolve' all those pesky cases.

    21. Re:Questionable at best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > How can he be meaningfully represented by an attorney when he's too stoned out of his gourd on pentathal

      Jeepers, he's a raging, unrepentent, murderous fruitcup! Stoned, sober, drugged, or enlightened by fasting and meditational insight, who cares what he has to say? Once there is no doubt:

        -- a person is wildly dangerously randomly murderous

        -- we have no way to cure or rehabilitate

      what is the point of the ritual of an insanity plea except to make people even more cynical about the legal system?

    22. Re:Questionable at best by sjames · · Score: 1

      Our society has turned mean and vindictive. We know he's out of his head and that putting him in jail can serve no worthy purpose, but still we have a judge looking for every excuse to do just that rather than commit him to a mental ward.

      If he's uncorrectable, what's the point of putting him in a 'corectional facillity'?

  9. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Many people found Hitler to be quite charming in person.

    You can't seem to look into any infamous crazy serial killer without comments from shocked neighbors and friends who talk about how normal he seemed.

  10. Re:who else is insane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If somebody was ordering assassinations of children just for the lulz and for minor economic gain, then yes, they'd be insane. In what reality are you claiming this happened?

    Or perhaps you are talking about our own reality, where the situation is not as simple as you claim.

  11. Snake Oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should try the Poligrip test Beavis and Butthead vs the lie detector

  12. Re:who else is insane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop trying to justify the government's evil, warmonger.

  13. Torture, Truth Serum, Spin the Bottle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering the trend, Judicial Ouija boards migh be coming out soon. We will then discover that, what seemed to be mere gibberish before, in others instances, was actually Ouija NOLA.

    There was (probably, still is) a tribe in Africa that had a "magic needle" in the Justice God's dark hut. Difficult cases had the suspects introduced one at a time. When the guilty individual stepped in, the magic needle would jump to life and start attacking the suspect all over - until he confessed. Or, at least, that is what the locals and a few other outsiders claimed to have seen.

    The US is on the fast track, for that one - or something a lot like it.

    1. Re:Torture, Truth Serum, Spin the Bottle? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      There was (probably, still is) a tribe in Africa that had a "magic needle" in the Justice God's dark hut. Difficult cases had the suspects introduced one at a time. When the guilty individual stepped in, the magic needle would jump to life and start attacking the suspect all over - until he confessed. Or, at least, that is what the locals and a few other outsiders claimed to have seen.

      I guess this is meant to play on the guilt of the guilty party? They're brought up all their life to believe in the magic needle, they know they're guilty, they step into the hut while shitting bricks and start to feel phantom pin pricks all over, scream and run out...it would never work against psychopaths, pathological liars, or people who don't believe in the needle.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  14. He obviously has to be insane by obarthelemy · · Score: 2

    There's no possible positive outcome for him. And it shows utter lack of empathy. And it doesn't really achieve any goals. I mean, the 9/11 terrorists at least believed they would be getting heaven (with virgins on top), empathized with people back home, and achieved the goal of getting some kind of message out and terrorizing the US. He achieved nothing remotely close to any of that.

    That's not to say he shouldn't be judged though. Killers are killers, all are some kind of insane.

    --
    The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    1. Re:He obviously has to be insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Killers are killers, all are some kind of insane.

      Most that are violent, most that kill, are NOT mentally ill. "Crazy" has evolved in our language, especially among those with poor vocabulary, to describe anything that we can't quite understand. If we want to redefine the concept, then we should really start calling the legitimately, medically mentally ill something else... because the overwhelming majority of the mentally ill, who are non-violent, are perceived as possibly violent killers due to their medical condition. The percentage of violent tendencies in the mentally ill is the same as in the general population... about 1%. These poor bastards have enough to content with in their lives without also being incorrectly labeled as also criminally violent.

    2. Re:He obviously has to be insane by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > He obviously has to be insane

      Legal insanity is a very narrowly defined state. There are all kinds of things the lay person would consider insane that don't automatically qualify as legal insanity.

      I think that is the root of the problem with this case - definition of legal insanity is so technical that enough people in the legal profession in colorado have assumed that it is mechanical -- press a 'button' in his brain and get an aswer, same way every time.

      If any actual psychiatric doctors have signed off for this plan, I would expect them to be far from mainstream in their field.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:He obviously has to be insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. 'insane' now just means 'people who do bad things, restrictions on whom should not be applied to us because we are sane'.

      Supporting the 'restrictions should not be placed on good people because bad people ignore restrictions anyway' logic bomb.

    4. Re:He obviously has to be insane by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      That's not to say he shouldn't be judged though. Killers are killers, all are some kind of insane.

      I was always thought that there was an interesting argument in Starship Troopers, when Dillinger is being hung (note that I am not necessarily advocating this, but I will admit that I support capital punishment):

      If Dillinger had understood what he was doing (which seemed incredible) then he got what was coming to him. .. except that it seemed a shame that he hadn’t suffered as much as had little Barbara Anne — he practically hadn’t suffered at all.

      But suppose, as seemed more likely, that he was so crazy that he had never been aware that he was doing anything wrong? What then?...

      I couldn’t see but two possibilities. Either he couldn’t be made well in which case he was better dead for his own sake and for the safety of others—or he could be treated and made sane. In which case (it seemed to me) if he ever became sane enough for civilized society. .. and thought over what he had done while he was “sick”—what could be left for him but suicide? How could he live with himself? And suppose he escaped before he was cured and did the same thing again? And maybe again? How do you explain that to bereaved parents? In view of his record? I couldn’t see but one answer.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    5. Re:He obviously has to be insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Virgins on top? hmmm, sounds like a fine deal ;)

    6. Re:He obviously has to be insane by mrbester · · Score: 1

      The virgins are on top? I'm converting right now!

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    7. Re:He obviously has to be insane by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Heinlein makes an interesting point, though I don't like the suicide aspect. The reason we have plea-by-insanity is it's "inhumane" to punish people for being crazy.

      Here's my thing: It's eugenics. It's all eugenics. Criminals? We jail criminals to keep them out of society, not to rehabilitate them. Hopefully they die in there without breeding. Murderers, we execute--remove from society, remove their social influence and hopefully they don't breed either. The insane? Why would we not execute an insane murderer? Do you want to treat him so he can be "normal" and make more genetically brain damaged little children who can murder more normal, sane people and then get treatment too, until they've slowly eroded our society and replaced it with a bunch of insane people?!

      Justifiable homicides: Self defense, defense of others, severe coercion (someone is going to murder you/your family--yeah, sucks, we have all kinds of funny ideals about how you should go to the police, but what then? Your 10 year old daughter gets murdered by having her vagina pulled inside out slowly with fishhooks, while you're duct taped to a chair to watch... no, people fall to psychological pressure; go find the real criminal).

      Unjustifiable homicides: Vengeance, thrill, insurance money (greed), etc.

      I don't care if you're nuts. If you are prone to kill people, we need to get rid of you.

    8. Re:He obviously has to be insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He performed this act. He killed. We should kill him. Nothing else to talk about.

    9. Re:He obviously has to be insane by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Well there are some completely logical and sane reason to kill people, but no real logical reasons to go on shooting sprees unless he planned on and wanted to go to jail or commit suicide.

      I think the legal definition of insane is: insane in a way that we understand well and in particular if we can easily treat it.
      If he looks and acts obviously cookoo and no one would attribute logical thought to him, he is legally insane.
      Also, if he can take this simple drug once a week and be a completely normal person, he might be legally insane.

      But then some people just really enjoy killing other people. I remember this one case, I think it was in Japan.
      The legal system found this multiple murderer/cannibal innocent by reason of insane. so they shipped him off to a mental institution.
      The institution found him completely sane and logical, but incredibly evil, so they let him go. (http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/interview-with-a-cannibal/)

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    10. Re:He obviously has to be insane by Theaetetus · · Score: 3, Informative

      > He obviously has to be insane

      Legal insanity is a very narrowly defined state. There are all kinds of things the lay person would consider insane that don't automatically qualify as legal insanity.

      Yep. Specifically, you need insanity that negates the intentional aspect of your act. As was explained to me by my criminal law professor, if your dog tells you to kill the mailman and you do, you're insane and believing in a talking dog, but you intended to commit murder. If, however, you go to offer your mailman a banana and it goes off and shoots him, you're insane and think a gun is a banana, but you never intended to commit murder.

    11. Re:He obviously has to be insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, the worse thing to do would be to heal him, and then let him come to terms with what we did, and then make it so he can't kill himself. Then constantly remind him of what he did for the rest of his life. Hell on earth.

    12. Re:He obviously has to be insane by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      Sadly, there are many accidents where people kill others, not so long ago a child was run over by it's parent in a driveway. At some point the parent needs to forgive themselves and move on. I see similarities between an accidental killing and killing while mentally incompetent.
      In any case, I'm not in favor of capital punishment; I think it's unnecessary here in the US. Also, If I were ever convicted of murder I think I'd rather be confined to a regular prison than to a mental institution unless I was beyond caring.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    13. Re:He obviously has to be insane by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      when Dillinger is being hung

      Technically, he was hanged. Of course, he could have been hung as well, but his penis size wasn't really in question....

      Yes, I'm being a grammar nazi, and yes, I've always been fascinated by the fact that "hung" is the past (& past participle) of "hang" for everything other than execution.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    14. Re:He obviously has to be insane by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Well there are some completely logical and sane reason to kill people, but no real logical reasons to go on shooting sprees unless he planned on and wanted to go to jail or commit suicide.

      Hmm, seems to me that a shooting spree could be used as a cover for a deliberate murder of a single person, assuming that the deliberate murder of that one person would have some impact more severe than "he was caught in the crossfire by a nutjob".

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    15. Re:He obviously has to be insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...] believed they would be getting heaven (with virgins on top)

      "Well, I took your advice, Doc", said Knopp,
      "And told my wife to try it on top.
      She bounced for an hour,
      Till she ran out of power,
      And the kids, who'd grown bored, made us stop."

    16. Re:He obviously has to be insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well there are some completely logical and sane reason to kill people, but no real logical reasons to go on shooting sprees unless he planned on and wanted to go to jail or commit suicide.

      Hmm, seems to me that a shooting spree could be used as a cover for a deliberate murder of a single person, assuming that the deliberate murder of that one person would have some impact more severe than "he was caught in the crossfire by a nutjob".

      Can you think of any examples where that might be true?

      The only one I could come up with is if you wanted to cover a political assignation, but chances are if anyone worth assassinating were involved the relevant intelligence agencies would investigate that possibility anyway.

  15. evidence is there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    12 dead bodies. Plenty of witnesses. His home is full of weapons.
    This fucker is guilty, but the defense is preempting very early to result in an insanity outcome. They're trying to shape the degree of guiltiness. It's extremely hard to get an insanity defense in the US, only because so many people have tried it.

    The only testimony they want is to determine if he's genuinely insane or just pretending. Either way, he's going to be locked up in prison or in a mental institution and I bet he's hoping for the latter in order to continue his "Joker" character fantasy.

    1. Re:evidence is there by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      The only testimony they want is to determine if he's genuinely insane or just pretending.

      Just ask him whether he loves his mother. Either answer proves he's insane.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:evidence is there by RDW · · Score: 2

      The only testimony they want is to determine if he's genuinely insane or just pretending. Either way, he's going to be locked up in prison or in a mental institution and I bet he's hoping for the latter in order to continue his "Joker" character fantasy.

      The article notes: 'In an advisory that Holmes would have to sign if he enters an insanity plea, Sylvester didn't specify what type of drugs would be used but said the examination could include "medically appropriate" ones.'

      Reports that a new, experimental aerosolized drug will be administered by court-appointed psychiatrist Dr. Jonathan Crane remained uncomfirmed at this time.

    3. Re:evidence is there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "12 dead bodies. Plenty of witnesses. His home is full of weapons."

      Only 2 out of 3 would be evidence of guilt.

      A home full of weapons doesn't count.

    4. Re:evidence is there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      True, I've known people with dozens of guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition. They've never killed anyone, just like guns as a hobby. This case is a lot more difficult to prove guilty than anything since there's virtually no shred of evidence that he did it. What did happen is that there were a ton of news reporters doing their very best at promoting what happened while labeling "murder"on this guy. For all we know he could have just been stoned with a few guns in his car like any southern redneck would have. Perhaps they did find evidence, I haven't been paying attention to this case since it happened but the last I've heard is that it was just about impossible to prove unless he admitted guilt which is probably where this "truth serum" comes in. Whether or not it actually makes him tell the truth or just what they want him to say there's no telling, but there's little to believe what the news has to say about the matter.

    5. Re:evidence is there by Politburo · · Score: 1

      It would not count on its own. But taken with the other two it is most certainly circumstantial evidence.

    6. Re:evidence is there by jadv · · Score: 0

      "12 dead bodies. Plenty of witnesses. His home is full of weapons."

      Only 2 out of 3 would be evidence of guilt.

      A home full of weapons doesn't count.

      Not only did the place have guns inside, it was also booby-trapped. Off the top of my head I can't imagine any reasonable justification for why somebody would rig his apartment so that a person attempting to come in would be blown to pieces, and then go away leaving the door ajar.

    7. Re:evidence is there by mabhatter654 · · Score: 0

      The third one is WORST. it proves INTENT and CONTROL of himself. A home full of weapons BOOBY-TRAPPED so the police couldn't enter after arresting him clearly points to pre-intention to commit the crime. He left details about the crime at the house.. Then committed said crime with guns and ammo from that cache.

      Is that part of a larger "Joker fantasy"? But he clearly INTENDED to committ the crimes when he left his house with traps and an armload of guns.

    8. Re:evidence is there by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      No one ever said anything about temporary insanity IIRC. Weapons in his home complete with booby-traps don't actually prove he isn't insane.

    9. Re:evidence is there by sunsurfandsand · · Score: 1

      I've known people with dozens of guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition. They've never killed anyone

      yet

  16. In English, please by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Or at least with correct punctuation and grammar.

    James Holmes representation

    Sounds like the name of a law firm. I assume what was meant was "James Holmes's representation."

    did not enter a plea today in with regards to the Aurora, Co. Movie theater shooting

    Whut?

    The judge entered an advisory that if the plea was changed to Not Guilty by insanity that Holmes would be subject to a 'narcoanalytic interview'

    Too many "that"s.

    with the possibility of medically appropriate substances could be used

    Either "with the possibility that..." or "...being used."

    Holmes defense

    "Holmes's defense"

    but as the previous article seems to infer that some compromises are being worked out.

    This one's hard to parse. Is it "but as the previous article seems to infer, some compromises are being worked out."? Also, which "previous" article? I wouldn't be surprised if you've got "infer" and "imply" mixed up as well, but as I can't work out which article is being referred to, I can't check this.

    This certainly raises legal questions on how this is being played out 5th, 14th amendments.

    Err, yes, it does. Wait, what?

    Slashdot. Unreadable news to annoy nerds.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:In English, please by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or at least with correct punctuation and grammar.

      You must be new here. Pointing out that the editors are clueless idiots and then having them ignore any valid criticism is just a part of "charm" of the site.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:In English, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ohh. BTW It is "Holmes' " You drop the trailing s when following an s.

      There's no rule, but that's generally just done when the word in question is a plural.

      I love it when the hypocrites whine about someone else's punctuation, but can't even manage their own.

      So SHUT THE FUCK UP!

      Right back at you.
      Posting AC because you don't deserve the benefit of karma for being so uncivil.

    3. Re:In English, please by arielCo · · Score: 1

      Ohh. BTW it is "Holmes' " You drop the trailing s when following an s. I love it when the hypocrites whine about someone else's punctuation, but can't even manage their own.

      Ahem:

      NOTE: Although names ending in s or an s sound are not required to have the second s added in possessive form, it is preferred.

      Examples:
      Mr. Jones's golf clubs

      Shut the fuck up.
      [...]
      So SHUT THE FUCK UP!

      So these are, like, tags to enclose an argument?

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    4. Re:In English, please by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      Ohh. BTW It is "Holmes' "

      Nope. The trailing apostrophe represents only the plural possessive. If you were talking about Mr. Holmes's family owning something, like "The Holmes' dog" that's correct usage. :-)

    5. Re:In English, please by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      I recommend punctuating it the way you pronounce it. If you say Homeziz, then use Homes's. Otherwise use Homes'.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    6. Re:In English, please by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Hence "McDonald's board of directors", unless you say McDonaldziz board of directors, then use McDonald's's, a posession of the corporate entity McDonald's.

      The speaking convention should drive the punctuation, not the other way around.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    7. Re:In English, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the new America, brother...

      It's "better... THAT" or "better... THEN" instead of "better... THAN", "to all INTENSE and purposes", etc.etc.

      It really is astounding - it seems like half the population of the USA no longer know what most prepositions actually mean, and seem to insert them at random in their sentences.

    8. Re:In English, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The apostrophe in "McDonald's" is part of the name itself. There actually is a rule of punctuation, which is a plural or a word that ends in S the apostrophe is after the S with no more Ses. If the name of the company was McDonalds rather than McDonald's, then it would be "McDonalds' board of directors." But you are right about the "McDonaldziz".

      And the OP is right that there is way too much aliteracy at slashdot. I blame the US public school system... and maybe British and Australian and Canadian as well.

    9. Re:In English, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new here. Pointing out that the editors are clueless idiots and then having them ignore any valid criticism is just a part of "charm" of the site.

      Whut?

    10. Re:In English, please by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      And what the freak is "Co. Law?" County Law? Company Law? Corporate Law? Colorado Law? Constitutional Law?
      There are times to use abbreviations, and there are times not to. This is one of those "not to" times. The summary has a grand total of three abbreviations, Co for County, e.g. for "for example" and Co for Colorado. Nice.

    11. Re:In English, please by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The judge entered an advisory that if the plea was changed to Not Guilty by insanity that Holmes would be subject to a 'narcoanalytic interview'

      Too many "that"s.

      Nothing wrong with the "that"s other than a clumsily constructed sentence.

      On the other hand the "was" should have been "were"

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  17. Re:who else is insane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Insanity is a legal definition, not a medical one. Insanity is a defense that states that the defendant was not capable of understanding the gravity of the crime due to an acute mental illness. It is rarely successful, since only acute psychosis or a cognitive disability (very low IQ) could really make someone, even with a severe mental illness, not understand that what they were doing was a crime. Schizophrenia would apply, but personality disorders, which is what it appears that Holmes suffers from, do not. Since Holmes carefully prepared the attack over months, it is obvious that he knew what he was doing and that it was malicious. Jared Loughner, in contrast, probably could have argued an insanity defense since it was obvious that he was having severe difficulties with psychosis (Loughner didn't use that defense and simply pled guilty).

  18. Re:who else is insane? by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If somebody was ordering assassinations of children just for the lulz and for minor economic gain , then yes, they'd be insane.

    I think each individual involved in the decision to pick wars with strangers the other end of the world has his own justifications (rationalizations), but the fundamental rational is major financial gain for those involved in the defense industry. For the average American (let alone the poor inhabitants of the countries chosen as battlefields) spending of about $700,000,000,000 a year (an average of about $7,000 for each payer of federal taxes) to build the capability to blow people up at will makes no sense. However, for a small minority, wars are an amazing opportunity to profit.

  19. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can't seem to look into any infamous crazy serial killer without comments from shocked neighbors and friends who talk about how normal he seemed.

    I always wonder whether the culprit in some infamous deed was also shocked. Could it be that any of us "normal" types could find ourselves committing an outrage, even though we think we really are the nice quiet boy everyone thinks we are? Or do cold-blooded killers know they are such, and just keep it hidden for years?

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  20. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by demonlapin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hitler was charismatic, but nobody thought he was "normal". They just thought they could use him longer than he could use them.

  21. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could be many have the potential, but few (but rising) actually experience the social stresses needed to "flip the switch".

    ovo -hoot

  22. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by MatthewCCNA · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Eh, you never know what you're capable of. I never thought I could shoot down a German plane, but last year I proved myself wrong." - Abe J. Simpson

    --
    "He is so stupid. And now back to the wall!" Moe Szyslak
  23. Re:No evidence that he did it - whatsoever by eyenot · · Score: 1

    I wasn't aware of all that. So Holmes wasn't just blazing mad with his guns in the theatre? I figured they would have picked him up based on some kind of witness testimony. Now I think I understand why some people are harping on and on about "two shooters". I simply dismissed it as confusion on behalf of the addled victims. But now it seems to be an important detail, especially considering this guy is actually in court on what sounds like dubious "evidence". And, yeah, the guy was super-drugged the first time we saw him in court. I dunno what they changed it to but he's pretty much not-there this time around, either.

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  24. Precedent for use on law enforcement and govt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So the next time they find a body lodged underneath a house with 600 bullets in it, we can use this on the police officers involved? "Sorry guys, we were on patrol and found a kid who backtalked us. We chased him and shot him hundreds of times, then planted a weapon on his remains."

    Or is this only for use on non-cops, non-government and non-ruling-class?

    1. Re:Precedent for use on law enforcement and govt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this is only for those that plead insanity.

    2. Re:Precedent for use on law enforcement and govt? by operagost · · Score: 1

      Yes, if the cop pleads insanity.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    3. Re:Precedent for use on law enforcement and govt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't use anything on Cops, they're above prosecution, in fact, the world exists for them.

      We should really just deal with the criminals ourselves, rather than bothering them.

  25. Severe Risks by gnalre · · Score: 1

    One danger is that they may give him too much and he starts saying weird things about frogs...(Apologies to DNA)

    --
    Choose your allies carefully, it is highly unlikely you will be held accountable for the actions of your enemies
    1. Re:Severe Risks by mrbester · · Score: 1

      Or he does a Hannibal Lecter and gives them a recipe for dip.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  26. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by westlake · · Score: 3

    He had roomates (news said he didn't), there was at least one other person there dressed in all black holding weapons (news never mentioned this but eye-witness testimonials revealed that this is the case),

    The eyewitness sees or thinks he has seen a second man armed and dressed "in black" in a darkened theater where every motion is in the shadows, colors are muted, all is confusion and his sight lines were restricted.

    Initially, few in the audience considered the masked figure a threat. He appeared to be wearing a costume, like other audience members who had dressed up for the screening [of "The Dark Knight Rises."]

    Some believed that the gunman was playing a prank, while others thought that he was part of a special effects installation set up for the film's premiere .

    It is also alleged that the gunman threw two canisters emitting a gas or smoke, partially obscuring the audience members' vision, making their throats and skin itch, and causing eye irritation.

    Witnesses said the multiplex's fire alarm system began sounding soon after the attack began and staff told people in theater 8 to evacuate One witness said that she was hesitant to leave because someone yelled that there was someone shooting in the lobby and that they shouldn't leave.

    2012 Aurora shooting

    In Aurora, Holmes lived on Paris Street in a one-bedroom apartment, in a building with other students involved in health studies.

    James Eagan Holmes

    Seventy wounded. Twelve fatally. Ten dead at the scene.

    That implies ballistic evidence that would make it obvious almost immediately whether there was more than one gun man.

  27. Re:How much money and time are we wasting on this by SternisheFan · · Score: 2
    I've always heard that the death penalty involves the automatic appeals process that goes all the way up to the Supreme Court, and costs two to three million dollars. So $40,000 - $60,000 a year works out to be cheaper in the long run. The debate on whether it is cheaper to warehouse killers vs, the lawyer/court costs seems to be neverending.

    http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000

  28. Re:No evidence that he did it - whatsoever by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    I wasn't aware of all that.

    It's not mandatory to believe everything an A/C claims on Slashdot.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  29. catch-22 by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

    If they judge him insane, then he can claim that he was incapable of making the decision to allow the truth serum

    If they judge him sane, then he can claim that any information gathered under truth serum is tainted; since he was already sane, the truth serum can only make him less sane.

    1. Re:catch-22 by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      It's not. The legal standard of "insanity" under which you can be declared not guilty of a crime is a different standard than being mentally competent to stand trial.

  30. Testimony Given Under Duress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Testimony Given under Duress or coercion is usually tossed out. How is this any different? I'm not defending this guy but I see a huge problem with the tactic

  31. Re:who else is insane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Offtopic my ass. There are occasional psychos out there and then there are systematic ones. The government is a systematic psycho, when is the truth serum going to be used on the politicians that order murder?

  32. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

    That implies ballistic evidence that would make it obvious almost immediately whether there was more than one gun man.

    He had a shotgun.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  33. Infer /= Imply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " Holmes defense looks to have initially objected to this but as the previous article seems to infer that some compromises are being worked out"

  34. Sure it works - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it is as effective as Roman emperors diving the future from the study of chicken entrails.

  35. Re:How much money and time are we wasting on this by Let's+All+Be+Chinese · · Score: 2

    That's fairly natural. The point of most discussion in the USoA has nothing to do with what it says on the tin. The real issue is simply which side you're on, for on any one issue, there's only room for two sides in that big country yonder. Want more choice? Just add issues.

    And why that? Why, to villify the other side, of course! What other point could there be?

    So big ticket issues become trench warfare, where movement back and forth is guaranteed to be minute and always at gigantic cost. This is the modern interpretation of an "inefficient government"; its very purpose is to be ponderous, and since so many people funnel so much effort to butt heads with the other side on increasingly trivial things, expensive to boot. Also because of the pork barrelling, of course, for why should other people get all the money?

    In other words, if you want any one issue to be efficiently resolved, you have to game the system somehow, for it is the system that requires costing a lot while resolving nothing.

    You can easily see that this is not inherent in politics, just in American[tm] politics, by looking over the borders. For example, there's countries that decide to not ever even give life sentences, nevermind death penalty. Norway is a good example.

    On the other hand, there's countries like those with the Sharia, where you'll get your head lopped off no sweat. Or like China used to do: Shoot the accused and charge the family for the bullet spent. Now they just drive death vans around, with Yu Di, MD in attendance.

    If you really wanted efficient, you could have it. So one could conclude that doing your level best to not have efficient means that having efficient is simply not important here.

  36. You voluntarily wanted the serum. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If he doesn't want his words used against him, he doesn't have to have the drugs. Or even say anything in his defence. But if he volunteered to say something, he can't call "backsies" because he didn't volunteer it thinking it would be incriminating.

    1. Re:You voluntarily wanted the serum. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actually, the judge said he will ORDER the questioning under pentathal, so he does NOT voluntarily want the serum.

    2. Re:You voluntarily wanted the serum. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Maybe they'll tell him it's Joker Venom.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  37. Re:who else is insane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can certainly argue that military spending in the US is out of control, and that war for profit has happened so often that it's practically a hobby, but drone strikes are an example of it. The scale of operations is too small, mostly using hardware that would have been bought anyway.

    Nobody's lobbying for drones to be used offensively, since all the manufacturers know damn well that they can sell their products anyway. A buildup of drone fleets is the fashion among all the world's militaries, and that wouldn't change even if the offensive models were going to do nothing but sit in their hangars "just in case".

    Any profit made on selling missiles really is small change in this instance.

  38. Re:who else is insane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    erk, typo. I meant to say "drone strikes are not an example of it"

  39. Re:No evidence that he did it - whatsoever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not mandatory to be ignorant of everything an AC claims either. (A/C is something entirely different than an AC btw)

    You have a nickname, yet you are just as anonymous, by the way.

    Every poster is a human. Even if it's a bot, that bot was commanded by a human, end of story. Every poster has his views. Every poster can be right or wrong. You can't tell shit EITHER way. NOT just one way! EITHER way!!!!! (I feel like I have to pound this into some morons with a fist and a sledgehammer.)

  40. Polygraqph + drugs for death row inmates by ArgumentBoy · · Score: 1

    This is a little off topic but I've had a somewhat relevant thought over the years: I think every death row inmate should be required to take a polygraph (with or without any drugs and blood tests you like) before they can be executed. If the inmate passes the exam, there should be an automatic indefinite delay in execution, and the case should be re-opened. There are dozens of documented cases of wrongful executions, the people on death row usually (yes, I read "usually" somewhere) get public defenders who have been or will be disbarred, many are unable to help themselves intelligently, and some are intimidated into confessions. I'm not keen on execution to begin with, but if we're going to have it, a redundant test of guilt would be a very good thing.

    1. Re:Polygraqph + drugs for death row inmates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      absolutely, but I say for purposes of establishing a base line. Polygraph is freakin useless if you know how it works. I know because I was threatened with one by a university, first thing I did was google how to beat it =). Easy. As for drugs, what if I'm a druggie? Bring 'em on!

    2. Re:Polygraqph + drugs for death row inmates by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      This is a little off topic but I've had a somewhat relevant thought over the years: I think every death row inmate should be required to take a polygraph (with or without any drugs and blood tests you like) before they can be executed.

      If the inmate passes the exam, there should be an automatic indefinite delay in execution, and the case should be re-opened. There are dozens of documented cases of wrongful executions, the people on death row usually (yes, I read "usually" somewhere) get public defenders who have been or will be disbarred, many are unable to help themselves intelligently, and some are intimidated into confessions. I'm not keen on execution to begin with, but if we're going to have it, a redundant test of guilt would be a very good thing.

      Polygraphs are about as accurate at determining the truth as IQ tests are at determining intelligence. It is all very subjective and open to the interpretation of the polygrapher.

    3. Re:Polygraqph + drugs for death row inmates by afeeney · · Score: 1

      It's quite true that many people on death row are innocent; we've seen enough cases where later DNA evidence exonerated them. In many of these cases, the inmates even pleaded guilty, either because they believed that a guilty plea might help their case, they were coerced, or were mentally incapable of understanding the situation.

      However, a polygraph is about as scientifically valid as a palm reading. They measure stress levels, which can be affected by existing mental illness, PTSD, fear, emotional stress, or other factors completely unrelated to guilt or innocence. In addition, it's possible that psychopaths or people who believe the murder to be absolutely justifiable may not feel stress when asked about it.

      That's one of the strongest reasons to be against the death penalty; for most cases, we have no absolute way of knowing the truth. Even in a case where the police, prosecution, defense, judge, and jury are all intelligent, conscientious, and well-meaning, there can be errors or new findings can come to light (such as everything that the invention of DNA testing allows). We're learning more and more, for example, about how fallible eyewitness testimony is, but we still often go by the rule, "Seeing is believing." It's possible that as we learn more and more about cognition, we might end up formally instructing juries to minimize rather than maximize the value of eyewitness testimony.

    4. Re:Polygraqph + drugs for death row inmates by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      So you'd grant an indefinite delay in execution to all psychopaths, pathological liars and people who have been trained to cheat polygraphs?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    5. Re:Polygraqph + drugs for death row inmates by babybird · · Score: 1

      This is correct. Polygraphs only measure stress, they can't tell what the stress is caused by, so the results are only as useful as the polygraph operator himself. They're also only accurate in high stakes questioning, which since he's basically screwed regardless of the outcome, this may not be to him. I would rather have him questioned by a competent interviewer in the presence of a panel of 2 or 3 truth wizards if I wanted to rely on the results myself.

      Don't forget that Aldrich Aimes passed multiple polygraph tests administered by the best operators we had.

      --
      Keith D.
    6. Re:Polygraqph + drugs for death row inmates by ArgumentBoy · · Score: 1

      In a word, yes. Re-opening the case would at least make it possible to identify incompetent defense, confessions by frightened intimidated or learning-challenged people, and so forth. Lots of polygraph-cheating involves taking various drugs like beta blockers, and that's why I mentioned blood tests. Psychopaths who are emotionally flat are identifiable by a competent polygraph test, so you just re-open, investigate, and re-instate. And I'm perfectly willing to include various "truth drugs" to the protocol, given the stakes here and the apparent forfeiture of lots of privacy rights by the death row inmates. I'd rather leave a couple of these people in jail for the rest of their lives than execute innocent, frightened, confused people.

  41. Rights? by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 0

    Seems to me the bastard didn't care much about the rights of anyone in the theater when when he kicked in the and started shooting people. Insane or not, public hanging ftw.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    1. Re:Rights? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2

      Seems to me the bastard didn't care much about the rights of anyone in the theater when when he kicked in the and started shooting people. Insane or not, public hanging ftw.

      Doesn't matter, he still has rights. You take away his rights, you take away yours, too.

  42. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

    I'm going to throw this one out to the conspiracy theorists and see what they can conjure up.

    It wasn't a mass shooting, it was a mass suicide, caused by 3D printed open source models of Scientology's E-meter, which the cinemascopic theater was testing to enhance the audience's senses in a Dolby Hallucinogenic way, because movie cinema attendance is down, since folks are downloading films from the Kim Dot Com wearing William Shatner's hair Giga Dump Load site, which is hosted in North Korea by Kim Jong Un Dot Com and receives Hollywood movies implanted, smuggled and delivered by Dennis Rodman in the remnants of his brain, who plans to use the profits to buy the Pope election, which will be indicated by the color of the smoke from the Pope Cave matching Rodman's hair color du Jour, and will be followed by a wacky romp in a newly pimped Popemobile piloted by an ethanol fueled hybrid Lindsay Lohan, which triggered the Batman theater movie audience to confuse the Batmobile with the Popemobile.

    A heavily LSD "Fringed" James Holmes nods, and says, "Yeah, that was it," and then speculates what would have been, if had had been born with a Louisville Slugger penis, and entered the porn industry instead, and . . .

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  43. Truth Serum is NOT 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is known that testimony under truth serum is not 100% correct. I found the timing of this interesting. I had just watched an old episode of Perry Mason
    where the defendant admitted to killing someone under truth serum but it was not the truth. Only the truth was not the truth, nor the whole truth.

    So I did some research and found that it is not a reliable method to obtain information. You can do your own searches and make your own opinion.

  44. Guilty. by Westwood0720 · · Score: 0

    Take him out of society. Harvest his organs. Move on.

  45. The US court system is what is insane. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is obvious to anyone with a brain that this guy Holmes is
    seriously wacko.

    But a lot of "good, God-fearing" Americans want REVENGE,
    which means that they want to see Holmes given the death
    penalty, and they cannot get that if the guy is declared insane.

    If you expect a chance that you will receive anything approaching
    justice under the US court system, you're insane. The US court
    system is all about :

    1) Keeping the peasants in line. Fear is used to do this.

    2) Going easy on people who have power and influence.
              Examples would be the pardon of that piece of shit Nixon,
              or the fact that William Kennedy Smith never did time for rape.

    3) Social engineering which puts a lot of the underclasses in prison
              for excessive periods of time for minor offenses. The "war on drugs"
              which is based on false premises and is about as fascist as policy
              gets, is a good example of this.

    4) Political gain for prosecutors and US attorneys who
            grandstand for the media in order to achieve more political
            capital which they can use later to run for higher office.

    I have no more respect for the US court system than I have for
    the last shit I took. In both cases flushing is the proper solution.

  46. 2 words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fast-penta

  47. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by Hatta · · Score: 1

    Could it be that any of us "normal" types could find ourselves committing an outrage

    We live in an outrageous world. When you eat a banana, you are rewarding slavers. When you vote Democrat or Republican, you get the blood of their wars on your hands. Don't think that you are so different from the criminally insane. Your murderous actions are only more socially acceptable.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  48. "Truth serum" is a misnomer by JDG1980 · · Score: 1

    There's actually no scientific reason to believe that so-called "truth serum" makes someone tell the truth. As suggested in the original article, what these drugs really do is lower inhibitions, which may, in some cases, cause a suspect to drop their guard and say things they otherwise wouldn't. Of course, you could just get them drunk and the results would be about the same, since alcohol also lowers inhibitions. As the ancients said – in vino, veritas.

  49. Infer != imply. by Slartibartfast · · Score: 1

    Just sayin'.

  50. Plenty of evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you explain that his hands, arms, and clothing were completely saturated with burned gunpowder residue consistent with the the amount of, and brands of ammo that was used in the shooting?

    1. Re:Plenty of evidence by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The US government put it there, duh!

      And I guess all the people who "died" in these attacks and their relatives are just actors and the bodies were props.

      I didn't think there was an unexplored gap in the madness between moon landing denialism and Time Cube-like abstract crazy...but there is - the "gun control false flag" conspiracies.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  51. This is bull by gurps_npc · · Score: 2
    No one and I mean NO ONE ever fakes permanent insanity to get out of a murder charge.

    Why? Because once they lock you up for being insane, they treat you FAR worse than being a mere criminal prisoner. Also, (unlike Batman's world) it is generally much harder to get of the insane asylum than it is to get parole.

    What criminals typically try to plead is 'temporary insanity', where you claim you were insane, but aren't anymore. But Judges and Juries typically only grant that when they think the victim deserved it - as in "When that drug dealer raped and killed my 12 year old daughter I went temporarily insane and shot him in the head 14 times. But I'm feeling much better now."

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:This is bull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that's how it always goes, they always get locked up, it works out every single time, just ask Issei Sagawa.

    2. Re:This is bull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one and I mean NO ONE ever fakes permanent insanity to get out of a murder charge.

      Why? Because once they lock you up for being insane, they treat you FAR worse than being a mere criminal prisoner. Also, (unlike Batman's world) it is generally much harder to get of the insane asylum than it is to get parole.

      It's easier to get out of an asylum than to get out of a grave after being executed (granted, after decades on death row and tons of appeals).

  52. Re:who else is insane? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    Insane and it's various synonyms do not mean what you seem to think they mean.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  53. Submitting individuals on Psychosomatic Drugs . by hackus · · Score: 0

    The whole batman thing reads like a Doctor Strange Glove Version 2 or How I stopped worrying about the pervasiveness of mind altering medications from drug companies and learned to love chaos in society.

    Nothing was covered about that in the news, all of these recent killers are on mind altering medications when they committed these acts of violence.

    Hey I got an idea, instead of taking our guns away, why don't we stop putting people on these needless medications like Rittalin, and stop these corporations which wrote the Health Care bill under more scrutiny?

    *sarcasm*No conflict of interest there.*/sarcasm*

    -Hack

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
  54. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As far as I know, Hitler was extremely normal. There was no indication that he could be a Hitler before he became one.

  55. Re:who else is insane? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

    The judge is almost going to go for it... But he is making the EXPECTATION that as part of therapy, the court will expect DETAILED accounts of what happened... And there will be so much information gathered the shooter will NEVER be able to prove he "won't ever" do it again. Therefore stay locked up. If the state doesn't have the death penalty one place is as good as another.

    What the Judge is promising is that these tests will be through so that in 5 or 10 years NOBODY feels sorry for this guy or can claim "he's cured".

  56. Re:No evidence that he did it - whatsoever by westlake · · Score: 1

    So - a 'masked man' allegedly committed this crime - no CCTV footage whatsoever, of ANYBODY entering the cinema through the normal, front entrance, the police ALLEGEDLY found Holmes sitting in a car - in a DRUGGED STATE, out the back of the cinema, and in the car were some weapons.

    Idiocracy rules.

    In introducing photos found on Holmes' cell phone, prosecutors showed that on June 29, July 5 and July 11 Holmes took photos that included the interior of the theater, door hinges and back doors.

    In other photos introduced Wednesday, Aurora police detective Sgt. Matthew Fyles showed images Holmes took of himself the night of the shootings.

    In one, marked 6:22 p.m., Holmes was wearing black contact lenses. His hair was dyed red under a black cap, and he stuck out his tongue at the camera.

    In another image, he is seen smiling with the muzzle of a Glock handgun in the frame.

    Prosecutors told the court they introduced the self photos because they help show Holmes' "identity, deliberation and extreme indifference."

    An image Holmes took of himself on July 5 shows him posing with an assault rifle and "a majority of the tactical, ballistic gear" he had with him when he was apprehended, Fyles testified.

    Another photo shows all of the gear used in the attack --- the guns, the body armor, helmet and gas mask --- arrayed neatly on Holmes' bed.

    When officers searched Holmes' car in the parking lot, they found "road stars" --- the spikes thrown on the ground to stop vehicles. They also found a used tear gas can, a Glock with a holster, 2 cases for long guns, an iPhone and a carryall bag.

    Fyles testified that police they found four gas masks, although only two belonged to Holmes.

    It was also revealed that Holmes used a clip for securing a tablecloth to prop open the door to Theater 9.

    James Holmes preliminary hearing: Holmes took photos of Aurora theater in advance

    In through the front door, prop open the back. It's a very old trick.

    Is it necessary to add that in a real-life crime scene is like the jigsaw puzzle in the back of your closet? Some pieces will be missing and others mixed in.

  57. truth serums? by JTsyo · · Score: 1

    What proof are they? Some of my friends when they get drunk tell you things you didn't even want to know.

  58. FTG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since the government does whatever it wants, why not just kill him?

  59. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Off to hell with ya. So not voting at all leaves you blameless? Just because you voted for the lesser of two evils you're suddenly responsible for everything that person does? Who knew? Bananas? Why just Bananas? Anytime you eat any produce it was more than likely picked by a person making less than a decent wage. So are we all supposed to just starve then? I'll let you go first and lead the way.

  60. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was a terrible student. I'm pretty sure he wasn't going to be allowed to remain in the program.

    I had a class with him and it was clear that something was wrong with him. He was never prepared and seemed angry and despondent all of the time. I didn't think he'd do what he did, but it was clear that he wasn't right in the head. I'm just glad that he didn't shoot up the school (though, of course, it'd be best if he didn't shoot up anything).

  61. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by upto0013 · · Score: 2

    He also had a 100-round drum clip for the AR-15 and two Glock pistols.

    Wounding 70 people with that and the shotgun is quite doable by one person when you account for spread, firing speed (even though the drum clip jammed), secondary wounds from bullet penetration and ricochets.

    People that don't understand guns always say there must have been a second gunman in scenarios like this. But the fact is that with a bit of practice, even a bolt gun can shoot several rounds a minute.

    Also, if Holmes had any of those magic bullets they used to kill JFK, he'd have a +5 THACO.

  62. No question of rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By using an insanity defense you automatically give up your 5th amendment rights as your taking the the burden of proof upon yourself. You can't claim insanity and not testify.

    If you are legally insane you can't even know if your incriminating yourself. That's pretty much the definition of legally insane.

  63. I see this as proving a negative by Rastl · · Score: 1

    Disclaimer - I have a BS in Psychology but it was a long time ago and I'm not a psychologist. Having qualified my forthcoming comments here they are.

    I can see using this to "prove a negative" in that it may show if he's faking his claim of insanity. When the higher brain functions are reduced he may not be able to keep up a pretense of insanity if he is faking his behaviours. It isn't definitive confirmation one way or the other but if he's found to be coherent and meets a criteria for competent when he's not fully in control of the examination then it would be interesting evidence.

    This is a variant of "in vino, veritas" where lowered inhibitions results in saying and doing things you repress when you're in full control.

    I'd put him in the Hannibal Lector restraints before lowering his inhibitions tho. Common sense and all that.

  64. Interesting approach. by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    If an animal is considered insane we kill it, if a human is considered insane it's a free out of jail ticket.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  65. New 'Truth Serum' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Functional MRI. Cannot fake it. Must hold still - or be pharmacologically paralyzed. Rumors CIA uses this. Subject does not need to answer - if they hear the question the pattern of brain activation can give you true or false answer.

  66. Scientology by DABANSHEE · · Score: 1

    Says it all

  67. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many people found Hitler to be quite charming in person.

    Does the same apply to Cheney?

  68. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    He had roomates (news said he didn't), there was at least one other person there dressed in all black holding weapons (news never mentioned this but eye-witness testimonials revealed that this is the case), Holmes was perfectly normal and was a great student, well loved, and so forth. How does one switch so quickly? I'm going to throw this one out to the conspiracy theorists and see what they can conjure up.

    I've wondered about this case myself. My curiosity lies around where he got the money for all the military gear he wore, and where he got that gear. It's also very odd that after his rampage he quietly waited for police, surrendered and then told them his apartment was booby-trapped. Then the traps turned out to be quite sophisticated. Where did he get training in explosives? Perhaps there are good answers to these questions, but I have not seen them and I have been following the case. Then there's the fact that he claimed to not remember the incident; shades of Sirhan Sirhan.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  69. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by sjames · · Score: 1

    As far as I know, Cheney has only been described as 'charming' in an ironic sense. But don't say it too loudly or you might have a "hunting accident".

  70. Sounds Like A Scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    here in the sane (= also psychiatrist-free) world, we do not only know how to cure schizophrenia, but we can do so, easily, effectively, and quickly. All it takes, is proper super-intense sensory stimulation and intense supportive nurturing

    You sound psychotic. Or Scientologic. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.

  71. Scopolamine by almechist · · Score: 4, Informative

    Truth serum does not fucking work, period, at all. This has been known for many decades now. If it worked, we would've been using it against Bad Guys in Secret Prisons, and we're not. We're not because it doesn't fucking work and everyone knows that.

    Except apparently the people in this court room.

    Actually, there is one compound that might be considered effective as a "truth serum", and that's scopolamine. Read up on the way it has been used by criminals, for instance this link:

    http://digitaljournal.com/article/324779 or this one: http://rense.com/general38/frug.htm or just google it.

    I have personal experience with this drug, having been involuntarily dosed with it once, and it's effects were scary indeed, in a way no other substance has ever come close to matching. Essentially it wipes out your short-term memory completely, and I do mean completely. You start to say something but by the end of the sentence you literally can't remember what it was you were trying to say. You have no idea where you are or how you got there, and you tend to believe whatever you're told if there's someone there to "helpfully" fill in the blanks. People empty their bank account to strangers, give up passwords and PIN numbers, it's crazy. The thing is, it's only short-term memory that's affected, everything else is still there. So I don't see any reason why you couldn't be questioned about past criminal behavior as easily as your financial secrets. Having experienced this stuff first hand, I have no doubt it could be used as a truth drug, given the right setting and an experienced interrogator. That said, I'm absolutely against the whole idea and believe this is a treacherous road for the legal system to be going down. Voluntarily or otherwise, chemical interrogation has no place in American courtrooms.

  72. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    There was no indication that he could be a Hitler before he became one.

    I'm pretty sure that the family name of his father was a reliable indication long in advance. It's just that no-one paid attention to it at the time. People are often recklessly inattentive like that.

  73. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

    The grand total for the number of rounds fired, based on spent cases found on the scene, is:

    .223 - 65 rounds
    12ga - 6 rounds
    .40 S&W - 5 rounds

    Certainly quite doable for a lone gunman.

    And, indeed both .223 and 12ga would be likely to wound more than one person if shot into a crowd.

  74. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    My curiosity lies around where he got the money for all the military gear he wore

    Credit cards?

    and where he got that gear.

    It's all freely available online, except for the guns (which are still available, but have to be shipped to you via a local FFL). There was even a list of online stores he used to buy stuff in some of the articles on the topic.

    Where did he get training in explosives?

    Plenty of materials available online, as well.

  75. The monster within by Immerman · · Score: 1

    You're on to something there - there have been several psychological experiments showing that almost everyone* is capable of truly atrocious behavior in the right circumstances. Sadly I can't remember the names of the studies, but here's the salient details:

    - upwards of 80% of subjects studied continue administer increasingly intense electric shocks to fellow volunteers (actually actors posing as such) in the next room despite hearing their screaming, begging, claims of a bad heart, and eventual complete silence. All it takes is an authority figure saying it's alright, and that you won't be held accountable for any consequences.

    - A group of volunteers is randomly divided into "prisoners" and "guards" and placed in a mock prison scenario with minimal apparent oversight or accountability. Within weeks virtually all the "guards" will be regularly administering gitmo-style psychological and physical torture to the "prisoners", whose mental stability is rapidly collapsing.

    We all have the seeds of monstrosity within us, the question is only whether we will ever find ourselves in a situation where they can flourish.

    * results may vary between cultures. Most psychological study subjects are American college students, while recent studies suggest that on a global stage Westerners are psychological outliers, and Americans are outliers even among Westerners.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    1. Re:The monster within by pweidema · · Score: 1

      You're on to something there - there have been several psychological experiments showing that almost everyone* is capable of truly atrocious behavior in the right circumstances. Sadly I can't remember the names of the studies,

      The Stanford Prison Experiment: http://www.prisonexp.org/ The Milgram Obedience Experiment: http://psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/a/milgram.htm

  76. Why is this even being discussed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The man was obviously, (to anybody properly paying attention), drugged, mind-programmed and set loose with the help of accomplices.

    There's no chance in hell of this guy getting anything even close to a fair trial.

    Read the details of this case. Sift out the inserted loonies designed to poison the message, and what you get is something you can actually discuss.

    He was wound up and set loose in a very controlled manner.

    All to keep the American public in a state of high anxiety so that they wouldn't notice the loss of their freedoms. When this and the whole Sandy Hook thing happened, I wondered, "I wonder what they're building up to?"

    I believe it was the legalizing of assassination of American citizens.

    1. Re:Why is this even being discussed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . Sift out the inserted loonies designed to poison the message, and what you get is something you can actually discuss.

      So sift you out and ignore you?

  77. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by demonlapin · · Score: 1

    Try reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. People didn't think he'd end up being as big a deal as he did, but he was a long damned way from normal - even the guys who fought with him in WWI said so, at the time.

  78. If anything by billstewart · · Score: 1

    If anything, "says that stuff when not under the influence of drugs" is sort of the standard criterion; "says funny things while under the influence of drugs" just means "yep, drugs."

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  79. Feinstein on 2nd Amendment by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Sure, Dianne Feinstein's no friend of the 2nd Amendment (in spite of believing that politicians should be able to get gun permits), but to be fair and balanced about it, she's no friend of the First or Fourth Amendments either, and is a big fan of the drug war.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  80. Mistrial. Clear 5th amendment violation. by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

    It does not even matter that truth serum does not work.

    5th Amendment "[...] nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, [...]"

    Subjected involuntarily to an inhibition-reducing drug while one's statements are on the record (or could influence the outcome of the trial in any way) is 'compelled'.

    Even knowledge that one will be or has been subjected to this form of coercion satisfies the definition of 'compelled'.

    A moratorium against this tactic on Constitutional grounds must be upheld to ensure that all persons on trial must be able to present themselves in their natural (untouched) state of mind.

    Failure to do so will usher in a new era of supposedly-neutral but actually-corrupt pharmacology applied to ALL criminal and (why the hell not) civil cases. Today's 'insanity test' is tomorrows 'fishing expedition' is the next day's 'Ministry of Love'.

    It just gags me out that a judge who upholds modern law and would gladly see a drug-date rapist convicted, would fail to recognize that assault by drug as a form of violence.

    Regardless of the insanity finding and the verdict, this one should be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

    I am personally opposed to insanity pleas to begin with. First degree murderers should all be equal under the law. If we have the stomach to put down a 'sane' man or man-killer dog, it should cover everything in between.

    I'd even rather see a monster like this get off scot free --- than invite any procedure of involuntary drug coercion into our justice system.

    That would take us quickly to a place that is bad beyond words.

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  81. Even more voodoo by sjames · · Score: 1

    Just to add to the voodoo 'justice', the judge also wants a polygraph. Never mind that the polygraph has been thoroughly debunked when used in mentally healthy people, even if it worked there we have no baseline for the responses of a psychotic.

    Perhaps the judge should just do whippits until he can pronounce God's judgement directly and save the jury some time.

  82. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    There was even a list of online stores he used to buy stuff in some of the articles on the topic.

    Interesting, I hadn't seen that. Thanks!

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  83. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by sjames · · Score: 1

    I suspect that some are born that way and know it. Others are likely just as shocked as everyone else. When normal people are stuck in a crazy situation long enough, anything can happen. Then there's the barely acknowledged but well proven rare side effects of a number of drugs. Chantix, for example, is known to rarely trigger uncontrollable homicidal rage.

  84. Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened by Daniel+Klugh · · Score: 1
    It's THAC0; To Hit AC 0. "AC" refers to "Armour Class". It's an attempt by post-Gygax TSR to dumb-down AD&D; replacing the "Attack Matrix" with a simple base number that you subtract the target's AC from. AC10 is the base AC for un-armoured characters that aren't hiding behind cover from ranged attacks or utilising their super-speed/agility to dodge attacks.

    And "+5 to THAC0" would be a penalty since you need to roll a number on a 20-sided die equal to or greater than the THAC0 to "hit" (i.e. hurt) your target. Rather you'd say "+5 To Hit" to indicate that 5 would be added to your die roll.
    (allowing you to hit someone with AC0 even if your THAC0 was 25 by rolling a 20!)

    --
    Daniel Klugh