 |
| James Holmes is insane? Tell us something we don't know. |
The prosecutors of the case have no made a move to go for a death penalty yet. However, the decision to involve Holmes's insanity complicates the issue. His lawyers are going to work to convince the court that the state's insanity defense law is unconstitutional, or at least some of it is. Some analysts believe that this is a strategic attempt to prevent prosecutors from obtaining a notebook Holmes gave to his psychiatrist that has ideas about his attack. Under the law, it was protected because it involved the relationship between psychiatrist and patient. Should such issues get in the way of determining justice? I feel such evidence would be pivotal in this case.
If Holmes is not found guilty of insanity, he could be freed from his facility if psychiatrists determine that he has recovered. Though, this is not a likely outcome. His conviction would probably lead to life imprisonment or the death penalty. As CNN noted, Holmes is "charged with 166 counts, including murder, attempted murder, and other offenses" from his attack on the movie theater viewers.
So do you think Holmes committed his crime out of insanity? Should the notebook be denied as evidence? Is there a possibility of this reaching the Supreme Court? I doubt it, but what do you think?
For more depth of discussion, check out this video.
5 comments:
If Holmes has a notebook containing incriminating evidence, then, yeah, it's in his lawyer's favor to do everything to prevent the notebook from coming to the surface. Morally, it seems that the notebook should be brought to court, simply because of the horrific nature of the crime and the fact that this man might get off with a reduced sentence. However, privacy between a doctor and a patient is a sacred trust. Although the prosecutors claim that this privacy is inhibiting "justice", which may be partially correct, it is simply unfeasible to suggest going around the patient privacy law. Yes, I do believe that such incriminating evidence should be available to the court, but I think a warrant should be required (as I believe is the case). It would be disappointing if such tedious regulations got in the way of fulfilling justice against Holmes, but it would be far more disastrous if prosecutors were able to establish a precedent where they can freely obtain private patient-to-doctor information.
I agree with Brandon that the notebook ought to be brought up if it contains important evidence to the trial. However, it is important to note the distinction between justice and the law. Just because one feels one way is justice doesn't mean one can go against the law. All Americans are subject to the law and these "tedious regulations" are necessary to prevent innocent people from being wrongly convicted of criminal activity.
Wait... if the notebook had ideas about the attack, couldn't that be considered as him showing "reasonable suspicion that you may present a danger of violence to others" which makes the notebook ineligible for patient/client privilege? If so, then the notebook should definitely be used as evidence. If legally he indeed is protected by patient/client privilege and the notebook can't be used as evidence, they shouldn't try to use it just because he did such a heinous crime. You can't make exceptions for the law depending on the person and the crime- that's the whole point of laws... to make the justice system as equal as possible.
Holy moley, I can't believe that that law hasn't been challenged before now. It seems blatantly unconstitutional to me. Although I understand why they would want to check a psychiatrist's records to confirm that an insanity plea is not just a way to get a shorter sentence, it's still just completely unconstitutional. Patient privacy is kind of huge in the medical field and isn't something that can be blown off so easily.
I'm curious as to how this information was leaked in the first place. That is, how does the media know that this notebook exists and that it includes Holmes' "ideas about his attack?" Depending on how accurate the information about the notebook is, I think that it should be handed over to the judges. In this case, I feel that "reasonable suspicion," as Sam suggested, can justify use of the notebook in court(however, as I said, I am unsure as to how confident prosecutors are that it exists in the first place).
Post a Comment