Yes, because he did it. What about this do you not understand? He bought the guns, he made the bombs, he planned the massacre & he carried it out. The environment did not make him do anything. The environment you grow up in does not force you to kill people.
Cause and effect. The decision he made was the effect and the cause was his brain being wired a certain way, which itself was caused by the environment.
If the environment is responsible in some bizarre fashion, then you need to start showing some sort of proof beyond physical interaction. Until then, it's innocent until proven guilty.
The environment is responsible because that's cause and effect. His brain was wired in such a way to make him kill. The environment caused his brain to be wired that way. There had to be a cause. He didn't cause it himself because that is circular reasoning.
The child is responsible regardless; he/she carried out the attack. It's proving whether or not the family brainwashed the child into doing so that decides he/she's punishment or fate.
So even if it is impossible for the child
not to murder, because of the way she was raised, she's still responsible, unless you proved she was brainwashed?
Look, you might feel like you have a choice in the decisions you make, but you don't. Your brain acts according to the laws of physics, translating inputs into actions. In your case, you brain is not wired in such a way that inputs would cause you to kill. If it was, you would kill. And it would feel like your choice. But it wouldn't be.
It doesn't matter in the end result; Holmes carried out the plan knowing he could have decided not to.
Thinking he could have decided not to, but really unable to. Because his decision was simply the result of neurons firing in his brain. Neurons that had been arranged in that way due to the laws of physics acting on them while he grew up. There is no free will here. And that is important to this discussion.
I don't have to prove anything because you're one placing his environment under investigation. I am the one under the notion of innocent until proven guilty regarding his environment.
So start proving it.
Something arranged his neurons in such a way that they would permit murder. He certainly didn't do that himself. The environment did.
There is proof. There are eye witnesses, he had evidence on him, he told police he had bombs in his apartment to it. He has essentially admitted to the crime already.
That's the evidence that will prove he's guilty.
I'm not talking about proof that he did it, I'm talking about proof that he had control over it. Proof that his brain's wiring was his own decision. Which you will not be able to prove.
Which, again, doesn't matter because all that matters in court is whether he did it, not whether it was his choice. A point that you continue to forget.
I don't have to prove his environment didn't cause it. You do because you keep accusing it of being involved. You are the one that needs to show why you believe it is, not me.
It is impossible for the environment
not to be involved. He didn't raise himself. He didn't create his own brain. The environment did.
I didn't say they did.
You are however, essentially applying the theories of a person about to plead insanity to a person who is not insane.
No I'm not, because, as I said, it has no relevance to whether or not he's guilty or should get the death penalty.
The raising of the child is the distinction. The child was taught to kill; James Holmes was not. He had control over his actions.
The difference is one person was intentionally allowed to become a killer, the other was accidentally allowed to become a killer. Neither had control of their actions, because no one does.
James Holmes is 24 years old. Your argument holds nothing in court once the suspect is an adult.
The law assumes that once you are an adult you are capable of recognizing and observing human rights. This person was not able to. Mentally, at least in that regard, he is still a child.
He is well above the age to know better.
Sorry, I wasn't aware that at a certain age, people just suddenly "know better" no matter what they learned as a child.
Wrong. It is his fault.
Unless you plan to tell the families of the victims this reasoning behind what he did & then end it with, "It's not really James' fault he killed your loved ones. Something just influenced him to do it".
Something influences me to smoke pot & I get caught. I end up using your logic. Guess what? I'm still responsible for my actions.
If you actually used my logic in that situation, you could recognize that you made a mistake because of the wiring of your brain and then change your understanding so that you don't do it again. But this is a bad example because you're not violating any rights, you're just breaking the law. Which would require you to think "I won't do this because I'll go to jail"
Of course, if you were logical, you would have done that already, and you have. It's the people who don't understand the logic who need to be taught the logic so that they can actually realize what they are doing is wrong.
It does. Not. Matter. Fact is, you don't know what you would actually do in the middle of the incident, so you can stop claiming it wouldn't be based on emotion & that it's "wrong". This area doesn't need any further discussion because neither of us know what we would have really done.
You're right, I don't know what I would do. But I know right now that if it was based on emotion rather than logic it would be wrong. Because that is always wrong.
Why is the sky blue? Why is the grass green?
You're glossing over the most important question here. Thanks.
Seriously, you think bad people just pop into existence? Or are they born that way? Is it genetic?
Answer the question. What is the cause that results in bad people existing.
Doesn't answer my question, but I already knew it to begin with.
It's A: You wouldn't have been able to prevent him to start with.
How do you know this? Because "he was old enough to know better" therefore it would have been impossible to ever change his mind about right and wrong?
Wasn't about teaching Holmes a lesson, but others....
And any others who are like Holmes wouldn't learn anything.
I would highly suggest you never consider the path of becoming a lawyer because everything in this paragraph is nothing more ridiculousness.
Why do you continue to assume this has anything to do with legal defence. If I was a lawyer I would be claiming these people shouldn't go to jail because they were not responsible for their actions.
Do I really have to tell you why I wouldn't be a lawyer?
So, to make it just short.
Every murder.
Every massacre.
Every terrorist attack.
One big accident, nobody's fault, just people under random chance & unfortunate circumstances with absolutely no free will at all from which they were raised, & not one single person to blame.
Yes. That's what makes them tragedies.
Why is this so wrong of me? You think I secretly sympathize with murderers so I'm making stuff up just so I don't feel wrong?
I'm just trying to be understanding of everyone. Why exactly do you think blame is so important? Once the people are locked up, why is being angry with them better than being sad that they have to be there?
I am utterly in awe at this logic & just done debating at this point. :facepalm:
I have considered the question of why people do bad things, and unlike you, I have an answer. My answer is consistent with what we know about physics and I am extrapolating from it in order to determine bad people deserve. And I have come to the conclusion that hatred and the need for violent retribution like torture is cruel and unnecessary.
And you have simply judged me for that and left disgusted.
