Last week, prosecutors in Colorado announced that they would be seeking the death penalty for James Holmes, the Aurora, Colo., theater gunman.
Last July, Holmes opened fire on a crowded theater at a midnight showing of “The Dark Knight Rises,” killing 12 and wounding 58.
If ever there was someone who deserved the death penalty, it would be Holmes.
He murdered people whose only crime was wanting to see a blockbuster movie the moment it came out.
He took a beloved national pastime and permanently instilled a fear, a doubt or a suspicion in the back of the minds of all the people who go to the movies now and wonder if their theater will be the next Aurora. For the survivors and the families of the victims, seeing this man put to death seems only right.
Or does it? While the death penalty arguably seems to be the only fitting punishment for this horrific crime, the prosecutor’s insistence on seeking the death penalty in this crime has jeopardized attaining a certain conviction.
Holmes’ lawyers were seeking a deal in which Holmes would plead guilty to first-degree murder charges for which he would serve a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. In exchange, the prosecutor wouldn’t charge Holmes with capital murder and seek the death penalty.
Now, there’s the distinct possibility that Holmes and his lawyers will try to plead insanity and Holmes may never serve jail time for what he’s done.
Should Holmes be convicted and sentenced to death, there’s also the lengthy and costly mandatory appeals process. Colorado currently has three inmates on its death row and has only executed one person in the last 45 years.
It is unlikely that Holmes would be executed before 2029, if current sentencing timelines hold. That means taxpayer funding for a long trial, currently not scheduled to start until 2014, the mandatory appeals process and then keeping James Holmes alive for at least the next 16 years.
Not only is this process lengthy, but it is also likely to be more painful for the families of the victims and the survivors of that tragic night.
If the prosecutors had accepted the plea deal from Holmes and his lawyers, the man would have been summarily locked away and removed from the public consciousness. Instead, the trial and appeals process will bring about a frequent rehashing of his crimes and can only seek to glorify what he has done.
Without a shadow of a doubt, James Holmes is a monster.
What he did is inexplicable. However, the prosecutors, in their desire for retribution, missed a guaranteed opportunity to lock this man away for the rest of his life.
There is now a possibility that this man could eventually go free. The case of James Holmes should force us to pause and consider exactly what role the death penalty plays in our justice system.
Revenge should be one of the last motivations for the use of the death penalty, but it seems that in the case of James Holmes, that’s all the prosecutor cared about.
Brittany Sharkey is a third-year law student from Oceanside, Calif. She graduated from NYU in 2010 with a degree in politics. Follow her on Twitter @brittanysharkey.
