Why do we have trials for people like James Holmes, Jared Loughner and the like?

[concise]

You know what I mean.
They were out there killing people, there are dozens of witnesses, and they were caught in the act of their crimes.

What purpose does a trial serve in an instance like this when it is obvious what happened?

 

[zerozero]

cause the ability to 'send people away' is too powerful to be left to the whims of certain government agents

either they take a plea or we establish the facts/penalties through a trial

even a plea is a structured sort of thing, you can't just offer a random number to them it depends on the offenses they confess to

 

[Black Magisterialness]

You know what I mean.
They were out there killing people, there are dozens of witnesses, and they were caught in the act of their crimes.

What purpose does a trial serve in an instance like this when it is obvious what happened?

because due process is still due process and regardless of how heinous the crime we have to adhere to the laws.

and contrary to popular belief trials are SUPPOSED to be quick and short. It the people that get lost in the system and thrown in jail for months on end with no trial date in sight that are the ones getting REALLY tortured.

A quick trial for these kinda cats angers me sometimes...eff that...let him rot in a cell, let his mind deteriorate further...then kill him

 

[Food Mane]

Zero covered it well. As did the first 3 sentences of Klarifeye's post.

 

[No1]

You know what I mean.
They were out there killing people, there are dozens of witnesses, and they were caught in the act of their crimes.

What purpose does a trial serve in an instance like this when it is obvious what happened?

Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

 

[Type Username Here]

What happened if the killer was actually a robot/android and Mr. Holmes was drugged and setup as the actual murderer? What if Mr. Holmes had concrete proof of this unlikely event but he'd need time and help to find it?

Where and when would he prove it if he was already deemed guilty and his rights taken away?

Just an extreme and unlikely scenario but it demonstrates the reason for trials. People have the chance to prove themselves not guilty or insane.

 

[Majestic Pape]

Because then you're giving prosecutors/judges even more power than they already (often times undeservedly) have, and they'll abuse it. First it'll be no trial and instant punishment for mass murders (which in a perfect world there wouldn't be) and in twenty years it'll be no trial and instant punishment for the guy whose neighbor maybe might have saw him smoking a joint.

 

[nineteeneightysix]

cause the ability to 'send people away' is too powerful to be left to the whims of certain government agents
either they take a plea or we establish the facts/penalties through a trial
even a plea is a structured sort of thing, you can't just offer a random number to them it depends on the offenses they confess to

The trial is just a formal process...The guy will be in jail for the rest of his life or get the death penalty (I don't know if that state has the death penalty)...

The trial also provides the victims with a sense of closure...Most people want to know why, they want to face the person who destroyed their lives and give them a piece of their minds, so they can have some sort of peace of mind...

Some people would not be able to get closure if the perpetrator was caught and executed in secret...

My problem is when they sit on death row for years, living off tax payers' money....

When a Holmes is captured, trialled and convicted...

1) He/she should get executed the same day...

2) News media should be banned from reporting anything about his/her personal life...All the news stories should be told from the perspective of the victims...With no catchy headlines such the "Midnight Movie Massacre" and etc...

3) No Book or Movie about the killer should ever be produced, unless it's from the perspective of the victims, and the killer only plays small insignificant role...

The media always makes the killer look like a hero or interesting character, and soon enough somebody tries to duplicate the same acts....

 

[the cac mamba]

because where would u draw the line

 

[Nefflum nigga]

If james holmes was a blakc man the police woulda killed him soon as they arrived

 

[Habit]

Because they didn't cop a plea. Its either go to trial and waste everyone's time or cop a plea. Those are the only two options, it would take an act of Congress to take away this unalienable right.

 

[wtfyomom]

SMH at you even asking this question, you the reason we in modern day slavery. wake your asss up you fuccckin sheep

 

[Black smoke and cac jokes]

To be honest, I don't want him killed.

He should be studied. There is no pattern for destruction, no evident twist in his life that explains his outburst. His characteristics and life achievements shows no signs of mental illness or aggressive behavior, I don't know, I think we can learn a lot from talking to the dude. What made this neuroscience honor student feel the need to shoot up a cinema?

 

[concise]

because where would u draw the line

Because then you're giving prosecutors/judges even more power than they already (often times undeservedly) have, and they'll abuse it. First it'll be no trial and instant punishment for mass murders (which in a perfect world there wouldn't be) and in twenty years it'll be no trial and instant punishment for the guy whose neighbor maybe might have saw him smoking a joint.

Why are we afraid of this slippery slope?
Is the death penalty not still only given out for murder and treason?

I would also think there would be a huge difference between hearsay from one person and doing something in a public place with at dozens of witnesses and cameras everywhere. We have to account for technology, right?


And finally, it seems to me that consensus so far is that trials are about more than just finding and establishing guilt?

 

[Habit]

And finally, it seems to me that consensus so far is that trials are about more than just finding and establishing guilt?

Basically, its about the Constitution. Unless the Constitution provides other alternatives, there must be a trial if the accused chooses.