Judge Carlos A. Samour Jr., who is presiding over the James Holmes trial, defended the process and the jury on Monday. (RJ Sangosti, The Denver Post)
Re: “Judge defends legal process, jury’s work in Aurora theater trial,” Aug. 25 news story.
Charges made in two victim impact statements against the judge and jury in the Aurora theater shooting trial were not merely careless and ignorant, they were disrespectful and reckless. They reflect why, for hundreds of years, no such statements were allowed in open court, since victims and their families may vault from discussing their pain and grief to making inflammatory rants.
The criminal justice system aspires to an ideal of calmness and objectivity. Evidence is separable from feelings; punishment is not identical to revenge. But because Colorado law enshrines the goal that victims’ rights be “honored and protected by law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and judges in a manner no less vigorous than the protection afforded criminal defendants,” some victims may have been emboldened to inappropriate rhetoric.
Appeals courts have ruled that there are reasonable limits to victims’ rights. Respecting the integrity of the criminal justice system should count among those limits, even in a victim impact statement. If current law in Colorado obscures that point, the relevant statutes should be redrafted to make it clear.
Eugene V. Torisky Jr., Latrobe, Pa.
The writer is an associate professor of philosophy at Saint Vincent College.
This letter was published in the Aug. 26 edition.One can certainly understand the anger of Kathleen Pourciau, whose daughter Bonnie Kate was wounded in the Aurora theater shooting tragedy, over the failure of the jury to impose the death sentence in the case.
However, judging from the reports of many inmates who have been incarcerated for long periods of time, “life in prison” is basically an oxymoron.
Frank Tapy, Denver
This letter was published in the Aug. 26 edition.The current sentencing proceedings against James Holmes are a ridiculous waste of public time and resources, and should be obviated by law. We need something like this:
When proceedings against a defendant have established sentences of death or life in custody exceeding 150 years with no possibility of parole, all further proceedings against that defendant shall be precluded and prohibited.
Kirk Peffers, Denver
This letter was published in the Aug. 26 edition.
Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
