Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Inventor
Original Poster
#1 Old 30th Jun 2013 at 5:08 AM
Default Should Ariel Castro get the death penalty?
I'm sure a lot of people here have heard the story of the three women being freed in Cleveland after ten years of horrific captivity. I was watching a thing on television saying prosecutors are deciding whether to pursue the death penalty for Ariel Castro, the man who did it.

I say they should. This man deserves the chair and nothing less.
Advertisement
Forum Resident
#2 Old 30th Jun 2013 at 5:44 AM
but where's the suffering in the death penalty, he made others suffer so he should suffer to the same degree
Instructor
#3 Old 30th Jun 2013 at 9:23 AM
Quote: Originally posted by leo06girl
I'm sure a lot of people here have heard the story of the three women being freed in Cleveland after ten years of horrific captivity. I was watching a thing on television saying prosecutors are deciding whether to pursue the death penalty for Ariel Castro, the man who did it.

I say they should. This man deserves the chair and nothing less.


It's a complicated issue actually. The reason the death penalty is on the table, is because he kicked one of the girls in the stomach more than once in order for her to miscarry. So, death to an unborn fetus. So to me it becomes a pro life and pro choice issue.

I mean those that are pro life, will see that as murder, but what those that are pro choice, do they also see it as murder?

I'm pro choice, because I think no one should tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. And yet, there's some form of abortions that I disagree with.

I know this is not an abortion thread, but is it murder or not?

Now, he deserves to die in prison, which is being kind. For all the rapes and abuse, plus the kidnappings and the years he had those girls/women.

So, unless there is proof a baby was born and then he killed it, I don't see how they can go with a murder charge. And yet, Scott Peterson is on death row for the murders of his wife and unborn son.

I'm not even trying to cause a debate, it just seems like a slippery slop. Between where life begins and doesn't. Or does it depend on how a fetus miscarried...I seriously don't have an answer.

There is nothing they can do to Castro, that will ever be in comparison to what his victims went through. The fact that he plead not guilty, and will put those girls/women through the ordeal of testifying against him, is cruel. I don't even know how they will be able to defend him? They wanted to be with him??
Mad Poster
#4 Old 30th Jun 2013 at 10:29 AM
I didn't realize that the death penalty was being considered because of his efforts to have the women miscarry. I had thought that the crimes against the women (and by extension, their families) were the reason for considering the death penalty. It is no light thing to kidnap, rape, hold hostage, starve, and beat up someone. He did that to three young women over the course of years. That adds up to a lot of charges and a lot of wrong.


It was a horrific crime and he and his wife have a lot to answer for. I do not favor the death penalty and I've already stated my position in the death penalty thread. I would favor life in jail, in this case, for both of them unless it can be proven that the wife was also a victim.

The women wanted to be with him, you say? I really haven't been following this story. That sounds like Stockholm syndrome. Hopefully, the the prosecution has a work around for that. At the least, testifying about their lives might nail it.

Addicted to The Sims since 2000.
The Great AntiJen
retired moderator
#5 Old 30th Jun 2013 at 1:38 PM
Quote: Originally posted by The SimWhisperer
It's a complicated issue actually. The reason the death penalty is on the table, is because he kicked one of the girls in the stomach more than once in order for her to miscarry. So, death to an unborn fetus. So to me it becomes a pro life and pro choice issue.

I mean those that are pro life, will see that as murder, but what those that are pro choice, do they also see it as murder?

Irrelevant as far as I can see. I think both pro-choice and pro-life would agree that causing a miscarriage by force is a serious criminal act.

Edit: I thought his wife had managed to escape him many years before Ver De Terre? Mind you I'm over here and no doubt we don't hear all the details.
Edit 2: Having checked around a bit: apparently she died last year.

I no longer come over to MTS very often but if you would like to ask me a question then you can find me on tumblr or my own site tflc. TFLC has an archive of all my CC downloads.
I'm here on tumblr and my site, tflc
Scholar
#6 Old 30th Jun 2013 at 3:24 PM
I'm against the death penalty under any circumstances. Prison is hell, and life in prison is a fitting punishment for any crime that "would" warrant a death penalty. Who are we to have the power to end another human's life? When we execute someone, we all become murderers. This, coming from someone who's state just "celebrated" it's 500th execution. It's barbaric and disgusting, and lowers us all to the level of the criminal to be executed.

"You're born naked, and everything else is drag."
dA
Last.fm
tumblr
Instructor
#7 Old 30th Jun 2013 at 3:37 PM
Absolutely not. The death penalty is the easy way out. And like paksetti said, it makes all of us just as bad as the criminals. Murder is murder, it doesn't matter if you're a serial killer or you work for the government. It's still taking a human life. We as people have no right to take another human life in any situation, other than self defense.

Let him rot in jail and live out the rest of his life knowing that he screwed up big time and he would be free if he wasn't such a monster. No doubt the other inmates would make sure he'd have a terrible time, too. And I'm sure the families wouldn't be happy knowing he didn't suffer for the rest of his life. Even if they think he deserves the death penalty now, they would most likely change their minds later on.


I didn't know that was why he was being considered for it either. I assumed it was because of what he did to those women.
Personally I don't see causing someone to have a miscarriage as murder unless she was further along in the pregnancy. But it certainly still isn't right and I understand why some people would think of it as murder.


Quote: Originally posted by The SimWhisperer
They wanted to be with him??


I highly doubt that they actually wanted to be kidnapped, raped, tortured and beaten for 10 years. I haven't heard that, so I'm not sure where you got it.. But if they did say that, I agree that it's Stockholm syndrome. Those men had to have made them feel like they needed to be there and deserved to be there. They were there for 10 years, plenty of time to "brainwash" them into thinking that they needed those men to survive.
Theorist
#8 Old 30th Jun 2013 at 3:44 PM
I think it should be on the table if it's on the table, if it's on the books in Ohio for his crimes then it is what it is. I don't think he should actually be put to death, but I'm fine with prosecutors using the greater penalties to ensure lesser ones. The thing I'm opposed to is the prosecutors using this as an opportunity to highlight themselves, and the guy getting a tougher sentence less because of what he did (which is heinous) and more because of public opinion (which is almost always bullshit.)
Instructor
#9 Old 30th Jun 2013 at 4:45 PM Last edited by The SimWhisperer : 30th Jun 2013 at 4:56 PM.
I've been misunderstood. I didn't mean that the young women wanted to be with him. I was speculating on what the defense was going to be. He's plead not guilty.

I'm assuming that the death penalty was over the miscarriages. I honestly don't know if the death penalty is ever used for other serious crimes other than murder? If so, I didn't know that.

I don't know about Utah, but California has the death penalty. So, what about Elizabeth Smart or Jaycee Dugard? I'm pretty sure Smart's kidnapper didn't get the death penalty. And as for Jaycee, I don't know what all the charges are? But, I haven't heard death penalty for her kidnapper, but I could be wrong?

I'm using those two as examples, I'm sure there's many more kidnapped and kept for many years stories are out there.
Instructor
#10 Old 30th Jun 2013 at 4:53 PM
Quote: Originally posted by The SimWhisperer
I've been misunderstood. I didn't mean that the young women wanted to be with him. I was speculating on what the defense was going to be. He's plead not guilty.
I'm assuming that the death penalty was over the miscarriages. I honestly don't know if the death penalty is ever used for other serious crimes other than murder? If so, I didn't know that.


Oh that makes more sense then.
I was Googling for like 15 minutes trying to see if it was true that they said they wanted to be there. My excuse for misunderstanding is that I just woke up. :P

I'm not sure honestly, I think the death penalty is mostly used for murderers.
Rape, abuse (physical and mental), torture, and kidnapping for that long is probably the main reason but the forced miscarriage(s) definitely isn't helping his case any.
Undead Molten Llama
#11 Old 30th Jun 2013 at 5:08 PM
Quote: Originally posted by The SimWhisperer
I'm assuming that the death penalty was over the miscarriages. I honestly don't know if the death penalty is ever used for other serious crimes other than murder? If so, I didn't know that.


I suppose it might vary from state-to-state, but in general in those states that have capital punishment at all, the death penalty only applies in cases of first-degree murder. (That is, premeditated murder, where the perp carefully considers and plans out the crime, etc. It is not an option for second-degree murder, so-called "crimes of passion," where the perp becomes, say, uncontrollably angry and beats another person to the point that they die. In that case, the crime was not planned, so it is not first-degree murder and the death penalty does not apply.) Under those conditions then...No, the death penalty should not even be on the table in this case because no one died, unless you consider forcing a woman to miscarry to be first-degree murder of the unborn child.

I understand it's an emotionally-charged case and therefore people might WANT this man to be executed because of what his victims suffered. And I agree that their suffering was likely extreme. However, the law is set up the way it's set up for a very good reason. Part of that reason is so that highly-emotional cases like this one DON'T result in executions just to make the public "happy."

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
Theorist
#12 Old 30th Jun 2013 at 5:42 PM
Also, because if you put the death penalty as an option for "lesser" offenses, it gives criminals an interest in killing their victims. After all, you can't be executed twice, so if a rape or kidnapping warrants an execution as much as murder then there's a logical case for killing your victims after you've raped or kidnapped them, to prevent their testimony from making it to trial. Otherwise the would be criminal always has a line the public can point to that's in support of keeping their victims alive, because it prevents potential execution.

And yeah, a lot of criminals are entirely unreasonable and won't think about it in those terms. On the other hand, people can get wonderfully focused on details when it comes to not dying, criminal or not.
Mad Poster
#13 Old 30th Jun 2013 at 6:26 PM
I apologize for any misunderstanding regarding what your intent was, TheSimWhisperer. As I stated, I hadn't really been following the case. Maxon, thanks for checking the facts. I had heard about the wife being there in the man's life and house for years, but I didn't realize she was no longer living. StardustX, somehow I doubt very much he will ever realize he is a monster in this lifetime. He's one sick puppy. However, I agree that he belongs in jail.

Quote:
I don't think he should actually be put to death, but I'm fine with prosecutors using the greater penalties to ensure lesser ones. The thing I'm opposed to is the prosecutors using this as an opportunity to highlight themselves, and the guy getting a tougher sentence less because of what he did (which is heinous) and more because of public opinion (which is almost always bullshit.)
Agreed about the penalties and public opinion. I'm confused about the sentence being biased by public opinion. Does that happen? I thought judges gave out sentences based on law and that the amount of penalty (fine or jail time, possibility of parole or not) was up to the discretion of the judge who would be severe if they felt the case warranted it.

Addicted to The Sims since 2000.
Theorist
#14 Old 30th Jun 2013 at 6:59 PM
I'm unaware of the situation in Ohio, but some states have elected judges and elected judges are victims of public opinion as much as anyone. And prosecutors are almost always involved in public opinion, because its become such a political stepping stone to "greater things."
Inventor
Original Poster
#15 Old 30th Jun 2013 at 8:29 PM
Quote: Originally posted by tigerex_13
but where's the suffering in the death penalty, he made others suffer so he should suffer to the same degree


I can see your point. If that is the case, then he should be starved for weeks and beaten at least five times.


I know mine (on this subject) is a very unpopular opinion here, but I still say that he (along with Phillip Garrido) should get the chair.

Ariel Castro did not just take the five babies he murdered while the Mother was pregnant, he took the girls' (he kidnapped) lives, along with the daughter of Amanda Berry. I know he did not kill them, but he did take their lives completely away from them.
Theorist
#16 Old 30th Jun 2013 at 9:22 PM
It's not that it's unpopular, it's that it's illegal and barbaric and functionally equivalent to burning down a town because someone evil was born there. You don't toss out two hundred years if law because one guy's an evil asshole. It just removes any legitimacy to your law. It undermines authority and creates a situation where the next asshole gets off because "laws? Who needs laws?"

It's short-sighted, evil, and stupid to give into bloodlust.
Instructor
#17 Old 30th Jun 2013 at 9:44 PM
Quote: Originally posted by leo06girl
I can see your point. If that is the case, then he should be starved for weeks and beaten at least five times.


I know mine (on this subject) is a very unpopular opinion here, but I still say that he (along with Phillip Garrido) should get the chair.

Ariel Castro did not just take the five babies he murdered while the Mother was pregnant, he took the girls' (he kidnapped) lives, along with the daughter of Amanda Berry. I know he did not kill them, but he did take their lives completely away from them.


It's not that your opinion is unpopular, it's just that unless the prosecutor's are counting the forcibly miscarriaged babies as the murder victims. I don't see how they can put the death penalty on the table for the kidnapping, rapes, being held captive for 10 years and so on?

Icad, explained for me, and what I guessed anyways, but was open for examples. That the death penalty is for first degree murder.

I have issues with the death penalty myself. But, for your thread you singled out Ariel Castro. There have been many cases, along with human trafficking-another topic in itself. Where victims are kidnapped, raped, often tend to have children by their captor, for years on end. And like Amanda Berry escape or someone becomes suspious of someone, and these victims are found. I haven't heard of a death penalty case for kidnapping, being held captive and abused the entire time. As the sole reason for the death penalty.

Death would be kind to this asshole. Life in prison would be as well. Unless, he's put in general population, he will be held in a cell all by himself, with no contact with the other prisoners. They could find him criminally insane, which won't matter if he dead or alive. For he will never experience the horror, the torture and the psychological pain, that those three women have gone through.

Then there's the child that Amanda Berry had. Like Jaycee Dugard who had children as well. They will have loving mothers, but they entered into world of captivity themselves, and have the knowledge of who their fathers are and how they were conceived.

Again, death or life in prison, never seems like justice is served. For the criminals never seem to get anything even close to what they have done to their victims.
Inventor
Original Poster
#18 Old 30th Jun 2013 at 10:38 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Mistermook
It's functionally equivalent to burning down a town because someone evil was born there.



It's NOT even close to that. I neither said nor implied that the entire town of Cleveland should be punished, burned down, or anything equivalent. A town should not suffer because of one person, that one person should get the punishment to fit the crime.


You have once again completely twisted my words into something I did NOT mean, say, or imply. For that reason, I am putting you on ignore, NOT because you disagree.

Yes, I am fully aware that I edited your post to only include one sentence, but I did not twist anything. The other part(s) were just not worth the time to respond. It is not worth the headache to try to explain myself to you. Because I would just have to repeat what I have already said in another thread, and you would probably completely twist what I said just like you did in another thread about the punishment fitting the crime.
Inventor
Original Poster
#19 Old 30th Jun 2013 at 10:50 PM
Quote: Originally posted by The SimWhisperer
It's not that your opinion is unpopular, it's just that unless the prosecutor's are counting the forcibly miscarriaged babies as the murder victims. I don't see how they can put the death penalty on the table for the kidnapping, rapes, being held captive for 10 years and so on?


I have issues with the death penalty myself. But, for your thread you singled out Ariel Castro. There have been many cases, along with human trafficking-another topic in itself. Where victims are kidnapped, raped, often tend to have children by their captor, for years on end. And like Amanda Berry escape or someone becomes suspious of someone, and these victims are found. I haven't heard of a death penalty case for kidnapping, being held captive and abused the entire time. As the sole reason for the death penalty.

Death would be kind to this asshole. Life in prison would be as well. Unless, he's put in general population, he will be held in a cell all by himself, with no contact with the other prisoners. They could find him criminally insane, which won't matter if he dead or alive. For he will never experience the horror, the torture and the psychological pain, that those three women have gone through.



Again, death or life in prison, never seems like justice is served. For the criminals never seem to get anything even close to what they have done to their victims.


Just so everyone knows, I wasn't trying to victimize myself when I said my opinion was unpopular here. All I meant was I know a lot of people here disagree, which is perfectly fine. Just like my opinions on gay marriage are unpopular in my family and some friends.


I did single out Ariel Castro, but anyone who does/did what he did deserves the chair. The punishment should fit the crime.
Instructor
#20 Old 30th Jun 2013 at 11:46 PM
What does executing him accomplish?
Mad Poster
#21 Old 1st Jul 2013 at 12:11 AM
My guess is that it makes people feel good in some weird way; it gives them closure. People want that after something horrible has happened. It doesn't make it right, but I believe that is the emotion at play. You see it with audiences in the movies where the something horrific happens to the bad guy and the audience cheers.


BTW, I did read an article about this and it is because of the forced miscarriages that the death penalty is being considered. In his state, Ohio, unborn fetuses have the status of "personhood".
Quote:
At least 38 states have fetal homicide laws that allow murder charges to be filed when a criminal act causes a woman to lose her baby, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. These laws have been increasingly used in murder and assault cases involving a pregnant woman. Like the Cleveland case, some involved despicable crimes that revolted and riveted national television viewers.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...0#ixzz2XkDYrYEz

Addicted to The Sims since 2000.
Forum Resident
#22 Old 1st Jul 2013 at 1:51 AM
Quote: Originally posted by leo06girl
It's NOT even close to that. I neither said nor implied that the entire town of Cleveland should be punished, burned down, or anything equivalent. A town should not suffer because of one person, that one person should get the punishment to fit the crime.


Obviously I'm not Mistermook so I can't say for certain, but I get what he's trying to say here - that taking another human's life is wrong, even when it's the state doing it after appropriate legal processes etc. By condemning him to death, the town/state/country is reduced to the level of a murderer.

It's dramatic language to use and ignores the subtleties of the justice system, but it's an opinion I agree with (and seems to be the majority opinion on this thread) - I think that criminals should be locked up in prison for a long time in the case of violent crimes like this one, but not killed. I don't think the legal system has the right to kill people. But then perhaps I'm influenced by my culture here: in Australia the death penalty has been abolished for a very long time and there is no public support for re-instating it (no doubt there's someone who wants to, there's someone for almost any cause you can think of, but I've never heard of them).

Clearly you don't agree: that's your opinion. What circumstances do you think are necessary to apply the death penalty?
Theorist
#23 Old 1st Jul 2013 at 2:00 AM Last edited by Mistermook : 1st Jul 2013 at 2:41 AM.
Quote: Originally posted by leo06girl
It's NOT even close to that. I neither said nor implied that the entire town of Cleveland should be punished, burned down, or anything equivalent. A town should not suffer because of one person, that one person should get the punishment to fit the crime.

It's an analogy. Get over it.

Quote: Originally posted by KittyCarey
Obviously I'm not Mistermook so I can't say for certain, but I get what he's trying to say here - that taking another human's life is wrong, even when it's the state doing it after appropriate legal processes etc. By condemning him to death, the town/state/country is reduced to the level of a murderer.

Exactly. See? Other people got it, it's not like I was speaking another language...

Quote: Originally posted by leo06girl
You have once again completely twisted my words into something I did NOT mean, say, or imply. For that reason, I am putting you on ignore, NOT because you disagree.


Should I care why or if you're doing something? I only care about the argument you're presenting in the Debate Room. That's all.

Quote:
Just so everyone knows, I wasn't trying to victimize myself when I said my opinion was unpopular here. All I meant was I know a lot of people here disagree, which is perfectly fine. Just like my opinions on gay marriage are unpopular in my family and some friends.

Wait, so I'm not allowed my analogy, but you're allowed to compare how much you want to step outside the law and brutally murder someone to your views on gay marriage?

Quote:
Yes, I am fully aware that I edited your post to only include one sentence, but I did not twist anything. The other part(s) were just not worth the time to respond. It is not worth the headache to try to explain myself to you. Because I would just have to repeat what I have already said in another thread, and you would probably completely twist what I said just like you did in another thread about the punishment fitting the crime.


Translation: I have reading comprehension problems and because of that I think you're really mean. Of course I'm not your friend either, because it's the Debate Room and I'd tell my mother she was full of it in the context of the Debate Room. Presumably the whole point of this place is for people to tell each other they're wrong, and why. I disagree with other people here, a lot, and they manage to get over it - and I disagree with them, a lot, and I get over it too. For instance, depending on any given thing iCad are apparently 100% in agreement or 100% opposed I think. That's okay. That's why we have places like this. Dialog is good. Taking your toys and going home (ignore?) it's kind of useless. It's the (here's another analogy) functional equivalent of those folks in Congress who say they're "never going to compromise." Well that's certainly easier to do than have the conversation with people when you disagree with them, but it's not useful for you or anyone else. Why you would "debate" but only with people who never piss you off is beyond me.
Undead Molten Llama
#24 Old 1st Jul 2013 at 2:05 AM
Quote: Originally posted by leo06girl
I know mine (on this subject) is a very unpopular opinion here, but I still say that he (along with Phillip Garrido) should get the chair.


I think what Mistermook was trying to say in his response to you is that your opinion -- ANYONE's opinion -- does not dictate the law. The fact of the matter is that the death penalty only applies, ever, to first-degree murder. If no one dies as a result of a crime, no matter how awful the crime is, no matter how much a victim's life is affected, as the law stands right now the perpetrator of the crime cannot ever be subject to the death penalty. In this particular case, if Castro is sentenced to die, it will ONLY be because of the forced miscarriage(s?). Nothing else. You may not like this, many people may not like it, but that's the law. And, as I said, the law exists as it exists for very good reasons.

Quote:
Ariel Castro did not just take the five babies he murdered while the Mother was pregnant, he took the girls' (he kidnapped) lives, along with the daughter of Amanda Berry. I know he did not kill them, but he did take their lives completely away from them.


I do not disagree with anything that you said. However, this does not change the law. In order for the law to work, it has to be defined and applied as uniformly as possible. It cannot be malleable and dictated by anyone's opinions and/or emotions. Yes, judges have some leeway in what sentences they can and will impose, but they are still bound by the law. For every crime on the books, there is a prescribed range of possible penalties, with a range of relative severities, that a judge can impose if the person pleads/is found guilty. The death penalty is one of the options ONLY if the crime is first-degree murder and, of course, only in those states where they have the death penalty. In this case, if no forced miscarriages had happened in this case, then there'd be no way that the death penalty could even be brought into this equation, at all, no matter what anyone's opinion on the subject is.

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
Theorist
#25 Old 1st Jul 2013 at 2:16 AM
Quote: Originally posted by GabyBee
What does executing him accomplish?

Mostly executing anyone accomplishes what it always accomplishes - it makes the victims, their families, or the public feel better. In a "perfect world" scenario that would instead be something more like "criminals not induced to criminal behavior by normal triggers, but some inhuman disregard for life and utter incomprehension of empathy. But mostly it's, in my opinion, a feel good sort of thing for people who think they're better people than they are - "How can you not be for tearing this person apart with wolves and then pissing on their corpse? Can't you see he's a monster?"

It's one of the less admirable blind spots in people, I think.
 
Page 1 of 6
Back to top