Ariel Castro

Remove all ads!

Any thoughts? Anyone want to speak up and defend this poor innocent man, who had no choice but to lock three women up for years on end? Anyone want to say his sentence of life + 1000 years is excessive, advocating parole for this man who smashed the lives of not only the girls but the children he aborted via starvation and brutality?

Just throwing it out there -- surprised it didn't come up before (unless I moronically missed it.)

 

Two things I don't really understand:

1. Why do we give convicted felons a chance to speak at their sentencing, where they inevitably do things like give their victims' families the finger or say that deep down they are really good guys, like Castro?

2. Why does anyone care what these people have to say anyway? I couldn't think of anything less meaningless than this guy's opinion on anything. When I saw him holding forth on TV, I immediately tuned out. Not interested. At all.

 

My follow up question, why let him live? I know that cutting the deal with him was a way of avoiding further torment for the women, but in a case like this, he should be convictable and executable without any hassle for his victims. I mean, seriously, this isn't "Shawshank" here, he damn well did those horrible things, and I can't imagine anyone believing that someday he may be the one to come up with the cure for the common cold, and therefore his life is worth something.

Well, actually, I can imagine people thinking that, I just have no respect for them. This was not a one time "oops." His crimes cannot be minimized or rationalized. Instead of a choice between life in prison or the death penalty, he should have been given the choice between a torturous death that lasted for weeks and a quick, merciful one. "Cruel and unusual" nonsense be damned.

 

They should chain him to the wall and let Lorraina Bobbit into the cell with a cutting implement. Give her an hour or so. Punishment served.

...then let him speak to the court.

 

This is a classic case where the death penalty is warranted. Even Hollywood celebrities and liberals wouldn't come to this guys defense.

 

I dunno...you could kill him but that's pretty quick

OR

you lock him away for the rest of his natural life, surrounded by people who are quick to judge and rather 'physical' in showing their displeasure.

I agree with the death penalty in a case like this where there is no reasonable doubt that he's guilty but then there are a LOT of people in prison who, despite committing violent crimes, will despise him because children were involved.

And that's MUCH more satisfying

 

A little republicanism I suspect.

Nonetheless, of with his head. (both)

 

Some aspects of this article may give people an idea of what to do with him:

http://www.jimgoad.net/pdf/prison/donny.pdf

 

Disturbing link. Lesson learned: if you can come up with the bail, PAY IT!

 

Just read up on it. Horrible story. Impregnating kidnap victims and beating them until they have abortions. At first I thought: "Well, at least he didn't kill his victims", but when I read about the aggravated murders, I can understand why he'd get such a high sentence.

 

How much is it going to cost the American taxpayer to put him up in prison for so many years?

 

Less than to execute him....

 

Sure there must be an American with a spare bullet..? And strangling is free, right?

Seriously, are executions that expensive?

 

Only if you do it the humane way.

Or you could glue his eyelids together, cover him in something sweet and let the wildlife in. Then, before he dies, make sure he's fully conscious, put him in the boot of a car and then stick it in a car crusher

 

I have some things about this case that may be of interest to anyone following the case.





Images from the house they were held:

http://imgur.com/a/E9UXa

 

The point is that with all the appeals and legal processes that the US engages in, the LEGAL costs of an execution are high. The goal is to avoid executing an innocent person, or even a guilty person who has mitigating circumstances. Even with such safeguards, the wrong person is sometimes executed for a crime he/she didn't commit.

In a case like this, though, there is ZERO doubt he did it. There should be no appeals allowed. But I'm dreaming here, of course, because the legal system changes slowly.

 

Ah, right! Thanks for the explanation. The Boondock Saints come in handy here, btw.

 

The problem with the death penalty, even in this case, is not so much whether THIS particular individual deserves it, but what it means for future cases. Unless we come up with some kind of super power or super technology that allows us to ALWAYS KNOW FOR SURE that convicted people are guilty, there's the chance that they're actually not guilty. And once someone is dead, you cannot go back and make things right for that person and/or their family. In this case, yes, I think he would deserve it, but it's not worth it in the long run because of the potential innocent people that could be affected by that choice. That's all I have to say.