Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Ben Archer

Plea deal for Ohio man who kidnapped and imprisoned three girls for te

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The man who imprisoned and raped three women for nearly ten years has accepted a plea agreement.

Ariel Castro pleaded guilty in court on Friday in a deal that would give him life in prison without the possibility of parole, according to USA Today. He will be sentenced by a judge at a later date.

The deal is for a life sentence, plus a thousand years.

 

When a crime this heinous is committed, he should just be taken to a hole already dug at a cemetery and shot. Our justice system is amazing in many ways, but situations like this... common sense and swift justice should overrule it. Criminals of this magnitude should know, if caught, they will die swiftly and surely.

I know if I were the father, brother, or relative of one of these three women he would suffer the ultimate punishment. I can only hope bad men already in prison, dispense the justice he deserves upon him.

 

also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZcRU0Op5P4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you rape then murder someone... You should be killed. If we, as a society, made it cut and dry. Made it very clear. Made it understood.... if A (you rape and kill someone) will equal B (you will die).

It might actually make criminals think. As it stands now.. you can rape, kill, torture, jail, beat, do whatever... and criminals get 3 hots and a cot, tv, mail priviledges, workout time, free clothes, and whatever else. With the possiblity of parole a few years down the road.

There are certain people and crimes that should be inexcusable. Or at least clearly defined. 

Hey.. you can do what you want.. but this will occur. You want to kill? Sure, but know you will be killed. You want to rape then kill someone? Sure, but you will be killed. It's your choice. Don't whine or beg for mercy after you commit a heinous crime.

Caveat, every situation is different. I believe in innocent until proven guilty (don't use this asshole as an example, no court case is even needed). I believe in the jury system. I believe in the prosecution and defense. Our justice system, for all of its faults is one of the best in the world.

It is the will of the people to enforce punishment once a verdict has been reached. It is the will of the people to make criminals, murderers, rapists, child abusers pay the price and suffer. It is the will of the people to ensure that we protect the innocent and avenge them when we can't. 

There are certain lines once crossed, that offenders should pay the ultimate price. And in this situation, what this guy did to these three women, deserves it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, he probably deserves the worst. Your follow-up post clarifies your position. Still, you don't know most, or any, of the details, besides the specific charges he pled guilty to. But a guilty plea doesn't necessarily mean guilt.

 

When this story first broke, I didn't believe it as reported. Even still, I think there are lots of missing details. The length of time he committed these crimes is what I find most unbelievable, plus the fact that nobody was onto him (it seems). I was looking forward to a trial just so I could make more sense of what actually happened, what kind of personalities were involved, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you rape then murder someone... You should be killed. If we, as a society, made it cut and dry. Made it very clear. Made it understood.... if A (you rape and kill someone) will equal B (you will die).

Epistemological error is epistemological.  B) 

 

The tool men use to create a society is organization. Specifically, men are organized into the criminal justice system of a country, and enact a set of objective judgments in a way prescribed by law. That's what society is, men organized in a specific way. 

You just dismissed all that. You don like that organization. In other words, you don't like the concept society, as it is currently defined. To that, I say fine, but if you dismiss the current rules by which society is organized, you must provide a new set of rules before you use the concept "society". Until then, you are using an undefined concept.

At this point, your suggestion is: Undefined should make it clear that killing someone results in death, and undefined should make it happen. In fact, undefined should make it happen instantly. But, alas, that's not how reality works. Undefined is a non-entity. Non-entities don't do anything. Your suggestion is invalid. It has no meaning. At best, I could read meaning into it by speculating and assuming that you mean anyone should just get to shoot anyone else because they think they killed someone. I'm not gonna do that to you, instead I'll just point out that your post doesn't mean anything when read literally.

 

P.S. There are reasons why the criminal justice system is organized the way it is (into law enforcement, prosecution, defense attorneys, courts, an appeals system, a supreme court, legislators). Perhaps it would be an easier task to find specific things you think are wrong with it, and suggest minor modifications, than it would be to just reinvent everything from scratch. 

 

Maybe if you understood why justice in the context of a society takes time (because organization, even of a few people, takes time - the kind of organization that results in a society takes a lot of time, because it involves a lot of people), you would be more reasonable.

 

Maybe you would be satisfied with suggesting that it shouldn't take longer than six months or a year for the system to fully process a cut and dried case like this one, and execute the criminal. And I  would agree with you. Sure, every cog in the system should be allowed to do its work, but, especially when the evidence of guilt is this overwhelming, it's not unreasonable to expect everything to be wrapped up in a year, with the end result being the death penalty.

 

But the suggestion that justice should happen instantly is the dismissal of every single principle and rule that defines society. If you make that suggestion, you cannot then still use the word "society" as if it still refers to a valid concept.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always hear decried that you can't be certain, but I don't think there's any ambiguity left when there's people locked in someones basement for years. 

This is how I feel. 

 

And yes I know the changes I suggested would never come to pass...I just don't have the patience our justice system demands for this type of situation. Just can't imagine 10 years of my  life being robbed from me in such an awful way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yes I know the changes I suggested would never come to pass...I just don't have the patience our justice system demands for this type of situation. Just can't imagine 10 years of my  life being robbed from me in such an awful way

Your first post sounded like you wanted instant justice, but your second clarified that is not the case. What changes are you suggesting?

That the prosecution should have pursued the case toward a death-penalty, without any plea? If so, that sounds like a good idea in a case like this. Or are you suggesting something else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  Okay, so if we put the death penalty on the table for all rapists, what incentive do people have to not murder their victims (less witnesses)? We can't have people improving their situation legally by committing more crimes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  Okay, so if we put the death penalty on the table for all rapists, what incentive do people have to not murder their victims (less witnesses)? We can't have people improving their situation legally by committing more crimes. 

Executing rapists does not allow them to improve their situation by committing more crimes. Raping and murdering someone would not carry a lesser sentence than just raping someone.

 

If you're going to now make the argument "but killing witnesses makes them less likely to get caught", by that logic all punishment is an incentive to make criminals be smarter. So all punishment should be eliminated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Executing rapists does not allow them to improve their situation by committing more crimes. Raping and murdering someone would not carry a lesser sentence than just raping someone.

 

If you're going to now make the argument "but killing witnesses makes them less likely to get caught", by that logic all punishment is an incentive to make criminals be smarter. So all punishment should be eliminated.

 

 That doesn't follow though. 

 

 Just because all punishment engenders more adept criminals (who don't get caught), that doesn't mean all punishment should be eliminated . That effect on its own isn't intrinsically bad or good.  Its just a factor that should be understood by the OP. Disproportionate responses to force can create even more violence in a society. The OP seems to care very much about the victims. His initial call for the summary execution of rapists wouldn't have served them well though .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't follow though.

I suggested that, if a rapist is willing to kill their victims to avoid the death penalty, they would also be willing to kill them to avoid life in prison.

Are you saying that that's not the case? That rapists would generally kill their victims to avoid the death penalty, but they would never kill them to avoid life in prison?

Disproportionate responses to force can create even more violence in a society.

How did you establish that killing the guy who imprisoned and raped three women for ten years would be a disproportionate response?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Epistemological error is epistemological.  B) 

 

The tool men use to create a society is organization. Specifically, men are organized into the criminal justice system of a country, and enact a set of objective judgments in a way prescribed by law. That's what society is, men organized in a specific way. 

You just dismissed all that. You don like that organization. In other words, you don't like the concept society, as it is currently defined. To that, I say fine, but if you dismiss the current rules by which society is organized, you must provide a new set of rules before you use the concept "society". Until then, you are using an undefined concept.

At this point, your suggestion is: Undefined should make it clear that killing someone results in death, and undefined should make it happen. In fact, undefined should make it happen instantly. But, alas, that's not how reality works. Undefined is a non-entity. Non-entities don't do anything. Your suggestion is invalid. It has no meaning. At best, I could read meaning into it by speculating and assuming that you mean anyone should just get to shoot anyone else because they think they killed someone. I'm not gonna do that to you, instead I'll just point out that your post doesn't mean anything when read literally.

 

P.S. There are reasons why the criminal justice system is organized the way it is (into law enforcement, prosecution, defense attorneys, courts, an appeals system, a supreme court, legislators). Perhaps it would be an easier task to find specific things you think are wrong with it, and suggest minor modifications, than it would be to just reinvent everything from scratch. 

 

Maybe if you understood why justice in the context of a society takes time (because organization, even of a few people, takes time - the kind of organization that results in a society takes a lot of time, because it involves a lot of people), you would be more reasonable.

 

Maybe you would be satisfied with suggesting that it shouldn't take longer than six months or a year for the system to fully process a cut and dried case like this one, and execute the criminal. And I  would agree with you. Sure, every cog in the system should be allowed to do its work, but, especially when the evidence of guilt is this overwhelming, it's not unreasonable to expect everything to be wrapped up in a year, with the end result being the death penalty.

 

But the suggestion that justice should happen instantly is the dismissal of every single principle and rule that defines society. If you make that suggestion, you cannot then still use the word "society" as if it still refers to a valid concept.

Actually our society "as it is currently defined" agrees with me. We have the death penalty. At a federal level. So, even though you sound very smart and use some really big words (I'll admit I had to look up epistemological), your cohesive thought process and basis for argument is false. Hence the remainder of your argument is invalid. 

Secondly,I know about our criminal justice system and its virtues, and I agree with it in order to protect people in our society from wrongful prosecution. So your whole P.S. statement - waste of your time to type.

Also, I made it clear, to point out in this specific instance, how our justice system should have something in place for a case this apparent. So your point about "if I understood why justice takes time" is again somewhat misguided. 

Lastly, your quote:

"But the suggestion that justice should happen instantly is the dismissal of every single principle and rule that defines society. If you make that suggestion, you cannot then still use the word "society" as if it still refers to a valid concept." 

It is not the dismissal of every single principle and rule that defines society. The society in the US and most modern nations no longer accept "instant justice". We used to though in our early history (duels over honor, gunfights to settle disputes, etc.). There are some societies in the world today that still implement swift and immediate justice. Now the argument can be made on whether or not that is how they should dispense justice, or even if it is justice they are dispensing, but you can use the word society and it does refer to a valid concept.

My point which you were talking about though was about our lack of enforcing justice once it has been decided upon. If you want to rethink and focus on that point, then I'll be happy to reply or discuss it with you.

P.S. What you wrote sounds like a really good beginning for a philosophy class, dissertation, or coffee shop discussion. Unfortunately you're arguments do not seem very objective, considering you replied to something you did not fully read. Understanding the counterpoints to your argument is always the first step in forming a complete response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also slavery, civil rights inequality, and anti-abortion laws were accepted politically and socially at one point and time, whether it was right or wrong. Through societal changes we were able to force the political change. If we as a society are moving towards not implementing capital punishment, then eventually the laws will change, as the laws represent the will of the people generally. 

 

 I believe Castro is a monster and I have no sympathy for him. Whatever occurs to him has no bearing in my view. I suppose you could say I no longer see him as human, but I think he just forfeit his right to exist in society based upon his actions. His decisions are the reason he is where he is. I do think certain extreme cases warrant the discussion of does a person of such a heinous nature even deserve sympathy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...