Personality Disorders and Jodi Arias Trial

It's really hard for me to think about it, but if one knows right from wrong, which anyone should, then they should get death. But how about one who knows right from wrong, but feels they were wronged and they themselves are the only one that counts, because of how they were raised or because of a weird brain, then I say life without parole in prison. I know the family of Travis wants her death so that she would stop talking stink about their brother. And she won't, even  with the death penaliy. Only death in a little cell with nothing do to will stop her. But if she really is demented unbeknownst to her, I say life without parole. If that's what the the jury decides, only the judge can decide, life with or without parole. I say since they decided cruelty, then only life without parole should be it. If this makes no sense to you, it's because it doesn't to me either.                     

There are many facets to the way our brains work. Many horrible crimes are committed by "normal" folk who happen to believe that what they did was acceptable behavior. There's nothing that a mentally ill person can do that a "normal" person wouldn't do if conditions were right. Yes, there are people who don't feel empathy or don't have a conscience or whatever. But not all of them commit murder. And there are people who feel empathy and have a conscience, but commit murder anyway.

We all have the same potential to do bad things, but most of use are not put in a situation where we have to seriously choose.

The question for me is a legal one. If a person has a mental illness that causes them to do harm and there is no possible cure or treatment, what do you do with them? Life in prison with no parole? That's pretty cruel. And rough on the other prisoners. Maybe better to just kill them and put them out of their misery? Don't know.

Fred Askew

Well, as usual, there (maybe) will be a movie. A project named "Jodi Arias" is renting costumes from us.

I generally oppose capital punishment, but mostly for practical reasons.

- "Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is not the same as "guilty beyond any doubt whatever, and there have bee a couple hundred death row inmates exonerated and released over the last couple of decades. An innocent man was has been incarcerated, can be released if it is learned that he is innocent. But execution can not be undone.

- Due to the almost endless appeals process undertaken by condemned prisoners, it is usually far more costly to execute someone than to house him for life. That's my tax dollars - any everyone's - being wasted.

- If guilty were certain, and it was a particularly heinous crime, and the execution could be carried out fairly promptly, then perhaps I could support it. But it would depend on the particulars of the case.

But the idea of eliminating capital punishment altogether is appealing. Should the state do something that is forbidden to citizens? Is there really any difference between murder and execution?