(Ariel Castro)  was allowed to make a statement and it showed how deranged and sociopathic he is. In a rambling speech that focused mostly on himself, he made excuses for everything he did, refused all responsibility, and even made outrageous claims that the house where he tortured his victims was "normal" and "harmonious."

Castro has invented some kind of sick fantasy world in which the three women he kidnapped, Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight, may have been unable to leave his house, but were otherwise fine and content.

"I'm a good person," he told the judge. "I'm not a violent person. There was a lot of harmony in that house."

He went on to say that sex with the victims was mostly consensual and that they asked himfor sex. "As God as my witness, I never tortured these victims, I never beat them," he claimed, despite reams of evidence to the contrary.

From the same source...

In his statement, Castro blamed his "sexual addiction" for his kidnapping of the women -- saying he couldn't control himself any more than an alcoholic could control drinking. He also blamed his "stressful" job as a bus driver. He even blamed the FBI for not questioning him sooner.

In his continued blaming of the victims, he said, "These girls were not virgins and had been with multiple partners before me. I did not prey on these women."

Oh, and he pulled a Ted Bundy, too, blaming his behavior on porn. However, I think most of us realize that we choose the porn that appeals to us. Porn does not create interests that aren't there, at least latently.

Any comments on this man or his sentence of life plus 1000 years?

Views: 1845

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I have two brothers, I don't visit often, hardly at all, but I do stay in touch and once in awhile I do visit. I would think if my brother's house looked really odd, like Frankenstein's castle with chains, locks and women moaning, I would think something is odd. Brothers that never visit? During 10 years? Not very close are they.

He only let them into some areas of the house, keeping them in the living room and kitchen.  The basement remained locked, and the upstairs he'd try to steer people away from.  He wouldn't even let his daughter go upstairs to her old bedroom.

He'd also play music loudly to cover the sounds the captives made.

Good thing he didn't become some dictator of some country keeping his people in chains, not allowing people and the world to see what's going on, fabricating fantasies, total control freak, but still religious.

can't disagree there.

How did he pass a psychological exam? I mean, he's certainly crazy in the everyday sense of the word, but not sentencing him to psychiatric care actually defines his behavior within the realm of normalcy. I can't really see how anyone of sound mind could actually chain people up and treat them like slaves, thus he requires treatment and not jail. 

Legal standards of insanity are extremely high. The very fact that he could construct the elaborate system of excuses he used in his sentencing statement alone demonstrates that he's not bonkers enough to meet that standard.

So you would contend that his behavior is to be considered sane?

In legal terms, yes. To be legally insane he'd have to be unable to understand that what he was doing was illegal. Clearly, by the precautions he took, he was trying not to be detected. That alone rules out legal insanity. To be legally insane, he'd pretty much have to be a severe schizophrenic.

As for what I think? In general, my standard for insanity is much like the legal one. He can still be a sociopath or psychopath I don't want in society, but those aren't forms of insanity.

I think it's odd that the psychiatric and legal definition of insanity are not aligned. If he is indeed medically ill, which I would suspect considering his actions, then he should be treated and not punished.

I would reiterate that the fact that his behavior is considered sane speaks to the view of humanity which underpins society. As comparisons, Fritzl was deemed criminally insane in Austria while Mokhov was sent to a penal colony in Russia. 

Actually, the legal definition of insanity doesn't cover him, either. He's a sociopath, which is a syndrome. It's not insanity under the law OR psychiatrically. 

I seriously doubt if any "treatment" that is conscionable and permissable under the law would ever change this man. 

He deserves punishment.

Don't you agree that if on the one hand people can deserve praise they can deserve punishment.

I think many would think straightforward punishment ethically preferable to engineering his brain.

I think many would think straightforward punishment ethically preferable to engineering his brain.

I'm surely one of the few who disagree. The only policy I endorse for punishment is "preventative of bad behavior". Such a policy must be effective on the perp, codifiable to the extent possible in law, but with adequate (and possibly even somewhat "experimental"), informed judgement. It would be a bonus if such policy also had a deterring effect on other, potential perps.

Punishment and therapy can seem to overlap. What's most important is transparency in the process, especially since its outcome needs to translate into empirical data wrt calculating the best ways to deter bad behavior. This is obviously not a conventional process, but it should be more useful in extreme cases (such as Castro's), at least.

I think that perhaps a little probing of Castro's neurocircuits--as long as it doesn't seem "cruel or unusual", and as long as the process is transparent and documented--is justifiable. (I'm not talking about Nazi-style, or underground experiments.)


© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service