Yesterday (May 8, 2013), Jodi Arias was found guilty of murdering her boyfriend. Actually, she more than murdered him, she virtually obliterated him. Stabbing him 29 times, shooting him in the face, and slitting his throat almost from ear to ear. She made damned fucking sure he was dead.
That alone should qualify her as a psychopath. However, she's also a pathological liar. She had several versions of her story, finally admitting that she killed him but in, as she termed it, "self defense." She trotted in battered woman syndrome, post traumatic stress disorder, and just about everything but the kitchen sink in an effort to beat the rap.
She may get the death penalty, but should she? The syllable "path" in "psychopath" and "pathological liar" indicates a sickness. She's not a mentally healthy person.
pathology (n.) "science of diseases," 1610s, from French pathologie (16c.), from medical Latin pathologia "study of disease," from Greek pathos "suffering" (source)
As revolting as the murder was, can we separate her guilt from the sickness from which she suffers?
More generally, suppose all crimes could be traced back to some sort of pathology. What would happen to the entire concept of guilt? And suppose that once a pathology was identified, there was a "cure." Could we ethically hold people responsible for their actions before the cure, given their diminished capacity for making proper ethical choices?
Especially in the penalty phase, her behavior was bizarre. She is a psychopath, I believe, and a pathology is by definition a sickness. She should be put away where she can't ever harm anyone ever again but not executed. I do believe in the death penalty, but not for sick people.
Being mentally sick is no excuse for committing murder.
She knew exactly the crime in her actions and she still went with it the moment she stabbed him. She deserves the death penalty
you must be confused. Justice =/= religious way
Justice is a concept based on rationality and logical reasoning.
Straw man argument
Come back to me when you are not in violation of it and have an actual valid point.
How justice based on rationality and logical reasoning? Could you explain?
First we have to look at the definition of the word "justice"
From Merriam Webster it states that the definition of justice:
a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments
a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair
Justice comes from our moral and ethical guidelines based which are based on the concept of rational and logical thinking perceived by our natural and universal laws without discrimination on the basis on race, gender, natural origin, skin color, age, disability , sexual orientation, religion, etc.
If a proper set rule of a guidelines were followed, then its objective.
Adam where do you draw the line between revenge and justice.
How is being mentally sick not an excuse for murder? Are you saying a mentally sick person could act differently? That they are responsible for how they act?
Let me ask YOU: what would you do to provide some satisfaction to those the murder has injured, by which I mean those who lost a father, husband, child, or friend? How do you distinguish between justice and revenge?