Cleveland kidnapper Ariel Castro goes for plea deal, life without parole +1,000 years

Hotair ^ | 07/26/2013 | Erika Johnsen

[SeekAndFind]

Guilt or innocence was never really the big question at hand in the bizarre and sickening case of Ariel Castro, the Ohio-area man who kidnapped three women, imprisoned them in his home, repeatedly raped them, and starved and beat one victim into having multiple miscarriages. Shortly after the three women were finally returned to freedom back in May, however, the big question that arose was whether Castro could face the death penalty for deliberately killing the victim’s children in the womb. In Ohio, causing “the unlawful termination of another’s pregnancy” against her will constitutes aggravated murder, and the death penalty is an available punishment — but after negotiations with the prosecution this week, the dirtbag went for a guilty plea specifically to avoid the possibility and ergo will not go through the trial originally scheduled for August 5th. Via Fox News:

The Cleveland man accused of holding three women captive in his home for about a decade agreed to plead guilty in a deal to avoid the death penalty.

In exchange, prosecutors said 53-year-old Ariel Castro would be sentenced to life without parole plus 1,000 years.

Castro had been charged in a 977-count indictment. He had been scheduled for trial Aug. 5 on allegations that include repeatedly restraining the women and punching and starving one woman until she had a miscarriage. The former school bus driver also was charged with hundreds of counts of kidnapping and rape, plus assault and other counts.

Castro was in court Friday morning to enter the guilty plea. When asked if he understood he would never be released from prison, Castro said: “I do understand that, your honor.”

He added, “I knew I was pretty much going to get the book thrown at me.” …

Oh gee, he anticipated that he was “going to get the book thrown” at him? Man, the heart bleeds. Not.

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO

[DoughtyOne]

It does disturbs me that the media can manipulate public opinion to the degree that it does, but why do authorities allow them to do it?

Authorities don’t have a press or propaganda machine. They rely on the “press.” The authorities can give the best story possible, but they don’t have an audience and the press does. The first amendment allows the press to present only those bits the press feels are relevant.

I believe that there is enough of a talk radio social media presence out here, that the 'official' media can't silence the prosecution.

How hard would it be to list what this man did to these women, and demand justice?

We have an adversarial judicial system. Just listing the charges and demanding justice is disturbly similar to The Inqusisition, where the accused was charged but not allowed to defend themselves in an adversarial manner.

Look, I do not advocate the prosecuting attorney be able to make definitives about guilt, but they certainly should be able to lay the facts out for the public, saying this is what we think happened.  "We hope to prove this in court."

I don't see this as the state denying anyone due process.

The founding fathers realized this created a high burden on the state but they wanted a high burden on the state and a lower burden on the accused. The Founders knew this would let some guilty people walk. But they preferred that over having the King’s 100% conviction rate.

When we have the president of the United States coming out and tainting a case, as we did in the Zimmerman trial, I think it makes it imperitive that the prosecution get their message out too.  This is today's reality.  I would not agree if the prosecution were to say, "We have this guy dead to rights.  He's guilty as sin, and deserves to die."  That's not the same as saying we think he did these things, and we hope to prove it in court.

Boy, if a verdict was ever a done deal, this would have to be one IMO.

A lawyer told me that there was no such thing as an open and shut case. He said that no matter how stacked the case was on one side or another that it was always a 50/50 gamble as to how it would turn out. He said the best thing to do was stay out of court. Having said that, I’d have thought the Zimmerman case was open and shut in Zimmerman’s favor. But at least 40% of the people disagreed with me. I conclude the lawyer was right. The DA made a good call here. He also saved probably a million dollars off his budget that he can now use to go after other criminals.

And I understand the reason why an attorney would say this.  In this case, you have three women who can testify to what this man did to them.

They list what he did to them.  They identify him.  Who could spin that into something sympathetic to the defendent.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

“Why a plea deal here.”

I’m just speculating, but a plea deal here may be the “right thing” for the victims. If this case went to trial, one or more of the victims likely would have had to testify (while there is likely enough physical evidence to convict on some charges, victim testimony would be necessary to show the extent of what he did, etc.) Putting the victims through the misery of having to re-live what happened, testify about it, and be subject to cross-examination may not be worth it, even if they could get a death sentence for this guy.

Frankly, I’m a bit surprised this guy even took a plea. I half expected the sick f*ck (pardon my language, thinking about this guy brings out the worst in me) to take this to trial, simply to force the victims to testify.

[Politicalmom]

This way the women don’t have to testify. That’s important. They’re traumatized enough for one lifetime.

[bgill]

Give the victims’ families a rope and be done with it.

[grania]

I've brought up my opinion before, which absolutely no one agrees with. After Anthony Sowell a few years ago (murdered 11 women) and now Ariel Castro I said of Cleveland's worst elements: "if two rats come out of the sewer, you know there are more rats in the sewer". Well, there were three unsolved murders of women on Cleveland's east 93rd this spring and now a serial killer was captured on Cleveland's far east border , three victims (a lot of people speculate it's the east 93rd guy, changing locations after the women started wearing whistles and neighborhood watch started)

What's my point? I don't know if Ariel Castro killed some women and caused miscarriages earlier, but at least he kept the three women alive and by all accounts took good care of his daughter. There are probably other predators out there holding women. Cleveland can't even figure out which women are missing and which ones moved elsewhere. The message that has to be sent is that a predator will be better off letting any women captives he has free. Unless that's the case, there's no incentive to not kill the victims.

[xzins]

I don’t care how cozy the confines of a prison these days. It’d go nuts cooped up.

Rather they just shoot me and be done with it.

There should be some option that refuses these people the right to plead “not guilty”. He was caught red-handed. Now he has agreed to life+1000. Does that say he actually thought he was “not guilty”? To me it says he didn’t believe that plea of his for a second. He knew. He knew we knew. He knew it was insurmountable. Yet he had the audacity to stand in court and say “not guilty”.

They need pleas of: innocent, not guilty, I’m-gonna-try-to-beat-it, it’s hopeless, and guilty as sin.

[Road Warrior ‘04]

He won’t live to see 5 years in prison.

[DoughtyOne]

I believe your two posts were similar enough to respond to both of you with one reply.

There is a case to be made that this will lessen the victim’s exposure to more pain. I am not here to be mean to the victims. It’s my take that going in and telling the public exactly what this man did to them personally, is the best way possible for them to get their pound of flesh and make this man pay the sort of penalty his actions merit.

A swift trial, a frank accounting from these women, a conviction and the swift carrying out of justice is just what the doctor ordered to remedy this guy’s crimes and to make others considering this sort of thing to refuse to do it to avoid the penalty.

You may see this as very inappropriate, but I actually think these women owe it to other women to pursue justice in this case. There is a certain segment of our society that needs to be put on notice, our society WILL NOT rest until you are dead if you dare do something like this.

Nobody can do that for women, if the women who are abused in this manner won’t take every advantage they can to make sure these men pay the ultimate penalty.

[kevkrom]

Not that I condone such things, but I have feeling this guy is gonna learn first-hand what’s like to be locked up somewhere and used as a sex toy by others.

[SkyDancer]

I’m thinking that since one indictment is kidnapping and that’s federal he could be sent to a Super Max like in Colorado(?).

[Trailerpark Badass]

Why a plea deal here.

I think this is one case where the impact on the victims is right tobe considered.

It would be years before they'd end up testifying. Why make them give up more of their lives for this scum?

Lock him up and let them try to move on.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for your response.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3047659/posts?page=28#28

[Gen.Blather]

“I believe that there is enough of a talk radio social media presence out here, that the ‘official’ media can’t silence the prosecution.”

I believe the prosecution is legally restricted in what they can say. The idea is to try the accused in a court of law, not in the public which could easily lead to lynching. You might recall that Zimmerman’s prosecutor said that he was guilty even after he was acquitted. (I suspect that she’ll be censured for that, if not disbarred.)Also recall that the county prosecutor decided there was insufficient evidence to bring Zimmerman to trial. His prosecution was political. Would we voluntarily allow a political lynching by trying the case in the press and allow the prosecution to get-the-word out so that the accused can’t defend themselves? Instead of attorneys everybody would hire publicists.

The public should only be advised of what the court has found, not be an active participant. (Oh, think of all the idiot neighbors you’ve known who would yell “burn the witch!”)

Yes, the president has tainted every case he has mentioned. It is highly improper for any authority figure to ever comment on any case. When a general (or the president) publically comments on a military criminal case it so damages the prosecution that the case can be seriously damaged, despite the evidence. Any comment by authority can prejudice the jury pool and arguably affect the judgment. It should never happen.

Suppose you’re accused of some heinous crime. The government goes to the press and denounces you saying, “They know guilty, but can’t prove it.” The president says that the police acted stupidly and your alleged victim could have been his child. You don’t have the ability to fight the damage done to your position.

[Trailerpark Badass]

I’d agree with you more if these were women victimized as adults, and without the special kind of trauma years of captivity and torture would cause.

[M Kehoe]

PLUS a thousand years!? Ok, I like the touch/imagery.

5.56mm

[Buckeye Battle Cry]

I suspect the deal was made in order to keep the three victims and the “daughter” from going through the trial and testimony nightmare.

[DoughtyOne]

I believe that there is enough of a talk radio social media presence out here, that the ‘official’ media can’t silence the prosecution.

I believe the prosecution is legally restricted in what they can say. The idea is to try the accused in a court of law, not in the public which could easily lead to lynching. You might recall that Zimmerman’s prosecutor said that he was guilty even after he was acquitted. (I suspect that she’ll be censured for that, if not disbarred.)  Also recall that the county prosecutor decided there was insufficient evidence to bring Zimmerman to trial. His prosecution was political. Would we voluntarily allow a political lynching by trying the case in the press and allow the prosecution to get-the-word out so that the accused can’t defend themselves? Instead of attorneys everybody would hire publicists.

I don't believe I advocated the defendent be tried in public.  I merely said the prosecution should be able to list what their suspicions were, and explain they hoped to prove them in court.  I did not say I approved of definitive prejudicial charges of guilt.  I also didn't say I would ever agree with a representative of the court saying the verdict was unjust.  I fully approve of the charges brought against the original prosecuting attorney in this case.  I would agree with you that the current one should be dealt with too, for his after trial comments.

The public should only be advised of what the court has found, not be an active participant. Oh, think of all the idiot neighbors you’ve known who would yell “burn the witch!”

Idiot neighbors will do all sorts of things.  We know they're idiots.  We discount most of what they say.

Yes, the president has tainted every case he has mentioned. It is highly improper for any authority figure to ever comment on any case. When a general (or the president) publically comments on a military criminal case it so damages the prosecution that the case can be seriously damaged, despite the evidence. Any comment by authority can prejudice the jury pool and arguably affect the judgment. It should never happen.

I completely agree with your comments addressing this.  I do not view the president's comments to be even remotely appropriate.  It just goes to show how completely out of touch he and his advisors are.  They are completely ignorant of most acceptable standards for a public official.

On the other hand, the prosecuting attorney represents the public in court.  The public should be able to hear what the case consists of from the prosecuting attorney.  "This is what we suspect.  We will be trying to prove it in court."

Suppose you’re accused of some heinous crime. The government goes to the press and denounces you saying, “They know you're guilty, but can’t prove it.” The president says that the police acted stupidly and your alleged victim could have been his child. You don’t have the ability to fight the damage done to your position.

I don't advocate for either of these things to take place.

I do think it's reasoned to have the prosecuting attorney state what they suspect.  I still say he/she should also state they will be trying to prove this in court.  That makes it clear, it is only their view, not the only possible view.

As for an elected official commenting on any legal matter, it's just totally unacceptable.  It's tantamount to that official forcing his testimoney into court.  And even if he were in court, he couldn't say what his personal opinion was, which they are including in their public statements.  It's totally wrong on at least two levels.

[P-Marlowe]

If it is any comfort, I suspect he will not make it to Christmas before he suffers some kind of unfortunate accident in the shower. He will not serve 1000 years. He’ll be lucky to last a month.

[Guenevere]

He's not thinking of the victims, but someone is.

Without a trial (which the plea bargain negates) those three young women or the little girl won't have to relive the horror of those years.

There will be no trial.

[DoughtyOne]

The message to anyone else doing this...

You will never be killed for it. You will live out your days in relative comfort.

Some of these folks have already spent time in prison. It’s not that big a deal to them.

I am not without compassion for these women. I don’t want men to think they can get away with this sort of thing. That means there will be far more victims like these.

That is what terrifies me. I have female family members.