Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Jodi Arias Trial      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 whippedboi
Joined: 3/12/2013
Msg: 101
Jodi Arias TrialPage 5 of 10    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)

I don't and not capable of being evil as men can, that Jodi can't be rehabilitated and one day come out of prison as a citizen who is no longer a threat to society.


does that translate as:

" she is a woman, therefore inherently innocent, and not capable of being truly evil as a man can, therefore she can be rehabilitated and should not get the death penalty",

by any chance?
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 102
view profile
History
Jodi Arias Trial
Posted: 4/14/2013 7:18:22 AM
I've gone back and forth on the death penalty throughout my life, simply because I deal with such things entirely based upon logic, and I have run into new facts to consider several significant times. For a long time now, what it really comes down to for me, is that killing someone is a "no take back" thing to do. Therefore, I don't oppose death for moral reasons, so much as I am wary of choosing it, for practical ones.

It's obvious to me from what she has admitted to doing, and what it is clearly proven that she did do, that she is no where near what we as a society can tolerate to have running loose amongst us. I am extremely skeptical that someone who has done what she has done CAN be "rehabilitated" (i.e. made safe for the rest of us). However, since I also don't find that it is necessary to kill her in order to keep the rest of us safe, I can't go with death, especially by calling it a "penalty" (that makes it sound as though the person you do it to is going to say afterwards, 'well! I guess I learned my lesson!').

After all, someone who is "off" enough to do as she did, is not going to stop and think..."gee, I really WANT to slit this persons throat, shoot them repeatedly until I run out of bullets, then burn the body...but since I could get the death penalty for that, I'll just send them a very snotty greeting card."
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 103
view profile
History
Jodi Arias Trial
Posted: 4/14/2013 8:28:36 AM

because I deal with such things entirely based upon logic,


I don't see how that's possible. Crimes only exist because the majority believes certain acts are wrong. moral issue--we don't make those acts crimes just because we think it's logical.


killing someone is a "no take back" thing to do.


Yes, there is a risk, however vanishingly small it may be, of executing an innocent person. If we're to have a completely safe society, we can't tolerate that. For the same reason, I'm against building any roads, dams, bridges, or skyscrapers, and other such "improvements." We know before we start any of those projects that the process will cost lives--the probability is so high it amounts to absolute certainty. And if building a dam or a bridge costs even one life, that's one too many.


I can't go with death, especially by calling it a "penalty" (that makes it sound as though the person you do it to is going to say afterwards, 'well! I guess I learned my lesson!').


It doesn't make it sound that way at all, to me. The lesson is not for the condemned murderer, but for other would-be murderers. To punish certain types of murder with death is only to make clear to everyone that any person who commits any of those types of murder will pay for it with his life.

A society has no way to express its moral judgment about a thing except through what it does about it through its laws. Even if half the country turned out one weekend to demonstrate against some bad act, holding up a sea of signs and tut-tutting in unison, unless they also demanded punishment for that act, who could believe the apparent mass outrage was anything but a sham?
 vwfpx
Joined: 2/21/2009
Msg: 104
view profile
History
Jodi Arias Trial
Posted: 4/14/2013 8:36:16 AM
It is interesting that you can still check out their myspace pages. There is an interesting
Christmas poem that someone wrote Travis. You should review them.


PS: I am in total agreement with you Cotter.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 105
view profile
History
Jodi Arias Trial
Posted: 4/14/2013 8:43:16 AM

I don't see how that's possible. Crimes only exist because the majority believes certain acts are wrong. moral issue--we don't make those acts crimes just because we think it's logical.


Actually, historically and logically, and legally, we do make things crimes based on logic. More so than we do based upon emotion, or morality. With as many posts as you've made detailing how the letter of the law is what you support, I'm mystified as to why you are unable to conceive of someone using logic to decide such things.


Yes, there is a risk, however vanishingly small it may be, of executing an innocent person.


That response is based on your making an erroneous assumption about my motives and reasoning. Killing the innocent is not the main reason for my current decision about the DP.

The rest of what you said boils down to I said my opinion, you said yours, and we differ. Nothing to debate logically there.
 theritefoot
Joined: 3/30/2013
Msg: 106
Jodi Arias Trial
Posted: 4/14/2013 10:31:52 AM
I say kill her, the sooner the better.
And the only thing scarier than Jodi....if a POF thread defending Jodi.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 107
view profile
History
Jodi Arias Trial
Posted: 4/14/2013 11:27:45 AM
Actually, historically and logically, and legally, we do make things crimes based on logic. More so than we do based upon emotion, or morality.


That's news to me. Logic is as morally neutral as mathematics, and has no more to do with moral judgments. For the most part, this country's criminal laws derive from the common law developed through several centuries of case decisions by English judges. And contrary to what you claim, that law was grounded in morality--specifically, in Christian beliefs about right and wrong. This country was settled by English Protestants, and the connection between religion and public policies was strong--most states had official religions.


Killing the innocent is not the main reason for my current decision about the DP.


What is that reason, then? You said in #109 that "what it really comes down to for me, is that killing someone is a 'no take back' thing to do. Therefore, I don't oppose death for moral reasons, so much as I am wary of choosing it, for practical ones." What other practical consideration could make you wary about the fact an execution can't be undone, besides the possibility of mistakenly executing an innocent person?
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 108
view profile
History
Jodi Arias Trial
Posted: 4/14/2013 12:09:55 PM
I told you the reason. You even quoted it, but didn't recognize it. Death is final. Hence, I am cautious about using it as a punishment or tool.

As for morality and logic being opposites, again, we disagree. In my researches, I have seen each to play a part in the other.

But in the United States in particular, there is a lot of legal activity, both creating laws, and enforcing them, which particularly seeks to avoid using morality as the decisive factor. It is a part of our tradition of the separation of Church and State. And, it is part of the exercise of legal actions, that the laws as written be enforced, and not the laws as imagined by moral people want them to be enforced. Again, you yourself regularly cite the letter of the law, as being what should be followed, not the moral desires of the people. That was inherent in your objection to federally sponsored health care of any kind. Not that health care was morally wrong for the federal government to be involved with, but because you said that the letter of the Constitution made it the job of States to do so.

Now I will grant you that the idea that it is more than just illogical to permit people to kill each other on a whim, does go way back, and is shared by many morality based social systems. But I would contend that the fact that many of these same societies, including ours right now, believe that it IS okay for people to be killed by an act of government, severely weakens the idea that morality, unaffected by any logical consideration, is primary reason why murder is against the law. I contend that as soon as one specifies exacting details about what is or is not considered a legal killing, then logic is the dominant controlling force.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 109
view profile
History
Jodi Arias Trial
Posted: 4/14/2013 8:21:54 PM

But in the United States in particular, there is a lot of legal activity, both creating laws, and enforcing them, which particularly seeks to avoid using morality as the decisive factor.


I don't know where all this activity is taking place. Who are all these people who are supposedly so concerned with purging our criminal laws of moral disapproval? Where in the U.S. do you think most people want to do that? It seems just the other way around to me. Majorities in many states have been expanding the circumstances under which abortion is a crime, for example, not because they think abortion is illogical, but because they think it's immoral.


And, it is part of the exercise of legal actions, that the laws as written be enforced, and not the laws as imagined by moral people want them to be enforced.


You make it sound as if criminal laws "as written" by the majority are not inspired by moral beliefs, so that some minority is forever trying to distort those laws to enforce its unusual morality. But that's not how things have ever worked in this country. We've always been a democratic republic, such that majorities make the laws. And the criminal laws of any state forbid certain acts the majority of that state's people consider wrong. In states where most people considered sodomy immoral, for example, it was made illegal; and where they didn't, it wasn't. If most people in a state wanted to repeal its laws against rape or arson because they thought logic dictated it, they could.


It is a part of our tradition of the separation of Church and State.


First, most criminal laws are state laws, and where the states are concerned that tradition is not a long one. To repeat, most of them had official religions when the U.S. was founded. And clear up to 1947, the states continued to be free to have official religions, if they had wanted to.

Second, even where federal criminal laws are concerned, keeping criminal laws free of moral disapproval is not part of that tradition. Basing those laws on moral views does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment--or any other part of the Constitution. As the Supreme Court has noted, "The law . . . is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed." Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 196 (1986).


you yourself regularly cite the letter of the law, as being what should be followed, not the moral desires of the people.


I do? If you're trying to say I believe the Supreme Court should never interpret any part of the Constitution to pacify whatever howling minority happens to be offended by it--and that when the Court does that it is amending the Constitution illegitimately, substituting tyranny for the rule of law, and endangering the liberties of all of us--you're dead right.


Not that health care was morally wrong for the federal government to be involved with, but because you said that the letter of the Constitution made it the job of States to do so.


I have no idea what Obamacare has to do with the question whether the fact most people in a state think a certain act is immoral is reason enough for them to make it a crime to commit that act. But since you brought it up, I think Justice Roberts' decision that Congress' power to tax is authority for socialized medicine will go down as one of the worst in this country's history. It's right down there with Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Roe v. Wade, and the day the Court handed it down is "a date that will live in infamy."


But I would contend that the fact that many of these same societies, including ours right now, believe that it IS okay for people to be killed by an act of government, severely weakens the idea that morality, unaffected by any logical consideration, is primary reason why murder is against the law.


Obviously you don't oppose capital punishment just because it's irreversible. A person who believes that executing a murderer is fair punishment for his crime isn't concerned about undoing the execution.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 110
view profile
History
Jodi Arias Trial
Posted: 4/15/2013 11:13:23 AM
I just saw a note on HLN that they plan to have a discussion this evening about Jodi being a "sexual deviant". Does that mean a deviant might be a murderer?

At what point of "kinky sex" does a person become a "deviant"? (Maybe most of us are already deviants and don't know it?)
 phoenix_55
Joined: 7/25/2012
Msg: 111
Jodi Arias Trial
Posted: 4/15/2013 1:23:11 PM
^^^I do think a sexual deviant can be a murderer -- those people who kill and get some sexual gratification out of watching the life drain out of their victim.

I watch way too much Investigation Discovery ...
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 112
view profile
History
Jodi Arias Trial
Posted: 4/15/2013 1:33:40 PM
^^^Yuppers ... I think you're right ... took care of a really high-profile case of one in Florida jail I worked in. They never did find the body of the little girl he killed but it was clear he sexually molested her and killed her. I'm pretty certain he ended up saying he dumped her body in a nearby swamp ... the gators probaby ate her for lunch.

But that guy had no remorse and I see remorse in Jodi.
 Sciencetreker
Joined: 2/13/2012
Msg: 113
view profile
History
Jodi Arias Trial
Posted: 4/15/2013 3:58:38 PM
Toss her in a psyche unit for a couple of years then release her. She 's too smart to re-offend. Probably a narcissist or sociopath. She's like Karla Homolka or that one who killed her daughter but got off. Keeping her locked up doesn't do much to help her or society.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 114
view profile
History
Jodi Arias Trial
Posted: 4/15/2013 5:38:25 PM

... jealousy perhaps?
From what I've seen of the trial ... pretty much the whole thing since my patient has it on all day and I'm expected to be in the room with him for my whole shift ... I don't see what she did as "jealousy".

I believe Jodi was able to get in the house anytime she wanted and he apparently had no problem with her being there as he used to have her over to "clean" (in her french maid outfit) and he let her store things there as well. She could have entered that house at any time and killed him while he was asleep if she really wanted to "kill" him to keep him from interacting with other women.

I just really don't believe she wanted to kill him for any other reason but that she snapped and had enough of the belittling and battering.

I have seen it going on in women I work with ... some take the stress of it out on their co-workers or even their own families. It's a stressful situation and we (in the medical field) cannot predict when a person will "snap" or just get so much that they can't take it any longer. We can't predict personal "breaking points". It would be wonderful if we all had those meters on us that have a needle that goes towards the "red zone" (as in a car about to overheat) ... then we could just give those people a lot of space.

I think she loved him and wanted him to love her in the same way. He didn't and from what I have seen of his past behavior (the best indication of future behavior) ... he was not going to be a person who could be honest with any woman as he was not even honest with himself.

He did not deserve to die like that ... that is clear. She was apparently not strong enough to stay away when he beckoned her. He was apparently not strong enough to let her go. She was always going to be his "dirty little secret" since it's clear he was lying to his church and people close to him ... representing himself as a virtuous person which he apparently was not.

I have known men in my life who profess to love a woman but just can't completely commit ... they just can't give up attention from other women ... one woman will never be enough. To be in love with such a man can be very, very hurtful and people's feelings are actually very frail and should not be toyed with.

Travis was toying with Jodi and she snapped. Pardon the pun, but it's really a bad case of "overkill". I'm sure she is full of remorse, but she does not deserve to die.

She can rehabilitated to the point that she can work with others who make similar mistakes ... help from inside prison. I've seen TV specials where life-sentenced inmates actually rehab to the point of helping other more frail inmates get through their sentences.
 phoenix_55
Joined: 7/25/2012
Msg: 115
Jodi Arias Trial
Posted: 4/16/2013 5:04:48 AM
"See....I don't quite see it like that. I don't believe she was belittled or battered at all. I think she probably started their relationship by being "the dirty girl" and he just continued thinking of her in those terms. She probably liked being called "his little slut" early on in the relationship but later....she took it as him "belittling" her."

Totally agree with this statement. Sex was her original tool to get her claws into him. He was a young guy ... who's gonna turn that down when it's waved in front of your face???

She's trapped like a deer in the headlights right now so she's now trying to use their dysfunctional relationship -- the abuse, etc. to her advantage. Although it was fairly apparent that she had no problem with being called a slut while they were engaging in their phone sex games.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 116
view profile
History
Jodi Arias Trial
Posted: 4/16/2013 7:33:51 AM

Sex was her original tool to get her claws into him. He was a young guy ...
Travis Alexander met Jodi Arias at a conference in Las Vegas and is the one who hit on her at a meeting. She was still living with Daryl Brewer. So if anything, Travis was the one who pursued her even though he knew she was living with another man. Okay, maybe she and Daryl were on the "outs" with each other, but she was still living with him.


... who's gonna turn that down when it's waved in front of your face??
What kind of man hits on a woman who's living with another man? Who waved what in who's face?


... fairly apparent that she had no problem with being called a slut while they were engaging in their phone sex games.
Lots of people talk "dirty" to each other while engaging in sex. Personally, talking "dirty" and having "phone sex" is not appealing to me, but I've known people who just love to talk dirty like that. It's actually pretty common.

There's a difference between having someone yell at you in a demeaning way, then call you a slut and ... having someone use it while talking "dirty" in a phone sex conversation. Jody testified that Travis called her a slut other than on the telephone during a sexual conversation.
 phoenix_55
Joined: 7/25/2012
Msg: 117
Jodi Arias Trial
Posted: 4/16/2013 10:18:25 AM
cotter, I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree on the Jodi Arias story. I see Jodi as the predator, not Travis. Regardless of whether he hit on her and continued to pursue her when she was living with another guy, she still went along with it. You can't pursue someone who won't allow it to happen.

As far as the dirty talk, him calling her a slut, etc., I still believe that was the dynamic of their relationship -- it fueled them and they both liked it. She liked the idea of being the "bad girl". And I don't believe her testimony that he called her a slut or any other demeaning name unless they were alone and engaged in their sex games. I still don't believe he ever saw her other than a friend with benefits and she couldn't tolerate that.

Once again, it's Jodi's word against Travis ... and he's not talking.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 118
view profile
History
Jodi Arias Trial
Posted: 4/16/2013 11:17:29 AM

And I don't believe her testimony that he called her a slut or any other demeaning name unless they were alone and engaged in their sex games.
They have proof of it in the text messages when he was admonishing her ... when he found out she was moving on and beginning to date other men as he had requested she do ... after their "official break up".

They were more than able to prove that the text messages were from him and it was not a "sexual" text message, so I don't know how that can be anything but battering.
 bucsgirl
Joined: 5/13/2006
Msg: 119
view profile
History
Jodi Arias Trial
Posted: 4/16/2013 3:57:51 PM
Since none of us are or will ever be privvy to all their private moments or conversations, the claim of self defense (or plea, whatever it is) does not have to proven per se as per evidentiary rule of law, but it will have to be substantiated.

I think it's as simple as the amount and severity of the injuries inflicted does not substantiate a self defense claim. I think one could argue for overkill, as she would have had first of all to be in fear for her life, which the pictures taken shortly before would seem to imply anything BUT. This is not the only problem with the defense, just watching her interviews with the detectives and changing her story, not just details but a total 180....c'mon now. As a juror, that would carry the most weight with me.

This is JUST an opinion and I HAVE been in an abusive relationship and almost lost my life because of it. This may prejuidice me, but based on my own personal experience, I am familiar with how a truly battered woman behaves. And yes my opinion in at least partially based on that, and yes because of my personal history I'd never be selected to sit on a jury in a case like this.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 120
view profile
History
Jodi Arias Trial
Posted: 4/16/2013 5:11:34 PM
While it appears as if I am defending what Jodi has done, I'm not.

All I really care about is that she not be put to death.

A friend of mine once said, "How can we punish someone by putting them to death when we are doing exactly what they did ... put someone to death."

I used to be in favor of the death penalty, but have changed my mind. I don't particularly care for the idea of having to pay to take care of them forever, but still find that is simply the cost of not putting people to death. She is guilty of taking a life and has admitted so much.

She's smart and articulate and I feel like over a period of time she might be able to rehabilitate enough in prison to be able to work well with other inmates ... perhaps even teach more illiterate inmates from INSIDE prison.

Edit:
To Bucs ...
I see your point. Well taken.

I suppose I made a point of the "death penalty" because all day long they keep reminding the viewers that it is a "death penalty" case.
 bucsgirl
Joined: 5/13/2006
Msg: 121
view profile
History
Jodi Arias Trial
Posted: 4/16/2013 5:30:00 PM
"All I really care about is that she not be put to death"

Respectfully, this is a topic about the case, not an argument for or against the death penalty.

Since you brought it up, though maybe you may want to take an actual case with an actual person and find out what the real rate of rehabilitation is? What she MAY be able to do, that's conjecture or delusion at best. I can tell you from personal experience and talking to the prison officials is that rehabilitation is lalaland.

Prisoners with life sentences spend their time trying to figure out how to escape. That's the reality, and they'll do whatever they have to and don't care who they have to hurt or kill to do so. Contribute to other prisoners INSIDE prison....that's just short of delusional, IMO, they only collude with other prisoners for their own benefit. Oh yeah, put someone in prison who's kllled someone and they magically become contrite and resmorseful and want to pay back their debt to society? Ehh...that wouldn't make a good LifeTime movie...noone could sell that script.

Bottom line is that someone who's taken a life without provocation, they're adjuged to be a threat to society. If you feel so strongly, maybe you should take her home and let her live with you, and rehabiltate her yourself, then you could tell her what she would do and should do...oh wait you said inside prison. How about if she were inside YOUR hone, would you say the same?
 phoenix_55
Joined: 7/25/2012
Msg: 122
Jodi Arias Trial
Posted: 4/17/2013 6:25:14 AM
^^^True. And Jodi Arias displays no emotion when talking about her "abuse". People tend to get very emotional when talking about past abuse. She might as well be ordering a cheeseburger when she discusses it. The prosecution's psychologist is testifying now and I believe she's ripping apart what that LaViolette woman and that other Samuels guy testified to. She's apparently smart enough to not be sucked in by Jodi as these two were.

The "broken finger" was truly laughable. What are the odds as he's body slamming and kicking her and smashing her head onto the tile that the only injury she receives is a broken finger?
 activemelaney
Joined: 9/8/2012
Msg: 123
view profile
History
Jodi Arias Trial
Posted: 4/17/2013 8:18:38 AM

Once again, it's Jodi's word against Travis ... and he's not talking.


Actually it's not at all. It's the State trying to prove a case and this woman needs not prove anything including her credibility. Proving guilt is the responsibility of the State and a defendent does not need to prove they are innocent. It's the very basis of the right of an individual in society. A defendent need not put on a defennse, need not testify and if testifying can refuse to answer under 5th amendment provisions. Nobody is forced to take on the power of the State except under their own free will to do so.

She's probably guilty of murder and will be sentenced to 2nd degree or so. It's up to the prosecution to lay out the case and convince the jury. She doesn't have to prove anything.
 phoenix_55
Joined: 7/25/2012
Msg: 124
Jodi Arias Trial
Posted: 4/17/2013 9:25:30 AM
^^^My comment was a figure of speech. You took it completely out of context.

I've worked at law firms for over 30 years and have worked on both Plaintiff and Defendant sides of cases. I understand, as I'm sure most people do, that the Defendant doesn't have to prove innocence.
 daynadaze
Joined: 2/11/2008
Msg: 125
view profile
History
Jodi Arias Trial
Posted: 4/18/2013 9:57:34 AM

"How can we punish someone by putting them to death when we are doing exactly what they did ... put someone to death."


Because I believe it's the proper way to handle cases where cold-blooded killers have taken other lives. I don't need to explain it to your friend either, it's what I think is right and justice in such cases. I don't see how housing a bunch of monsters who have given up their right to be among others, is a solution, I think murderers, rapists, child abusers and thieves should all get the death penalty, when and if they are convicted by facts.

Jodi Arias killed a man because he wouldn't marry her, whether or not she was abused isn't the point at all. I don't think she was abused, but had she been it would have been easy enough for her to walk away, no, she was like a barnacle on the man, she wasn't going to give him up, she wasn't abused, she is a psycho. You don't get to kill someone because they don't love you. She's an insult to real victims of abuse.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Jodi Arias Trial