Aren’t plea deals usually used for something of substance? Like, information that the accused may have that prosecutors want, and you get a better sentence?
Is there anything in the Castro case that benefits the prosecution to warrant a plea deal? Do the victims get a say in this? Maybe they want him dead as the law would allow, but now they won’t because of his “deal”.
Actually, as I understand it, the deal is being reached because of the victims. A trial would put them through a wringer and avoiding that is seen as a good thing.
If he can be put away with certainty without a trial, the state will save a lot of money yet accomplish the task. From the defendant’s position, it guarantees avoidance of The Chair, or whatever they use in Ohio.
The prosecution may feel they don’t have enough proof to show that Castro killed any of the fetuses he’s supposed to have forced to miscarry. W/o that, as horrific as everything else he’s done, he’s committed no capital crimes. I see the State’s dilemma, if that’s true. Where’re the bodies, for one thing. If there miraculously was a corpse, who’s to say beyond a reasonable doubt that his actions caused the death sufficiently for it to be murder?
Claiming it’s for the benefit of the victims allows both sides to feel they’ve gained something: Castro gets to keep breathing, the prosecution avoids either an expensive, embarrassing not guilty verdict or a very lengthy capital appeal, and the victims avoid having to recount their ordeals to a salacious media. And with any luck, after some time in prison, the problem of what to do with Ariel Castro may very well solve itself.
It will also save the state millions of dollars in a case like this.
Maybe they promised him a better TV in his cell.
He: doesn’t get the death penalty
Victims: don’t have to testify (which they stated that they wanted to avoid)
State: saves a bunch of money
Makes good enough sense.
If he’s willing to plead out to life without parole, what could possibly be gained by a trial except a year of huge expense and voyeurism?
Won’t someone think of the TV producers, screenwriters, talk show hosts, glurge reporters, photographers, and millions of viewers at home who will miss out on non-stop coverage of the trial.
He might be declared innocent.
This is the current state of our justice system. Less than 5% of criminal cases go to trial, most result in plea bargains.
It worked out that way for Jared Loughner. He pled guilty to six counts of murder and 13 counts of attempted murder in the shooting spree that targeted U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. In exchange, he avoided the death penalty and the victims and their survivors were spared the ordeal of a trial.
Your implication here is that murder among prison inmates can be a good thing, a tolerable way to accomplish justice. I would like to note that I disagree.
In a case where there is the faintest chance of that being a possibility, I would object to him pleading out.
As the evidence is as overwhelming as it is for Loughner and Holmes, let him rot on his own confession.
They may also not want it to be tied up in years of civil rights litigation over whether fetuses are people. (If they aren’t, then the death penalty would be unconstitutional.)
Shades of the O.J. or Zimmerman trial, no?
He was looking at the death penalty which seriously raised the bar for the prosecution in terms of time, effort, money, endless appeals, etc.
He’s removed from society for the least amount of stress and trauma for the victims, and the least amount of money from the prosecutor’s budget.
Not as good as immediatly dragging him out of the courtroom and shooting him dead, but that’s the legal system.
nm