Regarding Ariel Castro’s Suicide: Good!


I won’t go so far as to call him an Ethics Hero, but killing himself was probably the ethics highlight of Ariel Castro’s miserable, evil life.

The state of Ohio can’t navigate the moral-ethical logic necessary to execute a monster like Castro ( I see nothing ethical or moral about preventing society from making a crime like his just cause for capital punishment), so Castro took matters into his own hands and did the right thing.


Oh, I agree that the state has an obligation to do everything it can to prevent a prisoner from doing harm to himself, just as it would have an obligation to let Castro have gender reassignment treatment (though I am amused by wondering whether the advocates for Bradley Manning would be as vociferous if the subject was a sick rapist-kidnapper rather than a popular traitor). But I don’t want to pay my tax dollars to keep the likes of Ariel Castro in food, lodging and medical care, and I doubt many Ohio taxpayers do either. Taking himself out was an ethical act all around for Castro: we benefit, the system benefits, justice is served, and Castro is dead, all the better to make sure some future regime of touchy-feely uber-humanists don’t declare all sentences over 20 years as “cruel” or Ohio jails don’t become California Crowded, resulting in an elderly Castro being released to do the talk show circuit and star in a documentary.

Was his act cowardly? I heard an angry pundit declare so today, but I don’t feel we have any way of knowing that. Personally, I’d rather keep living, even in prison, than kill myself. I don’t really care if it was cowardly or not. They guy was a serial rapist-kidnapper-torturer, and his memory is supposed to be further stained by “And he was a coward, too”?

Is it’s a sin? I don’t think killing Ariel Castro can possibly be a sin…even if the killer is Ariel Castro.

A wiser society should have ended Castro’s life.

He did us all a favor by doing it on his own.

Thank you, Ariel!

Now go to Hell.


Facts: Columbus Dispatch

13 thoughts on “Regarding Ariel Castro’s Suicide: Good!

  1. I agree with everything you said except: “A wiser society should have ended Castro’s life.” He would still be alive today if he got the death penalty, working on his first appeal of many.

    • That’s not a problem with the death penalty. That is a problem with the anti-death penalty advocacy for unnecessary delays. Also, a wise society wouldn’t hear unappealable things.

      That’s almost as ridiculous as the anti death penalty crowd crying about how expensive the death penalty is… When they are the ones who drove up the costs to begin with.

      • The evidence isn’t always so clear Tex. You have to have the appeals process. I represented someone on death row who was eventually released.

  2. I am amused by wondering whether the advocates for Bradley Manning would be as vociferous if the subject was a sick rapist-kidnapper rather than a popular traitor

    Yes of course.we would. It wouldn’t even have been a significantly harder sell. Transsexuals rank below rapist-kidnappers in many people’s minds.
    But harder or not harder is irrelevant. Either the 8th amendment applies to everyone, or it’s meaningless.

    I can’t speak for everyone, and no doubt there are some “hangers on” who only support freedom of speech when they agree with what’s being said, and only support fashionable or popular causes, but they don’t do any activism anyway.

    A quote from someone else, one I can’t improve on:
    …a very large number of people want desperately to have someone to hate (q.v. lynching), but know that, generally, giving in to their sadistic urges is socially unacceptable. Their hunger to be cruel is at odds with their need to maintain their self-concept as virtuous.

    In our society expressing hatred towards those convicted of crimes — or, worse, merely accused of them — is socially acceptable, which presents an almost irresistible opportunity to those whose drive towards sadism has been otherwise thwarted by civilized mores. They can express all the of grandiose-superior animosity and savagery towards criminals that they want, and still hang on to their halos.

    This is reflected in how vengeful people who are utterly uninvolved and unaffected by a case can become, and how often their responses can become non sequiturs. For instance, about eight years ago, a teenager was arrested for killing her mother in Alaska, and her personal blog was discovered and promulgated via social networking within hours of the news coming out; hundreds if not thousands of comments were left on the pages of her blog including, of particular note, many messages and images threatening sexual violence. Why would someone, much less a bunch of someones, threaten an accused murderer with rape? No particular reason: they just wanted to threaten somebody (some female body) with rape, and here was a socially acceptable target. Additionally, the inundation of new aggressive content made it hard for law enforcement to use the blog for evidence; why would people who wanted to see someone prosecuted for a crime deface evidence and frustrate law enforcement? It didn’t occur to them they were doing so, because enforcement of the law and the pursuit of justice was the last thing on their minds. They didn’t actually care about the crime she was accused of committing or justice, they were delighted to have a legitimate opportunity to indulge their appetites for hate.

    This also explains the connection with crowds. The question of whether one can continue to think of oneself as virtuous after committing a contemplated act of aggression is entirely a social one: virtue is socially constructed and managed by the part of the brain which monitors others for conformity. If the others around you seem to be endorsing the proposition that an individual is a legitimate target for hate, it liberates one from the normal constraints against doing so.

    Source: comments at

    • Please note : I’m not immune to this syndrome myself.

      I am aware of it though. Most do not appear to be. For them, it may be excusable, “just human nature”. Although I myself am merely human, thus fallible, prone to error, I have an ego as big as all outdoors, so try to be better than I am. That means a degree of introspection is needed, examining my own feelings with a critical eye. For me, there is no excuse. My ethical duty as I see it is to disrupt the consensus, to ask others to engage in introspection too.

      Only after doing that should we decide on ethical and rational grounds what our attitude should be. To me, this was a person. I cannot celebrate his death. I wish he’d never been born, never committed these crimes, but my concern is more about stopping future ones, and ameliorating the damage already done.

      “Good”? Well, if it lessens the hurt of his victims, perhaps. It lessens the burden on taxpayers, money that could be better spent on saving lives. But it removes any possibility of rehabilitation, of converting a liability into an asset. So my reaction is to say “What a waste”, shrug my shoulders and move on, looking for ways of stopping repetition.

  3. I agree with all of you, although ideally would have liked to see him get the death penalty, but have to rot in jail for as many days as he kept these girls locked up. Knowing that on the last day he would get his lethal injection would certainly have given him something to think about.

  4. I only care that he be declared guilty and that he never has another opportunity to be in society again. His solution is a win-win, so hooray!

  5. Some people are beyond redemption and deserve the worst form of justice. This person was one of them. I believe the death penalty is a requirement reserved for the worst offenders when there is absolutely no doubt in conviction.

    My only problem here is that he got away from justice. Even if it was to remain in prison for eternity. He did not face society’s choice. I am glad he is dead and will never harm another person.

  6. Like so many times, I’m left with saying this about the death penalty: In this specific case, I’d have been fine with it. I still oppose it on principle, because if it exists to be used on the obvious cases it will undoubtedly be used on the less obvious cases, and any gray area or doubt whatsoever is unacceptable to me when we’re talking about the state killing in our name.

    However, for this case, I can’t say it any better than the name of a local pub trivia team- “Ariel Castro: Well Hung.”

  7. I’m not trying to start a conspiracy theory here, but did it strike anyone that Castro’s death was just a little TOO convenient? I can’t help but wonder if one of his jailors told him privately “THIS is how you do it. Now, I think I’ll take an overlong coffee break.”.

Leave a Reply to oldgraymary Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.