Does the Death Sentence Truly Help the Survivor? by Blogger Ashley from Bradley University

Ariel Castro, the monster from Ohio who kidnapped and held three young women for 10 years, agreed to a plea deal the other day. He accepted a deal where if he plead guilty, he would serve life in prison with no chance of parole nor the death penalty. Considering the years of abuse and pretty much torture that these young women suffered, many people wish the death sentence was still on the table for him. This man has nearly 1,000 charges against him, including the possibility that he terminated the pregnancy of one of the young women (which would be counted as aggravated murder), so the death penalty seems acceptable in his case, but would that actually help the survivors of his abuse?


My mother and I were having this discussion, and we found ourselves at opposite ends of the spectrum of views on the death penalty. My mother believes that Castro should be sentenced to death for his actions, as he legally qualifies for the death penalty, and never be allowed to hurt anyone ever again. I, on the other hand, felt that killing him would not really solve anything- it’s an easy way out for him. He made these women suffer for so long, so he should be imprisoned just as he imprisoned them. But my mother does bring up a good point- why should taxpayers have their tax dollars go towards feeding and housing such a horrible criminal for the rest of his life? It’s not fair to us to have our money support a person we would not allow to step foot on our property. But this is the issue with the prison system as a whole and not simply in cases of rapists and murderers.


So should this rapist and kidnapper, and others like him, be given the death sentence (if it were still available to him)? Or should he “rot” in prison for the rest of his life?