Just in time for HLN and minions Nancy Grace, Jane Velez-Mitchell, and Dr. Drew, et al, Jodi Arias will be representing herself in the sentencing phase of her murder trial in Arizona.
The drooling, Pavlovian reaction to anything Jodi Arias-related on HLN is thoroughly predictable as they have been waiting for months to sink their teeth into her again. They are out for blood and nothing less than the death penalty will satisfy them. Watch them if you question this. It is really hard to believe their craven and overt desire for her execution.
Remember, the sentencing phase is deciding life in prison versus the death penalty. So she is already down for the count. During the trial of the facts, Arias was on the witness stand in her own defense, a move she did not have to make, and she was pounded relentlessly by the prosecution. If this had been a football game the score would have been Arizona 500 – Arias 0. She is thoroughly beaten in the case, with her options being life in prison or death, yet they relentlessly pile-on and continue to kick her, still not satisfied with the outcome or pace of the decision. And this will virtually never end because appeals loom large and are de rigueur in death penalty cases.
At the end of the day, however, one has to ponder some larger questions. Why do HLN, and their attack dogs Nancy Grace, JVM, et al, go so all-out, hog-wild on the attack against individual defendants in criminal cases, anyway? These attacks become an every day drooling and fang-dripping quest for blood. Why don’ t they just let the criminal justice system wind its way through the case? Why do they have an agenda against certain individual defendants? Why do they seem to act as if they believe they have been appointed as some special TV public prosecutor? Why are they only satisfied if there is a certain result, such as the death penalty, rendered? Why don’t they let the court system, judge and jury decide without media interference and just report the result?
They act as though they have a stake in the outcome of the trial. That somehow they need to be satisfied. Nancy Grace was just screaming about how ALL tax dollars are being spent on the Jodi Arias defense and she doesn’t want to pay for that. ALL tax dollars? Does she pay taxes in Arizona? Or is she just by proxy the self-appointed public gadfly for Arizona taxpayers? If so, does she represent those Arizona citizens concerned with defendants getting a fair trial? Remember, in a death penalty case the standards are, and should be, higher. Jane Velez-Mitchell has been actively hawking her book on the whole sordid affair on these various programs. On the Dr. Drew show, he and guests take absolute glee in discussing whether she should get the death penalty, laughing, joking and yelling their way through knee-jerk and biased analysis that could satisfy only the most insipid and uneducated viewer. One of Dr. Drew’s guests called the original jurors in the Arias case “stupid” because they could not reach a sentencing decision. The same jurors who took an inordinate amount of time out of their lives performing an involuntary, public-service duty. That is all just from watching this drivel last night. Every night is something new and objectionable.
They seem to have been just chopping at the bit to get at the Arias case again. Apparently they were left unsatisfied by the acquittal of Nancy Grace’s so-called “Tot Mom.” They did not get their blood-lust filled there. Nor with the case in Georgia even though Nancy Grace show headlines scream “… Tot Bakes Dead …” Instead, instant gratification is in order. Someone must pay and pay now. The Jodi Arias sentencing is new meat thrown into the cage and is just what the doctor ordered. One can only wonder what would happen if they were left completely unchecked and to their own devices which is practically the case now? Would we see Prime Time Special Breaking News Bombshell: The Jodi Arias Execution Hosted by Nancy Grace and sponsored by …
Thus, the even greater question is at large. Is this some kind of corporate policy endorsed by HLN, CNN and Time Warner? Is it endorsed by their corporate commercial sponsors? Do they endorse these extra-judicial attempted lynchings of individual defendants instead of letting the court system take its course and decide? These defendants are really a hapless bunch. They are down for the count, charged with as serious crimes as they could be, financially destroyed and family destroyed. It is literally them almost totally alone with seemingly the entire world against them and hounding and baying for blood. And its all on TV. Remember, in the Arias case, it is already The State of Arizona v. Jodi Arias. Why not just back off with all the rabble-rousing against them and let the court system handle it without this peculiar brand of news coverage. Back in the old Jim Crow days this type of thing would be called a lynching, but Jodi Arias is white, blonde and attractive, without a larger constituency, and they cannot stand to let the court decide the matter. Is this sport or entertainment for them? If so, then the day serious criminal court cases became sport or entertainment fodder for the likes of HLN is also the day a dangerous rubicon was crossed. Allowing television cameras in the courtroom as shining the light on a previously closed area in the name of public disclosure, education and information, is only as good as the purveyors of television. If all or most coverage is hopelessly biased and conveys misinformation, the purpose is defeated and a sickness is nurtured and spread.
One last question then. Is this all for ratings? Bombshell: Nancy Grace cannot mention the Arias case without also sensationalizing “wild sex” and the victim’s “throat cut ear to ear” while at the same time professing all sorts of care and concern for the victim’s family. Everyone knows the answer. Exploiting peoples tragedies in the name of ratings while corporate sponsors sanction the same with their almighty advertising dollars is shameful. Shame on you all. Go pick on someone your own size and use your three plus hours of prime television time for a cause that is more worthy. Jane Velez-Mitchell is on the right track when she reports on environmental and animal issues. Dr. Drew is helpful on mental health and addiciton issues. Those are causes worth reporting. However, I will not be holding my breath. And, yes, they probably wish I would. It might get some sick ratings.