the Jodi Arias trial

Would like to pose this question about the ongoing trial of Jodi Arias, a woman accused of murdering her boyfriend.

Is this trial a very paradimn example of the phenomenon of trying to be famous at any cost? Is this horrific effort to get into the media by not caring to differentiate between famous and the infamous, a sign of the emptiness of the times, where people are willing to became even caricatures of themselves, so to attract attention?

 A previous case, an MS. Anthony, who drowned her baby, and was judged not guilty to the charge of murder in the first degree, and gained a likewise notoriety, may have become a model to subsequent cases?  Is it plausible to see this as a copycat crime of involvement in a media circus, the viewers of whom sought to fill their own lives with a reality show type of excitement?

This type of entertainment may be compared to the waning days of the Roman Empire where events in the Coliseum became early attempts at entertainment of the macabre?

May the US be signaling the same kind of phenomenon?

I don’t think Jodi Arias was originally looking for fame through any of this. Her fame/infamy is mostly the media affect and the fact that people are drawn to the case out of curiosity. Arias originally tried to distance herself from the situation and lied about having anything to do with it. Yet the live streaming of the trial is a real life soap opera. Whether or not the judge, lawyers, defendant, witnesses and jury are consciously aware of it, the trial is not only a judicial process but a show and a performance. I watched an hour or so of Day 24 and there was often a fire in Arias’s eyes when answering the prosecution’s questions. She seemed quite confident and comfortable on the stand, like she relished the back and forth with the prosecutor, trying to highlight his every assumption and make it difficult for him to get a good flow of questioning going. She basically forced him to rephrase and qualify every little question he asked which bogged down his argument and obscured his points. At the same time, Arias looks like no angel. There is nothing innocent about her. It was fascinating really. Interesting association with the coliseum and the fall of Rome. This trial, its coverage, and peoples’ hunger for more of it definitely smacks of decadence.

Does allowing cameras in the courtroom blur the line between law and reality TV? I disagree Fuse with Your assessment of Jodi Arias. The diagnosis between the prosecution witness shrink and the defense witness shrink conflict.

The defense says she is really a battered woman and killed defensively . The prosecution says, no, she has borderline personality disorder with narcissistic, antisocial co morbidity.

So where does truth rely? Is a jury, supposed to diagnose definitely and thus assign the level of guilt?

The narcissism is suspect. Jody may very well have set this up, so as to attain fame.

A number of things she has said indicate this possibility. For starters, she claimed to have an IQ as high as Einstein. Then she started a website where she tweeted that she will be selling signed copies of her manifesto, with wordage stating , “if I will be famous”. Finally, she is already selling her artwork and photography on ebay.

A lifeline movie is already in the works with major stars already picked out to play her and her lover.

I think it is very well conceivable, that a narcissistic personality such as she is, is willing even to die for fame.

Can this scenario be extended, to the idea that our society, devolved to the level, where, people will buy in. To this kind of decadent pseudo reality, even at the cost of denying that this whole circus is just another example of the freedom of expression? Or has our rights as human beings have, on account of policy, have permitted the introjection identification to figure as a visual distortion of an aberration as entertainment?

What’s next, hunger games as justified by a need to fill up the vacuum left by a de constructed entropy?

I feel desperate times are of want of desperate measures, any back pedaling would cause dramatic, unintended consequences.

She is looking for fans and fame now, I agree. But I doubt she planned the murder from the beginning for fame. She didn’t want to be caught at all. The trial put her on a public stage however, and she probably figures that she can at least attract fans to help her cause.

I think thats a bit sensationalist.

Also innacurate, The Colosseum was Dedicated in AD 80.

The Empire met many of it’s most serious problems in the 3rd century and managed to even survive that. Though I suppose you could be referring to somethign else but you’d have to be more specific.

I’d say the amount of Mindless Superficial Filth in the Entertainment industry is of more concern

Reality T.V.,Mainstream pop music, Terrible Films lacking any Artistic or Cultural substance are more of a Problem.
Bread and Circuses to the lowest common denominator.

An indication of Cultural and intellectual Decay.

Personally I Don’t think the allure of Violence in itself is the problem but when people fail to see the seperation between Rightous and Criminal Violence.

Though of Course there’s another mindset in Modern society that trys to claim they are on in the same, I strongly disagree.

I think she’s innocent.

What’s your take?

I do too. She should have been defended by reason of insanity. It has been admitted as such as she has a borderline condition, and this was overlooked because she had told her defense team, that she was innocence. However her claim of innocence turned out to be a lie. However the lie is embedded in the symptomology of her illness.

There are legal definitions of insanity which her situation may not rise to. So it’s not her defense theme’s fault that they did not know this.

So I agree,she is innocent by reason of insanity, and it is her defense’s fault.

However borderline’s are hard to figure, and the insanity claim may be just as ambiguous. Hell if she will hell if she doesn’t. Catch 22.

  They are not the same, but there are similarities that are noteworthy.  When decay sets in an empire, it's hard to say.  Nothing noteworthy happened in AD 80, because the downturn was systemic.  It was a time when slaves did most of the work and patriarchy and citizens had a lot of time on their hands.  Entertainment became a form of escapism, and some of it wasn't up to the quality of the dramatists and as is nowadays, most people enjoyed the literally of a good gruesome gladiator fight, then the exposition of refined dramatic personae.  In this respect, they were similar to the trash entertainment,.

There are people, well educated with intelligence, who allow themselves the hyperbole of junk entertainment, under the guise of a good laugh.

And can they be blamed? After all so called “purists” have been laughed out of society as either not having their wits about them, or worse, being hopelessly odd, and idiosyncratic clowns.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=182361

I missed this thread. So another thread is unnecessary, requesting merger or delete mine!

 Yes, merge this with yours, by all means but how would you go about it? I guess request a mod.  I see Your point.

Jodi is playing a game, so she can get off on manslaughter, admittedly very highly intelligent, to bask in the narcissistic fame she always craved for.

 Men for her are playthings which she uses to enhance herself and her basic motivation is a self adoration at large.  

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind at this point, that she wants to profit here big time via planned for shows, interview, books and films already in production.

 She has already managed to find a lesbian lover, with whom she plans to move to Europe with, adopt a baby, and live happily ever after.

I don’t have any background on this case, but the verdict is Guilty, Murder One, to be given as a plaything to a large, tattooed, STD infested Dyke as a roommate in prison.

She’s going to be very popular with the butches, being passed around in the cafeteria by her roommate for cigs.

That’s best case scenario, she’s still eligible for the death penalty. I’m near universally opposed to it, at the very least, its better to keep such people alive to nitpick and explore their psychology and begin the process to understanding and curing them.

She’s got a brilliant attorney I’m sure. She’s the younger, whiter, more vagina’d OJ Simpson. Let’s see how this one turns out.

Alright, just read the previous posts here, as well as background on this case.

  1. Female Gladiators were a early phenomena, and was very much banned during the era your thinking of. It’s something to consider.

  2. Roman Empire lasted to 15th Century in the east, 5th century in the West. The gladiatorial games ended long before then.

  3. What lead to the west’s collapse was a thread of several factors, but the only certain one was a rapid disintegration of the West’s Tactical Relevance in the face of equally skilled and armored barbarians. As Rome became more dependent on mercenaries bonded via what we would now call Feudal Vassalage, maintaining the old imperial networks of roads (built by soldiers literally baking and maintaining the roads, which cost money), and maintaining lines of communications between the provinces so the more skilled, elite field armies deep in the centralized rear became ridiculously unfeasibly in the face of aristocratic pagan revolts in the provinces, fracturing the Roman West into multiple enclaves. The barbarians loyal to the empire moved in, taking these enclaves for themselves, sometimes in the name of Rome and the Emperor, other times without even that pretense.

The roots of this problem began prior to the Christian Era, before the Empire even, just before the civil war between Marius and Sulla. Land reform and colonization, and adoption of a new unifying religion for his professional, payed troops who worshipped the Ptolamiac Isis over the state Gods of the Romans that the middle class draftees worshipped.

The cult of Isis, and it’s sizeable followers were ruthlessly suppressed. The wars ended badly for everyone, ending in a official ironic victory for the Marian’s via Caesar, who rejected/accepted Sulla’s ideology in parts. One side effect, the Roman people never really colonized the countryside in mass like America, it was mostly land grants to the wealthy, who did whatever they felt like. Loyalty was built up from economic and military entanglement, not population influx, which greatly resembles the Seleucid Empire.

In the eastern empire, the Romans had considerably better horse stock, and mimicked the Persian method of using heavily armored horsemen. In the west, they had plenty of barbarians to use as infantry, and a much smaller selection of horses to breed and armor. Heavy lancing, when introduced by the barbarians, was quickly adopted by both Romed, as well as a deeper exploration of the unorthodox techniques of the strategemata, ethnopsychological of barbarian groups, and increased diplomacy, and advanced fortifications (poliorcretics)

Outside the Pagan Revolt, which definitely did Rome in, that’s the tipping point that drove it downhill, it was the weak dynasty in Rome, unlike in the east. The western dynasty KILLED it’s best strategists out of fear of their influence over the people. This was a very bad move, as they were not able to make competent moves to counter the disintegration.

In the end, it was done it for late republican era reasons. It didn’t maintain it’s population growth consistent with a need for roman colonization, preferring on:

Monopoly of Wealth by the aristocrats at the expense of the landless and disaffected plebeian class.

Inferior aristocratic pagan culture unable to keep sway over the plebeian, slave, and merchant class (Isis was their patron god)

Allowing the barbarians to evolve more evolved tactics and weaponry, and failing to redesign the military needs of the border and empire quickly enough to match the migrations.

Becoming dependent upon foreigners for internal security, without greater overwhelming force to check and counter it if need be.

A disaffected nobility that felt self sufficient, rebelling against a centralized yet perceived weak central government they felt assured they could exist without. The very fact it was a religious feud on the surface underlines the economic and administrative friction the dispersed aristocrats felt towards the better educated ecclesiastical clerks/clerics who gained a upper hand administratively under this dynasty.

A weak, paranoid, broken imperial dynasty that killed off it’s best strategists for the very credible reasons of their plotting and conspiring against them.

At root, the western empire collapsed because decadent Nietzscheans ran the show. They had concepts of ‘power’ and ‘culture’ and ‘tradition’ under the guidance of a largely indifferent and self centered aristocracy. They died worshipping the Sun, and the barbarians, who were heretical Christians, rightfully snuffed them out. What was strong in the western empire survived… the religious Christian Administration.

In the Eastern Empire, they SOLVED these issues. Their games evolved into Chariot games, who’s factions in the games were based on the factions in ancient republican Rome.

It was during a near successful Nike revolt against the Emperor, Justinian, that his generals fought off the crowds, secured the imperial dynasty. His generals Belisarius and Narsus would sail to Libya and Italy, even Gibraltar, in a campaign to restore the Roman Empire. Rome itself was retaken from the barbarians, though by that point the had already devolved into a unrecognizable rabble to the Romans ‘liberating’ them.

Effectively, the Roman Empire was lost. Control of the city passed in time to the barbarians then the Vatican. The east empire held southern Italy for centuries more. The Hagia Sophia was built- the most impressive Roman Architecture ever built, the church and state united, the dark age economics still sorta muddled on in the east, though far decreased over the height of a unified Rome, as isolated manor feudalism set in the west. The civil law tradition in modern Europe, the Justinian Code, was compiled by legalists in the holy land. Armies continued to modernize.

It’s a misconception the games brought down the empire in the west. The Christianized Romans certainly had a distaste for the fights to the death or martyring people in the arena, but enjoyed races and plays as we did in the 19th century. They were ALWAYS highly uneducated, it wasnt like they were being turned away from their studies… The concept of libraries as we know them today didn’t exist outside of Alexandria, Perganum, and some monasteries like St. Catherine in Egypt. Most of the books lost were lost between Caesar burning the warehouse to the library of Alexandria, and the Christians being granted control over the last library outpost. Works like Plutarch were already decayed, missing huge sections long before this takeover. The Roman aristocrats who collected books didn’t maintain them, nor allow very many scholars to look at them (or else, there just wasnt that many scholars). The Muslim sack of the library destroyed all the works there over a six month period of time, despite the pleas of the Christian population not to, making official protest to the caliphate, which was rejected.

However, that shouldn’t if lead to a mass list if works… there should of been backup libraries all over the western world, especially for hinterland nobles eager to show off their wealth and learning. Given how little survives from anywhere, and the classical authors laminations decrying works being listed by lost shows they were never a especially academic people. We gain this misconception because we ourselves primarily know them through the works of the few who bothered to write and got lucky enough to be preserved by history.

The games in and if themselves were a tool of controlling the ignorant masses. These people were not rocket scientist, proud to be authentically Roman, always a threat to the throne… best satisfied by a distant, well stocked coliseum. Only reason the Nike revolt came close to taking down the eastern emperor Justinian was a architectural design flaw- the royal palace was built into the side of the stadium!

It’s a prejudice of Protestant Christianity reacting against Roman Catholicism that it was sex orgies and endless games that brought the west down. What brought it down in the end was probably Narses, Justinians other and last surviving general in Italy, who hunkered down for decades ignoring the eastern empire in the old western capital Ravanna, was a eunuch unable to establish his own dynasty, thereby revitalizing the western empire.

We also have a thin layer of discontent from Marxist, who have little influence today, as well as by Nietzschean and Neo-pagan groups using fucked up and completely unhistorical theories. As it stands, just about every assumption Nietzscheans hold dear backfire in a analysis of Rome, and even Nietzsche’s attraction to established, traditional paganism is at odds with his Isis-Dionysian worship, via the concepts of ‘health’ and eternal return… compare this to the effort the republican Romans and early Empire put into trying to stamp them out, and how easy they made it for a more stable, evolved, and psychologically aligned spiritual religion like Christianity to intergrate itself into the republican era cult structure. The Neo-pagans have it even embarrassingly worst- they claimed paganism despite it turning weak under it, while Christianity saved the half it took quicker root in for 900 years longer. Also, it was a pagan revolt that took down the west, without any doubts- that what caused the last legions to overstretch.

The orgies, lack or learning and sports were not very healthy aspects of the Romans, nor were they the cause of collapse. It’s a inherited prejudice. Rome was built by ignorant men, a class of highly educated men did exist, they were known as slaves. Female gladiators died off early on, despite popularity. Romans couldn’t tolerate seeing female soldiers dueling it out in the end when there were perfectly good whore houses near by to put them to good use.

Jodi Arias has nothing to do with Rome or the collapse of civilization. She is a nutjob, and the kind of people who follow this shit are nobodies following primate instinct if seeing pretty girls as more powerful socially and legally untouchable in a male dominated criminal legal system. Women hate her for both the right and wrong reasons, and men get squirmish looking at her sweet face and hearing her crime for the right reasons. It’s a natural primate phenomena, the alpha female is falling. Civilization will not fall with her.

However, these commentaries in this thread, on unfounded speculation mimicking the French method of whipping out random bullshit and Pseudo-psychology might just do the trick. Took down several French governments and gave spawn to silliness like Prussia, Lenin, and the Khmer Rouge as a reaction to this tradition/ sort of methodology.

Furthermore, the assumption that a population interested in the murder trial in a common law nation that uses the jury is unfounded. It’s good for everyone to know this, as it strengthens the integrity of our system. It’s when it’s intellectuals, like on this forum, who suddenly decide the masses are too taken and into the sensationalism if the court system, having the right of trial by jury revoke, that nations begin to actually decline into blood feuds and sectarian violence. Cases in point, India and Mexico, who both did exactly this, India most famously for a similar trial. Trust in law is utterly lost in many parts of the country, with long standing open rebellions, when caught, they now face just a judge and not a jury of peers.

Looks like she was convicted. They shouldn’t execute her. They should leave her to rot for like like the inmate who stabbed my cousin the prison guard 17 times. It’s nice to know that someone you hate is sitting in a box with nothing to do just suffering away. It feels good.

Prison reminds me of purgatory, like waiting in limbo before judgment and being sent to death, Heaven, Hell, or back to life.