In 2008, Jodi Ann Arias put together an elaborate plan to corner her victim Travis Alexander and brutally stab him to death. After 29 consecutive stab wounds, a slit to his neck nearly decapitating him, and a gunshot wound to the head, she watched him suffer and take his last breath. She left him in the shower to rot, until he was ultimately found five days later in his Mesa, Arizona home. Due to the heinous nature of the crime, and the fact that she was an “attractive” female, the case garnered enormous media attention. After a lengthy trial, she was found guilty of first degree murder. Currently, Jodi awaits her fate in the penalty phase as the Prosecutor Juan Martinez seeks the death penalty.
As a convicted murderer, Jodi Arias has developed a large body of loyal followers via her Twitter page, which is run by a “friend”/previous fellow inmate. She currently sells artwork on her website by using Twitter to advertise. She also uses Twitter as a platform to: promote sales of her wristbands, taunt the victim’s family, solicit donations, poke fun at Prosecutor Juan Martinez, belittle her own attorney Kirk Nurmi, and flaunt her media coverage. Should any of this be allowed to happen?
The Son of Sam Law, applicable in Arizona, prevents criminals from profiting from their crimes. Although her artwork is not directly related to her crime, her Twitter account brings her enough fame to enable a healthy volume and a continuous flow of business. Should her horrendous murder be an outlet for her fame? Is fame a legitimate form of profit? Would any of us ever know Jodi Arias if not for the gruesome death of Travis Alexander? Should Jodi Arias have a voice to the outside world, after she extinguished Travis’ so horribly forever? Her latest tweet says she’s going “Radio Silent.” Considering that jury selection begins soon, her sudden choice to “sign off” seems obvious. Should such use of Social Media by a convicted murderer ever be allowed?