Lawks!
Witch trials never go out of style, mark my words. What am I thinking of now? Just another little controversy, that might be brough up for discussion, namely how To Catch a Predator. This is an American show, in which television helps the Law to catch sexual predators. Now, that's all fine and dandy since they're sexual predators, which are dangerous people -
hold your horses, TV people can become the law, now?
There's an old Very Wise saying about such a system: In America, you watch television. In Soviet Russia, television watch you!
So now television watch us. Or at least, people who are suspected sexual predators. They don't have any actual authority, but who cares? If you get arrested, your identity is protected (more or less) and you're placed in a prison cell for a few years. It's probably going to ruin your life, to a great extent. If you get revealed as a sexual predator on live television, though - wow. If that's not a great motive for suicide, I don't know what is. In light of how difficult it is for some of us to sympathise with Mr. Flinga, these people must be ostracized for life.
So what? They're bad people, right?
Disregarding the risk of innocents being caught - which is probably possible, if not likely - you're still overstepping the boundaries of what you legally can and cannot do. Exposing a person's crimes publically and then so utterly ruining their lives might be seen as "just", in light of what crimes they've not yet committed (mind you, all they have actually done is shown the intent of having sex with a minor), but it's still something that the Law should handle, not the media.
You have a right to a fair trial, sure. You do not have the right to escape forever becoming branded as a sexual predator, which - second to terrorists, of course - are the worst people on earth and deserve to be killed in nasty ways.
Witch trials, indeed. Lawks.
8 kommentarer:
Nor to have his eyes gouged out, or his elbows broken, to have his knee caps split, and his body burned away, and his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave sir Robin!
No, seriously. By studying law, you realize that media sometimes are kinda stupid. Needed, indeed, but take the fair example of the guy who not murdered Anna Lindh, we all remember him for that, and he was exposed all over swedish media for a crime he didn't commit. A punishment as bad as whatever prison.
Are we so good and righteous compared to the states?
They are branded as sexual predators because what they are doing is a crime.
"all they have actually done is shown the intent of having sex with a minor"
That, and attempting to get a minor to having sex, whether it is willingly or not, is a crime. It's not as severe as actually having sex, which in many states is considered statutory rape (since an underage person can not be legally considered to give consent) but it's still a crime, and they're all guilty. The whole point of that show is that they have chatlogs showing what they've said (and those chatlogs are indeed incriminating) and the fact that they show up.
Besides, disregarding the point about revealing rapists to the public, I personally cannot sympathize with child molesters of any kind, and if their lives are ruined, well, "Tough luck. You had your chance, thank you for playing, say hello to
Bubba for me."
Besides, the US already have Megan's Law, so since what they are doing is a crime, and they will be made public for it anyway, I hardly see a problem with it.
My point is not what crime exactly they have done, my point is that crime should be handled discretely by the law. If a person should indeed be found innocent, there's nothing to be done about his ruined reputation merely for appearing on the show.
What I find troubling about these shows, is how much power it puts in the hands of television. It may be that it's a just punishment for what they have done, but if so, that should be decided by the law - and let me put it like this: Would you be comfortable with a legal system in which perpetrators are virtually blood hunted?
Blood hunted?
As I said, they have Megans Law, a law that, since the early 1990's, have stated that all states must make public the names, addresses, photographs, and crime details of all convicted sex offenders living in that state. I can't say this for certain, because honestly, I can't be bothered to look it up, but I hardly think they've been Blood Hunted. If it was that much of a problem, the law would probably have been looked over by now. Besides, as The Chinese One says, we have similar laws in Sweden, and I hardly see people Blood Hunted through the streets.
My way it's about integrity. Sure, everybody could know your name, and easily look up your adress, after you've finished your trials. The key word is in after. I really dislike the feeling of being logged, chopped and stomped on before I even have a fair chance to defend myself.
To rape someone is as unacceptable as to accuse someone innocent for raping. The mental scars must be.. hueg.
Yes, I agree with you on that, as long as it's "just" rape.
When minors are involved, it is, in my mind, different.
I've got to go to school now, so this will be short.
More later, I guess.
I agree on the whole "after" the trial. What happens if the media condemn someone is that they basically give people an "OK" to harass that person, on account of their crimes. That might be just, sure, but it should be determined in a fair trial and not by the media.
I must say that I agree with Rik here. Especially since this might only be the first step. I know that that's a bit of a cliché but seriously. I might be able to live with it as long as it is about people raping children, but I doubt that that will be the end of it. And really I don't want to be the one that decides where the line should be drawn on who deserves public humiliation. And I especially don't want the media to be the ones who decide either.
Skicka en kommentar