Seriously bad attitudes in the media -- NY serial killer

[HankQuinlan]

A story from the New York Daily News.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_..._3_new_sets_of_human_remains_found_along.html

Example of the language used by "journalists", aside from the title of the article:
"Cops were looking for her when they discovered the remains of four women between Gilgo Beach and Oak Beach - <b>all hookers</b> who advertised online."

Example of a comment by a reader, who seems to be sympathetic to the victims:
"Serial killers often focus on prostitutes because they are easier to lure into a secluded area where the crime can take place. Ted Bundy was an exception - he often preyed on civilians because he was a young, good-looking man with more social skills. This perp probably lives on Long Island himself. I hope they get him soon. <b>Even commercial sex workers should be protected from this type of sick criminal.</b>" Maybe the slight is unintentional, but shows an underlying attitude.

Far worse comment:
"To be devil's advocate, WHY do you all think death is so horrible? You really think these women liked having sex with creepy guys so they afford to buy more crack to kill the pain of living in this evil world?" Yep, better that they are slaughtered by a serial killer, I guess.

 

[Miss*Bijou]

I agree it's pretty sad to see supposedly educated people writing this kind of junk. Not sure if you heard about the victim blaming New York Times article written not long ago? The 11 yr old who was gang raped? Yep, they actually stooped that low - which is why your example doesn't surprise me much, though it does sadden me to see.


If you didn't hear about it - it was just a few weeks ago:

11-Year-Old Girl Horrifically Gang-Raped; New York Times Article Blames the Victim


[Trigger warning for sexual violence, victim-blaming, and rape apologia.]

There is an awful story in the New York Times today: Vicious Assault Shakes Texas Town. It's about the arrest of 18 boys and men, ranging in age "from middle schoolers to a 27-year-old," for the gang-rape of an 11-year-old girl.

As horrible as this story is, the article serves as a great example of exactly what we mean by "rape culture."

1) By paragraph #4, we have been told the ages of the men and several have been personalized: "Five suspects are students at Cleveland High School, including two members of the basketball team. Another is the 21-year-old son of a school board member." Etc. All we know about the 11-year-old is her age and gender.

2) In paragraph #4, we read the following question: "f the allegations are proved, how could [the community's] young men have been drawn into such an act?". Which suggests, of course, that it really isn't their fault they raped a child; they were just "drawn into it." Indeed, according to one of the people quoted, "These boys have to live with this the rest of their lives."

3) The actual word "rape" is avoided whenever possible. The reader is told that the girl had been forced to have sex, she was "sexually assaulted," and she was threatened with violence if she "did not comply."

4) Now ask yourself the reason for the following paragraph to have been included:

Residents in the neighborhood where the abandoned trailer stands — known as the Quarters — said the victim had been visiting various friends there for months. They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said."

Nowhere in this story is the following made clear:

— That an 11-year-old child cannot consent to sex. Even if she had not been "told she would be beaten if she did not comply," this would have been rape.

— That the victim also has to "live with this for the rest of her life." The boys chose to do the things they will have to live with. She did not.

— That the men involved were not "drawn into this," but made the conscious choice to rape a child.

— That our compassion and care should be directed first and foremost toward the victim rather than the boys, the school, the community, or anyone else.

— That just as we should not stand in judgment of the victim we should not venture to judge her mother. ("'Where was her mother? What was her mother thinking?' said Ms. Harrison, one of a handful of neighbors who would speak on the record.") For all we know, the woman had been frantically trying to get someone, anyone, to listen to her concerns about her daughter. Even if she hadn't been, parental neglect does not give other people a license to rape unsupervised children.

My impression when I finished reading the article was that the reader was being admonished to feel compassion and pain for the town and the boys. The victim had disappeared from article just as she had fled the town.

As so it goes—today in rape culture.


http://www.alternet.org/newsandview...ed;_new_york_times_article_blames_the_victim/

 

[uncleg]

The problem is that we don't/can't put them away long enough. What we need is Judges that will impose the maximum sentence and Jails to put them into.

In Ten years, Kruse Wellwood, 17, and Cameron Moffat, 18, will be out of jail. Neither will be safe for society. Both will do something horrific and go back to jail. Since neither will be 30 yet when they do those crimes, they will be back out when they are not yet 40. So, we can expect that they will again do something horrific and go back to jail.

Both are sexual sadists, one has a father who is himself a rapist that re-offends every 10 years or so.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/04/06/bc-proctor-murder-evidence.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/04/04/bc-proctor-sentencing.html

After a few years in the administration of justice, everyone gets a little cynical about these things. The Judge that heard the Proctor case heard exactly what these two had done, he heard tapes of their conversations where they discuss how they feel, he saw all the pictures that were presented to the court. The Judge could have sentenced 25 years with no possibility of parole which would have made Kruse 42 when he re-offended again and Cameron 43 when he re-offended again. The Judge choose to give 10 years instead. The extra two sets of victims is on him. Both of these people will re-offend. If society allows us to "monitor" them on release, there will only be one or two victims. If we are not allowed to "monitor" them on release, both of these people has the capacity to make Pickton look like an amateur.

Was it really a choice by the Judge ? I note the article you linked to makes it clear the two were convicted as Young Offenders but sentenced as adults. The 10 year parole issue is as a result of having to allow for the Young Offender status. Having said that, being eligible for parole does not mean they will make parole. There is nothing to prevent them being denied parole right through to the full 25 years, if they live that long.

 

[Miss*Bijou]

In Canada, nobody serves more than the sentenced time. 10 years without possibility of parole means out in less than 10 years with the remand time credit and the "good" time credit. 25 years without possibility of parole means out in less than 25 years with the remand time credit and the "good" time credit. Life normally means 20 - 25 years unless we can prove, like with Bernardo, Olsen, Pickton and Williams, that they are a threat to society. You have to kill a lot of people, and we have to be able to prove it, before you serve a full life sentence if you are white.

wow That is disgusting then. Those two are monsters and their crimes clearly should have resulted in a lot more than 10 years.

 

[papillion]

10 years

The problem is that we don't/can't put them away long enough. What we need is Judges that will impose the maximum sentence and Jails to put them into.

In Ten years, Kruse Wellwood, 17, and Cameron Moffat, 18, will be out of jail. Neither will be safe for society. Both will do something horrific and go back to jail. Since neither will be 30 yet when they do those crimes, they will be back out when they are not yet 40. So, we can expect that they will again do something horrific and go back to jail.



Both are sexual sadists, one has a father who is himself a rapist that re-offends every 10 years or so.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/04/06/bc-proctor-murder-evidence.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/04/04/bc-proctor-sentencing.html

After a few years in the administration of justice, everyone gets a little cynical about these things. The Judge that heard the Proctor case heard exactly what these two had done, he heard tapes of their conversations where they discuss how they feel, he saw all the pictures that were presented to the court. The Judge could have sentenced 25 years with no possibility of parole which would have made Kruse 42 when he re-offended again and Cameron 43 when he re-offended again. The Judge choose to give 10 years instead. The extra two sets of victims is on him. Both of these people will re-offend. If society allows us to "monitor" them on release, there will only be one or two victims. If we are not allowed to "monitor" them on release, both of these people has the capacity to make Pickton look like an amateur.

IN 10 YEARS THESE 2 WILL BE ELIGLE FOR PAROLE, NOT OUT OF JAIL
Olsen was eligle for parole but denied because he is a dangerous offender, same with Bernardo, etc; I can anticipate these 2 will have the same fate