LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+43 43 0
Published 3 years ago with 12 Comments

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • Kysol (edited 3 years ago)
    +5

    That would in a sense give them what they want, exposure on a grand scale. Have the trial private, not even news is allowed to report. Executions (if applicable) are done in secret in the most boring way possible. A year after that, have everything released in book form with no pictures. All profits from book sales go to a charity or some cause to stop what happened (and any books written on that subject fall under the same ruling as people shouldn't profit from these people).

    It might not work, or be a "success", but a few things will happen:

    - The killer will never get the exposure they want, that is unless they want a book written about them.

    - It will force people to read (by placing a media ban over what is contained in the books under a copyright style enforcement).

    - Some good will come out of it by helping others through the sales.

    I dunno, just my 2c.

    • Konijn
      +5

      I agree that trials should not be televised, but I disagree with your reasons:

      - The news is representative of the people and have as much of a right as any citizen to attend.

      - Executions come years later after the trial and appeal trials, so your book idea may not be favorable to interested parties. There are true crime books written today that still have pending appeal trials or pending executions. Also court transcripts are available to the public and contains every spoken word at a trial. Some transcripts are even available online.

      - Transcript fees go to the court; any true crime book purchase goes to the publisher.

      Maybe I'm just a murder-freak (I do study Criminology after all), but I think that exposure is good for a society. For one, it informs them of issues in the community and can possibly influence new policies to prevent a repeat or inspire new modes of security. The people ought to have the right to know!

    • ObiWanShinobi
      +4

      I agree. There is an honest-to-god fetishization of murderers and serial killers on some of the weirder parts of the internet. And how often do we hear of copycat killers?

      • Tawsix (edited 3 years ago)
        +4

        That fetishization is endemic in the general population. The media wets itself over mass shootings and such, it's such an easy way for someone who feels invisible to get some air-time. There are also the politicians who can't wait to pimp the tragedy to further their own agendas as well. The whole thing is just disgusting, really.

    • i208khonsu
      +2

      Additionally publicizing the identity of an innocent before they are convicted is rather irresponsible. We need less coverage of the accused, not more.

  • Konijn
    +4

    No, because it wouldn't sell. Live trials tend to be mundane and even the popular Judge Judy type shows are only entertaining because they are short and snarky. Even if it was edited so that it would be episodic, it still wouldn't be that great.

    • picklefingers
      +3

      Yup. Trials are long and boring. The only reason we have an exciting picture of them are fictional television shows, movies, and video games. There's a reason people go "Oh, come on, jury duty." instead of "Fuck ya, jury duty."

      • Konijn
        +3

        That is exactly it. Nowadays I can hardly stand the portrayal of fictional trial proceedings, because a part of me always says "wait you can't do that!"

    • Kysol
      +2

      I have to admit, when you said episodic, the first thing that came to mind was that it would actually be better quality TV than the current reality tv crap that's showing now.

  • kolekelley2
    +3

    Giving them their name is what is making them popular, so why should we even broadcast it?

  • i208khonsu
    +3

    Nope, we shouldn't even publicize the name of the accused. Most "famous" killers do it in part to be famous, this is giving them what they want. Further; publicizing the name of an innocent as a killer before they are convicted is irresponsible.

  • alapseofsanity
    +3

    One point no one has mentioned yet is that publicizing trails is a great way to inspire mob justice. We already have enough of an issue with mob justice as it is on a social level, we don't really need to bring it back on a legal one.

Here are some other snaps you may like...