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