I recently read an article that made me think of my rhetoric studies. Apparently Howard Stapleton invented a device that emits a high frequency noise that is supposed to be inaudible to most people over 25. The purpose of this device is to repel teenagers and young people from being "unruly" in areas where they are not welcome. Many different outlets covered the story, but I liked the NPR story because it captured the reactions of the callers and had some intelligent comments in the comments sections. The main reason I share the NPR story, though, is that Stapleton mentioned that he has been attempting unsuccessfully to stop teens from using a Mosquito ringtone while they are in class so the teacher can't hear when they are texting their friends.*
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
04 September 2010
06 February 2010
To Kill a Terrorist
I was watching the February 4 episode of the Colbert Report this morning.
In his "A Formidable Opponent" segment, Stephen argues with himself about whether to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a jury trial in New York.
I actually don't know much about the trial or what exactly the deal is, but before the episode of the Colbert Report I was of the opinion that he should be tried before a jury because that's what was supposed to happen and the only reason he may not be is because people are so angry and frightened that they wanted to punish him in the worst way possible and make sure he didn't escape or bring any additional security threats to New York by having the trial there. I figured that wasn't enough of a reason to continue to abandon our principles as well as flaunt the law just because we were afraid of a terrorist.
After watching the show, I realised that it is possible some people don't want Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to be given a jury trial in New York because there is a possibility that he will be determined innocent, and to them that is an unacceptable alternative. I have to admit, based on what I know, I find it to be a frightening outcome as well. As Stephen pointed out in his segment, insisting that it is okay to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a jury trial because we need to uphold our principles of justice--everyone is innocent until proven guilty--but then insisting that the outcome must be guilty is a false definition of justice.
At first when Stephen articulated the broken logic behind the view that we must give a jury trial even when the defendant has been already decided as guilty before the trial starts, I began thinking of what the other alternatives are for him, wondering what the legal options are, and wondering what would be the most fair for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Stephen made several points that could be used to determine his innocence, such as confession after torture being inadmissible. But then Stephen unbuttoned his jacket to reveal some suspenders and adopted a southern accent and the mannerisms of Atticus Finch from To Kill a Mockingbird, insisting that it is dishonorable to hang a man before he has been tried and asking the jurors to do their duty.
Stephen's defense convinced himself that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is innocent. But I'm not so sure. The allusion to To Kill a Mockingbird made me think. In that book, the jury convicted a wrongfully accused man anyway, just because he was black. I guess there's probably little chance that an American jury would acquit a man as demonized as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. And even if he really did mastermind September 11, that's still a discouraging thought.
Update!
The lovely and talented rob mason has let me know about this interview Jon Stewart did with Bill O'reilly.
In his "A Formidable Opponent" segment, Stephen argues with himself about whether to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a jury trial in New York.
I actually don't know much about the trial or what exactly the deal is, but before the episode of the Colbert Report I was of the opinion that he should be tried before a jury because that's what was supposed to happen and the only reason he may not be is because people are so angry and frightened that they wanted to punish him in the worst way possible and make sure he didn't escape or bring any additional security threats to New York by having the trial there. I figured that wasn't enough of a reason to continue to abandon our principles as well as flaunt the law just because we were afraid of a terrorist.
After watching the show, I realised that it is possible some people don't want Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to be given a jury trial in New York because there is a possibility that he will be determined innocent, and to them that is an unacceptable alternative. I have to admit, based on what I know, I find it to be a frightening outcome as well. As Stephen pointed out in his segment, insisting that it is okay to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a jury trial because we need to uphold our principles of justice--everyone is innocent until proven guilty--but then insisting that the outcome must be guilty is a false definition of justice.
At first when Stephen articulated the broken logic behind the view that we must give a jury trial even when the defendant has been already decided as guilty before the trial starts, I began thinking of what the other alternatives are for him, wondering what the legal options are, and wondering what would be the most fair for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Stephen made several points that could be used to determine his innocence, such as confession after torture being inadmissible. But then Stephen unbuttoned his jacket to reveal some suspenders and adopted a southern accent and the mannerisms of Atticus Finch from To Kill a Mockingbird, insisting that it is dishonorable to hang a man before he has been tried and asking the jurors to do their duty.
Stephen's defense convinced himself that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is innocent. But I'm not so sure. The allusion to To Kill a Mockingbird made me think. In that book, the jury convicted a wrongfully accused man anyway, just because he was black. I guess there's probably little chance that an American jury would acquit a man as demonized as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. And even if he really did mastermind September 11, that's still a discouraging thought.
Update!
The lovely and talented rob mason has let me know about this interview Jon Stewart did with Bill O'reilly.
27 September 2008
Murder
Crime captivates the world. Crime fiction and dramatizations of real crime take up rows upon rows in the bookstore, hours on the television every week. Some people disdain pat whodunnits, while others (like myself) find their predictability and cheerful acceptance of the facts to be comforting. Others prefer true crime, delighting to stare death in the face and ponder the existence of criminals among us. I recently finished The Murder of Roger Ackroyd by Agatha Christie. Whole courses can be given on crime fiction, focusing on the phenomenon of popular culture (I should know, I once took one). This particular book is quite perfect in that it reproduces the comforts of a nearly bloodless whodunnit but with the upsetting notion that perfectly well anybody--even somebody we feel intimate with--could murder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)