To: Muleteam1
I got into trial coverage myself for awhile... CourtTV used to cover trials that were good legal intrigue... I watched part of a handgun liability suit, the nanny shaken baby case, even the OJ trial and others about murders where the facts were in dispute and the cases on each side interesting. But they've become monolithic; ALL now are about sex, torture, sex, perversion, and sex.
And they're typically watched here on FR by people who would never give themselves permission to watch movies about such vile plots... they think it's OK because it's news.
37 posted on
03/15/2006 12:43:39 PM PST by
HairOfTheDog
(Hobbit Hole knives for soldiers! www.freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net)
To: HairOfTheDog
I got into trial coverage myself for awhile... CourtTV used to cover trials that were good legal intrigue... I watched part of a handgun liability suit, the nanny shaken baby case, even the OJ trial and others about murders where the facts were in dispute and the cases on each side interesting. But they've become monolithic; ALL now are about sex, torture, sex, perversion, and sex. It's crass pursuit of the least common denominator. Look at what A&E or Discovery or TLC puts on the tube now.
SD
To: HairOfTheDog
I suppose it's good that our interests vary. I am finding as I get older there is very little on television that interests me. I gave up on the broadcast networks in the 1980s, cursed at the the movie channel people when they would call my house in the 1990s, and if it weren't for my wife who still enjoys a few things on the tube, I would just get rid of my television set and replace it with flowerpots. I do enjoy talk radio though although I suppose some of it could be considered pretty voyeuristic. I've thought maybe it's my eyes. However, my hearing is worse than my eyesight! I'm trying to force myself into listening to more music like I did when I was younger. Music always makes me feel better.:)
Muleteam1
To: HairOfTheDog; Pyro7480; onyx
Well, I think this sentencing hearing served a couple of important purposes.
1. It warns parents that there are some real sickos running loose. I would NEVER let my children walk out of my yard when they were younger -- even my 17 year old daughter always has 2-3 friends with her when she goes anywhere. My advice to her is to travel with her pack (she pals with a nice bunch of kids from her school, I know them all pretty well and they are good kids, good students, no drugs or alcohol.) A girl alone is a mark for every monster out there like Smith.
2. This sentencing hearing demonstrated for the public at large what is necessary to put even a monster like this to death. (a) It was required for the judge to announce the reasons in detail for his sentence, in order to withstand the numerous appeals that every convicted murderer is entitled to by law. (b) THIS is the only type of heinous crime for which the death penalty can still be imposed. They have to rub our noses in it or he will not be put to death.
I don't need to watch movies or listen to the news about this stuff -- I've been a courthouse rat for 22 years. And the stuff they put on the news is TAME compared to the stuff I see every day. If I told you the details of a kidnapping/rape/torture case that crossed my desk last week, you would lose your dinner. The girl lived, but she might be better off dead. Major surgery just to survive, and she is blind, maimed, and is too badly damaged to ever have a baby.
There are evil people among us, and the public needs to know that on a gut level.
79 posted on
03/15/2006 7:00:47 PM PST by
AnAmericanMother
(Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson