If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
The problem with current stories is that each section of the media word things in different ways. A story in the sun will be different to what is in the Telegraph, however it doesnt mean that people havent actually read the story.
Nope.
The victim's social status and attractiveness should not determine the sentence, but it seems that people only care because he was such a nice attractive happy boy. The media certainly only care when that's the case, and we're only talking about this particular murder because it was in all the papers.
But again he was a nice black boy- studious, good-looking, never in trouble, murdered by ASBO kids. But most of the coverage still was based on the fact the brother of a top football player was the killer, wasn't it.
It's hard to draw examples from the media because it isn't that the media negatively report against certain victims, its that they don't report the victims at all.
I agree. I had the news on in the background and the facts of the case are what caught my attention.
I also agree with what you are saying to an extent, it does make you feel more sympathetic and think aww poor kid he's cute.
If it was a rough looking chav it wouldn't bother me as much, but that is all down to stereotypes, your first thought might be scumbag, but if you think about it, people that look like trouble makers, inside could be good people, it's what's on the inside that counts not what you see on the surface.
Generally your point is true but for others such as me and lipsy we can see it from a different point of view, however yours is still valid.
Not sure if that makes any sense i get muddled up with these kinda debates :razz:
think you need to take more time to read other peoples posts before jumping the gun and automatically think you are more level headed than anyone else.
i think for once people were actually pretty sensible in this thread rather than he usual "should hang him" "send him away for life" "fucking scumbag, die die die" etc...
certainly a lot better than the recent paedo thread we had.
i personally think this story probably would have made the news however he looked as its a bit of a wacky one.
People forget there are hundreds of murders a year, male, female, children, babies etc... a lot dont get any coverage at all. doesnt make any of them any less serious etc...
the press only pick up the stories they know will prompt a reaction.
Koe - Yeah, it might have been better than some threads, doesn't change anything about people saying whatever they felt like, and the usual skipping of a link to the story. So what if it was originally anything goes, no-one actually stated any facts until my first comment, then felt compelled to link to the story because it didn't seem to be making any difference. It aggravates me when people get judgemental when they're in no place to comment.
bloody hell, you'll be promoting communism or something next.
You dont know the full detail to his mental problems and as kermit said it is hard to prove insanity against a murder charge. Therefore 'if' is the correct statement.
Sorry for the confusion love , it meant it in response to Budda's comment rather than your view Kermit. I agree, people do seem to respond in a different manner as he is a cute-looking, young lad. And I have noticed the media to keep mentioning the fact that he has Cystic Fibrosis, and as far as I am aware, this in no way had anything to do with the murder itself.
What I don't like is people saying whatever they like without bothering to find out what happened. As kermit has said more times than we can count we don't know a fraction of what the judge and the jury knew when they were in court. So we can't exactly be informed even when we can be bothered to read what's available, the least people could do is do that though.
I had heard the report on the news, and read about it in the paper. I personally think that is sufficient 'finding out'.
The public will probably never find out the whole story, so all we can do is comment on the parts we know about, which is what was happening here.
Everyone is entitled to their views and opinions, just keep that in mind next time.
but concerning Hamer, he is obviously mentally derranged- he admitted to the crime, to which there was a huge amount of evidence pointing anyway.. but as some people have said on here i DONT think its right to cry out 'hang the bastard'- nor do i think its right to just lock him up.
he needs psychiatric help. no sane person would do that to anyone. about the whole sentencing, i think that that could only really be decided after he has been mentally diagnosed.
with regards to how certain murders are treated in the news-
the media LOVE to sensasionalise a story- thats their job, to sell stories. which is why the joe-murder concerns lots of facts which arent really relevant, such as the boy's illness. looking at the pictures, people go 'awww' and on hearing about the illness they go 'awww' some more. i know i did. its as some people correctly said- although it SHOULDNT be the case and some people wont like to admit it, a pretty victim story sells more than an ugly victim story.
im not sure about class/colour etc, and the medias treatment of these different socialities. i think its all about what slant the paper or tv company want to put on it. if they get a story about a little black boy who got murdered and they want it to sell bigtime then theyll sensationalise it and add in extra little facts to make it seem larger than life.
One about the media's coverage of different crimes
One about the sentencing in the case
I think the media's coverage of different crimes will always be related to factors that sell papers. Newspapers aren't altruistic, nor are journalists, and they are businesses, they aim to sell papers, not provide an impartial view of current events. Because of that certain things will be focused on and other things will be ignored. (not that this is right)
As to sentencing, I think this case highlights how utterly important it is that the judiciary remains independant of public pressure. That's always hard to argue for when there seems to be a bad decisions, but in practice no matter how many people or papers call for someone to be strung up, the judiciary should simply continue to act within the law.
Recent years seem to see an increasing number of politicans (from local government ministers to home secretaries) stepping into debates about sentences; papers demanding new laws or naming and shaming judges based on interpretations of verdicts; public displays about laws or particular defendants being taken much more seriously than before.
All of this could be seen, and is certainly presented as this by many media outlets or campaigners (such as the news of the world during peadophile scares), as improving the 'democracy' in the legal system. But ultimately it's just going to lead towards a mob law, where hundreds of years of precidence (right to trial, silence, etc) get thrown away in hurried adjustments to the legal system.
I guess what I'm saying is that if the media doesn't influence sentencing then things carry on as they did in the past (to a degree) but if they gain an influence over the judicary then we risk a situation where the amount of media coverage a particular victim recieves will have a dramatic affect on the final verdict.
Then you don't have democracy or law, you just have witch hunts and mob rule
The story isn't all that exceptional, its a little unusual but only because of the age of the defendant.
But if the victim had been a hoody-wearing ASBO lout the story would never have reached the papers- it'd have been filed away under "drug gang" and "got what was coming to him" and ignored.
The media report what is interesting, that's their job. Which is how one defendant I worked with went from being an amateur snooker player in his youth to "international snooker star" in the papers.
He should get life in an assylum, HOWEVER, the idiots in power seem to think doing away with them and using care in the community would work (which it isn't doing to well. Oh well, cost cutting forces this.)
He is obviously rather a disturbed young lad... needs mental care, sharpish.
Care in the Community does work, providing it is funded properly. The problem is that it rarely is.