Widow asked to apologize to husband’s killer.
:rolleyes:
Zev Steinhardt
Well this story is a bit less shocking once you get to the end of the column. It appears shje did not “owe” the murderer an apology after all.
I would like to see her comments quoted, however, before I could even comment in any but the most general terms.
Civility or manners do not simply serve the person you are dealing with, they are self serving as well. Were I tell you “Your mother sucks ass!” because I dislike you I would only be showing that I lack the intellectual tools to properly express my feelings, not to mention insulting your mother instead of insulting you.
Also this woman may have said that she did not feel that the killer showed proper remorse. I can think of many ways of saying this in a very civil manner and therefore the argument for her un-civility would be nil.
I do think that no one “owes” anyone civility at any time, but that people should feel free to openly criticize rudeness in others. I ride the bus to school and am often confronted by people who feel the need to ride public transit drunk in the morning and breathe on me or attempt to converse with me. I usually tell them to please face the other direction and that I do not wish to speak with drunks. The last time I did this I was called “rude”, after laughing I pointed out that inflicting malodourous breath on someone was what was rude, not to mention inane conversation. The same goes for people who cough without covering their mouths. TB makes it’s rounds rather quickly in this manner and even if it’s just a cold or simply saliva it’s rude to share that with people.
As I see it a big distinction need to be made between general rudeness and a deserved criticism. Killing this woman’s husband was rude, her criticism of his action was a well deserved criticism.
ok, zev I read the article, and it was very short on details.
kid murders teacher. Some time later, widow of teacher says stuff on national TV. Kid complains, some official calls widow and asks her to appologize.
On the surface, gee, yea, why would the official call the widow and ask for an apology. But there’s no details about what was said (just something about lack of remorse).
if the woman made false claims about the crime in public, yea, I think that’s bad, and some one should ask her to stop, say she’s sorry that she lied (that’s what honorable people do if they’ve done something wrong).
Do I think that’s what happened here? haven’t a clue. If the bare facts of the story are true, that she complained publically that he’d not shown remorse, and he hadn’t, and she’d not made any other comments that were false, yea, this was a horrible thing.
If she’d publically lied through her teeth about the events and the kids actions, why shouldn’t she be asked to retract it?
Feh. Even if she’d said “that fucking little shitfaced murdering cocksucking bastard didn’t show enough remorse” I can’t imagine hassling her because of it. whatever “Probation Service official” called Mrs. Lawrence should have to apologize to her.
Bastard.
The state is the tool in our civilization for enacting punishment. The victim, though understandably upset, should have no method of tainting a person that committed a crime to or involving them any more than the law has already done.
Victims do not get blank checks for hostility by virtue of being a victim.
Um, zev? The answer is contained in your link: no.
The officer who asked her to apologize was apparently disciplined for doing so. Seems to me you’re trying to stir up a tempest in a teapot.
zev: Do the victims of crime owe civility to the perpetrators of said crimes?
In my book, everyone with any self-respect owes it to themselves to treat other people with civility under all circumstances whatsoever. Of course, I don’t manage to live up to that ideal 100% even in this forum, so I don’t want to speculate on how I’d do if I were a victim of a horrific crime. 
However, I hope that if I lied about it (or even if I was just unnecessarily uncivil and insulting) in public I would have the honesty to make a public retraction and apology—as wring says, that’s what honorable people do.
I have no idea whether any of this applies to anything Mrs. Lawrence said, nor do I really care whether she shares my opinions about ideals of civility. I do note from the linked article, however, that the Home Secretary apologized to her personally for the apology request, a Home Office spokesman made a similar public apology to her, the chief probation officer for the area and a representative for the National Probation Service visited her to make apologies in person on behalf of their institution, and the officer who originally requested her apology was disciplined.
In other words, she said something in public about her husband’s killer, the specifics of which we don’t know. She was outraged at being asked to apologize for it, and apparently the people she complained to ringingly agreed with her and sympathized with her. Doesn’t sound particularly controversial to me: is there really anything here to debate? It’s merely going to come down to differences of personal opinion about whether you need to be courteous even towards people who have injured you. [In preview: or what lissener said.]
I recently saw a column on this case in the Daily Telegraph (U.K.) which fleshed out more details (sorry, no link available).
The widow of the murdered man, who was set on by thugs in a senseless street killing, made public comments to the effect that she hadn’t seen any evidence of remorse on the part of her husband’s killer (who according to the column I saw, was serving 12 years in prison, not life). The murderer’s probation officer, showing an absolutely breathtaking level of insensitivity, phoned the widow to complain that she’d attacked her client for not demonstrating remorse, that the criticism had “set him back” in his progress in prison, and asked her to apologize to him (!).
As for the probation officer being “disciplined”, she did wind up quitting (under pressure?), but was consoled with a large cash buyout, as I remember in the neighborhood of 25,000 pounds. I doubt that her treatment would have been quite so kind in the States.
I am completely astounded by the suggestions made by posters here that Mrs. Lawrence may have told lies about her husband’s killer. There is nothing in Zev’s link, or in the account I read to indicate any such thing.
And yes, I think there’s definitely a debate to be had here. Did this probation officer get ludicrously out of bounds in her zeal to protect her charge? Did the government respond out of a desire to change a system in which such an abuse was possible, or merely out of embarassment? Should there be more limitations on what victims can say about/to crime perpetrators, for example in a courtroom setting? Have victims or relatives of victims been harmfully abusive in this country?
All depends on who’s Ox is getting gored.
Jack I certainly did not accuse the woman of lying. I said the article was not clear on what she did or did not say. and that if it was simply her saying she didn’t think they showed remorse, then the request for an apology was wrong, but that if she lied through her teeth about the facts of the case in public, then that would be a wrongful act on her part and she should be responsible.
see, I used the word “If” 'cause there was insufficient data to make any assumption about what she said.
First of all, I’d like to apologize. I just threw the link up there and ran (literally). It was poorly thought out and I should have framed the link with a paragraph or two outlining what I was looking for. (Gee, I thought you guys were all mind-readers! 
)
Yes, I am aware that the widow did not have to apologize after all. What I was curious about, and looking to answer was this:
If a person commits a truly horrific wrong against you, to what extent are we to act with them. The range of actions one can take against this person can run the gamut from the outright taking of revenge, to forgiving them and giving to them selflessly. (Almost) no one suggests that the widow should go with the former extreme (killing the killer) and the vast majority of us would say that her taking the killer into her home and giving him charity is beyond what is expected of her too. So, the answer to the “acceptable” conduct lies somewhere in the middle.
In this case, she went on public television and stated her personal feelings about his post-crime conduct (his lack of remorse). She certainly has the right to have these feelings and even has the right to express them in public. However, simply because one has the right to do something, does not mean that it is the proper thing to do. That is what I am trying to get to in this debate, and I apologize for not making this clearer earlier.
Zev Steinhardt
wring, here’s what you said:
wring: “if the woman made false claims about the crime in public, yea, I think that’s bad, and some one should ask her to stop, say she’s sorry that she lied (that’s what honorable people do if they’ve done something wrong).”
and here’s my response to your comments as well as remarks made by Kimstu:
Jackmannii: “I am completely astounded by the suggestions made by posters here that Mrs. Lawrence may have told lies about her husband’s killer.”
I can’t see where I have misrepresented or misquoted you. The linked story, while brief, is quite explicit. The widow questioned whether the killer of her husband has shown remorse. That’s a matter of opinion and only the murderer truly knows the answer. How on earth are there any grounds for speculating that the widow may have made “false claims about the crime”? You tell me.
In this case, I don’t believe there is any equating of the killer’s “hurt feelings” with the tragedy suffered by the widow and her children (yes, she’s raising several kids without their father, according to the account I read). According to common sense and decency, she should have been left the hell alone.
With the increasing attention paid to victims’ rights (including the proposal for a constitutional amendment to ensure them, something I’m dubious about the need for), there can be argument about the potential for harm to convicted criminals. It’s a worthy subject for debate, particularly if someone can cite more compelling examples than the case of Mrs. Lawrence, where debate should mainly center around how it is possible for a probation officer to stick her head so far up her ass.
Wow, wish I got 25,000 pounds every time I did something incredibly stupid.
We may have something else going on here that is worth talking about.
Over the last few years the latest fashion in criminal trials is to present “victim impact statements.” This involves having the victim of the crime, his family and friends, testify in open court about what effect the crime has had on them. This is done at the sentencing hearing. The process was mandated by the state legislature ostensibly as a method to help the trial judge impose an appropriate sentence.
However it became apparent that the purpose of the whole thing was to encourage the victim and family to rage at the defendant. The legislature’s true purpose was revealed when it amended the statute to require the defendant to be present for the thing even though its stated purpose was to inform the judge. In addition, in this state the trial judge has little discresion in the matter of sentence—the judge orders the indeterminate sentence the legislature prescribed in the statute and the department of corrections and the parole board (neither of which is answerable to the court) decides how much of the term the defendant actually serves.
What we have is that after a trial, which could be fairly long, like two or three weeks, all conducted in the elevated atmosphere of a high church funeral, we bring in some grieving relative, or the victim himself, whose sole purpose is to look the defendant in the eye and announce a hope that the defendant fries in Hell, who proceeds to do so at the top of his lungs. It is as if a WWF match has broken out in the middle of a piano recital.
The judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers I know just hate it. The legislature however, learned every thing it knows from watching “The Peoples Court,” and thinks it is just a wonderful opportunity for their constituents to blow off steam. Sooner or later some resentful victim is going to break out a gat and blow away the defendant and possibly a judge, and a couple bailiffs and lawyers, too.
Jack Try reading it again. I said “If”. I also said ‘the account doesn’t say what she said except the bit about being not remorseful’
I never claimed that she lied about it. I am saying (and try and follow along this time) that if the paper’s account of what she’d said was true (ie that she commented about her opinion of his remorsefulness), then I thought she was well w/in her rights, and the probation officer was out of line etc. But, if she’d also said stuff that was factually untrue, then the probation officers’ actions were more understandable.
I was giving an scenario where I believed that the probation officers actions would have been reasonable. I didn’t assume that it happened, was even careful to point out “do I believe this happened in this case? haven’t a clue” because the paper didn’t have any details you see.
I did not imply in any way that she did anything of the sort.
Sorta like if the question was:
here’s an article that says a kid was expelled from school for telling his teacher he didn’t like her.
My response would be “if all he did was say he didn’t like her, then I think the schools out of line. if however, there’s more to the story, then the school may be in the right” Not every news article is completely forthcoming about events, sometimes more information is garnered from other sources. there was a pit thread recently about some kid prosecuted for a spit wad, but latter, more info came out (it was more like a dart, the other kid was seriously injured, the kid had a history of bullying behavior etc.).
Clear now? We’re not claiming that the woman was wrong. We’re suggesting that it’s possible that the news account was being less than complete. Not necessarily ‘likely’, but ‘possible’.