I attempted to raise an issue in somewhat of a hijack to this thread, but as it has gone unnoticed by all but one astoundingly astute (and oh-so-goodlooking) poster, I figured I’d give it a home of its own.
This concerns Paul Hill, who was convicted of murder in the killing of an abortion provider and clinic escort. This morning’s paper reported that in a 2-hour press conference, he held forth on his views, including a hope that similarly minded folk would follow his example and kill in the name of God. The following is a reprint of my post in that forum:
*What are the mechanics by which this happens?
Let me acknowledge that I am opposed to capital punishment, and to the extent I am a bright-liner on anything, it would have to be free speech. And I need look no further than Illinois’ recent commutation of all death sentences to see the merits of prisoners having some access to the press. But a 2-hour press conference for an admittedly guilty man?
It seems as though the press is gleefully allowing itself to be a vehicle for this despicable creature to spew his venom. Should his execution cause him to be martyred and emulated, I might consider that yet another count against state execution.
*
Any thoughts as to the relative costs/benefits/desirability of affording such a forum to this or similarly situated persons?
Is this a feather in the press’ cap, or a black mark?
Is this good or bad for our society?
Why does the press pursue and publish this?
Simply because it will sell?
In order to “warn” the public that such sick individuals exist?
To spread what the press considers a legitimate message?
In order to allow even the likes of this man some access to a public forum?
Does our prison system have to allow such “grandstanding” by any class of inmates?
Should they have to, or whould it be preferable/constitutional if they imposed some sort of limits?