Do These People Have A Point?

[youngmafbog]

http://news.sky.com/story/1479038/plea-to-conceal-identity-of-mass-shooters

I think I can see where they are going with this but could it ever work and where would you draw the line?

What I mean by this is: Say a pedophile is involved in a mass crime but under a 'Notoriety Act' their identity could not be given out but (in the UK at least) they would be free to roam the streets with impunity without anyone knowing after a very short period of time.

An extreme example, and no doubt the usual will pull it apart, but before you make a total *** of yourself , it is just an example.

[jackthehat]

Yes, they do.
Yes, it could.
The idea is to withdraw the publicity/notoriety from the perpetrator rather than 'hiding' their identity for their own protection.

[anotheoldgit]

/// Families of victims of mass shootings in America have appealed to the media not to show pictures of the gunmen involved because they say it encourages copycats. ///

How could the showing of the killers faces encourage copycats? Surely it is the reporting on the crime itself that encourages some disarranged individuals to copy such things.

So should the crimes themselves not be reported? That would be sheer ridiculous, to suggest that

[Canary42]

////How could the showing of the killers faces encourage copycats?////

The answer's obvious - the publicity's so much more attractive with a picture included.

[Hypognosis]

@AOG

I don't need to read the article because I've had thoughts along these lines myself.

Mass shooters are often complete nobodys, doing their "I'll show _them_" thing. There may be an additional desire to make themselves famous but, being nobodys, this isn't going to happen by normal means. Guns, however, are readily available in the US and it doesn't take much brain power to work out what to try next.

The distinction between famous and infamous appears to be lost on them.

Personally, I just don't want to see these killer's faces. There's nothing I can learn from it. You can't judge people by appearances, can you?

[jno]

I don't think the parallel with paedophiles works. It appears many of these gunmen actually want the publicity; it's what they do it for. Paedophiles absolutely don't.

[woofgang]

what jno said. With many, if not all mass violence crimes, achieving publicity is a large part of the motivation. They don't want to go undetected.

[youngmafbog]

I just used it as an example of another crime. And I pointed that out.

But you just could not resist could you?

[woofgang]

resist what?

[ummmm]

Commenting on his rubbish example.

[woofgang]

oh well....in that case he shouldn't do rubbish examples

[anotheoldgit]

Hypognosis

/// Personally, I just don't want to see these killer's faces. There's nothing I can learn from it. You can't judge people by appearances, can you? ///

Well since some chosen to pooh-pooh YMB's 'pedophile' example, what about terrorists, should we not see their faces also, perhaps you agree with the Niqab being worn in a court of law?

Or perhaps we should go the whole hog and do away with 'mug-shots'?

[Xeronema]

Haven't vigilantes in the past attacked people they believe to be criminals purely on the fact they look the same as a 'mug shot'?

[Xeronema]

//Families of victims of mass shootings in America have appealed to the media not to show pictures of the gunmen involved because they say it encourages copycats.//

Showing a photograph or photographs makes absolutely no difference to whether someone will become a copycat killer or not. Copycat killers follow MO; not their appearance. What difference is that going to make?

[woofgang]

Assuming that at least part of the reason for their behaviour is a desire to be noticed, to get publicity, surely the less publicity they get the better? MO followers, I agree might not be completely put off, but surely the MO is HOW they do it not WHY and the why might still be desire to be noticed and get publicity?

[Hypognosis]

@AOG

Apologies for the delayed reply (tech troubles).

//Well since some chosen to pooh-pooh YMB's 'pedophile' example, //

We have Sarah's law, which would be incompatible with anonymity. I'm not sure if the USA has an equivalent law but the same contradiction would apply. Reductio ad absurdum is a debating tactic I use myself, so I hesitate to criticise its use here. It's just that it helps when there are more matching features and fewer contrasts eg crimes committed in search of fame/notoriety versus crimes kept secret, so as to ensure possibility of repetition.

//what about terrorists, should we not see their faces also, perhaps you agree with the Niqab being worn in a court of law? //

We had a long debate about that, which I reckon you started. If you can relocate it, you will find my views on that matter in there.


//Or perhaps we should go the whole hog and do away with 'mug-shots'? //

They are for the police's benefit - how could they function without them. The public only needs to know what some scr*te looks like if they've escaped and are a known danger to the public.

As things stand, so many mugshots have been put on the front covers of newspapers (I rarely buy them) that I can't remember 99% of them, yet the generic sense of "mean/ugly mug = violent/perverted crim". But perhaps that's the whole idea. To suggest that physical appearance and tendency to criminality go together.

An idea which emerged in the 19th century, I think you'll find. Victorian criminals were getting their mugshots taken, in the name of "scientific research" at a time when a photographic family portrait was still pricey enough that only the reasonably well-off had them done (although not as much snob value as an oil painting, I suspect).