honor bound to defend freedom
February 27, 2014 1:48 PM   Subscribe

Writing In The Gray Areas - "Are some acts so revolting that the people who commit them do not deserve a hearing?" posted by the man of twists and turns (22 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite
 
The actual question, of course, is, "Are some acts so revolting that the people who are ACCUSED of committing them do not deserve a hearing?" Unless you believe that the people doing the accusing are infallible and incorruptible, the answer is 'no'.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 2:08 PM on February 27, 2014 [41 favorites]


Let's get rid of the rule of law but only for people whom I don't like. My last act before I am deposed will be to reinstate the rule of law. I do not expect to encounter any problems with this plan.
posted by radicalawyer at 2:10 PM on February 27, 2014 [5 favorites]


For those who don't want to bother reading the article, Slovo is not using "hearing" in its legal sense, but in its literary sense -- to expand the pull quote:
That we all shared a collective revulsion at what happened on 9/11 was natural. It was this revulsion that lay behind my writer friend’s question about the innocence or otherwise of the people in my play. She did not want to be seen siding, even by watching a play, with anyone who might have had anything, however peripheral, to do with 9/11. It was a position I understood. When I first began to research the play, I wondered what I would do if I discovered that the people who had been picked up in Afghanistan or Pakistan, and who ended up in Guantanamo, had helped commit some heinous crime. Would I let their words, and the words of their families, be heard? Are there some acts so revolting that the people who commit them do not deserve a hearing?
posted by Etrigan at 2:17 PM on February 27, 2014 [4 favorites]


The perpetrators of 9/11 are on the list but which of those who carried out retaliation against those who had nothing to do wth it are on the same list? The 'collective' seems pretty lousy about consistency.
posted by biffa at 2:28 PM on February 27, 2014 [1 favorite]


Would I let their words, and the words of their families, be heard? Are there some acts so revolting that the people who commit them do not deserve a hearing?

For me it's not about deserving - it's about, what exactly would be lost by hearing them? We might learn something. It might be important. We don't have to believe what they have to say, or like what they have to say, or agree with what they have to say, or let what they have to say absolve them of crimes. But I can't help thinking that hearing the thoughts of those responsible for heinous acts may be helpful to us - more helpful than sticking our fingers in our ears, anyway.
posted by Jimbob at 2:30 PM on February 27, 2014 [6 favorites]


Sounds edgy.
posted by jpe at 2:37 PM on February 27, 2014 [2 favorites]


I pretty certain this debate has run its course here on a number of occasions.

Everyone deserves a hearing because our system is fallible and hearing are one way we can protect ourselves from this fallibility. This same logic extends to the death penalty. Final solutions are bad because the system makes mistakes.

But then something like this happens and I wonder if we can't make an exception, just this once.
posted by Maugrim at 2:51 PM on February 27, 2014


Every one of us have excuses and explanations for what we do. People can talk themselves into anything, no matter how vile or insane it is. I rarely hear people think what they do is wrong or evil. People justify their actions and will think they are good people who are marginalized and misunderstood. They are wicked predators who have no qualms torturing, killing, and harming but will swear they are tortured souls who are like everybody else.

Should writers write about these people? Yes, but few people can actually explain without excusing or see without getting sucked into the game. When I was a journalist, I became accustomed to experts who studied toxic people and became a little too credulous, treating serial killers as victimized and helpless little children.
Keeping a sensible, level head is much harder than most people realize, especially if the person is charismatic and a good con artist who can read people. Not for amateurs.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 2:54 PM on February 27, 2014 [1 favorite]


Legally, yes, everyone deserves a fair hearing under the law.

Morally, yes, it is to the benefit of society to understand and acknowledge evil acts and the people who commit them. Since "Mein Kampf" is widely available and accepted as a tool for learning about the mentality of Hitler and the Nazis, I don't think we really need a "think piece" about people at Guantanamo, most of whom are completely innocent anyway.
posted by drjimmy11 at 2:56 PM on February 27, 2014


American Justice always gets it right the first time. Due process is not necessary.

(This post is basically begging to have this linked)
posted by Nanukthedog at 3:02 PM on February 27, 2014


"Are some acts so revolting that the people who are ACCUSED of committing them do not deserve a hearing?" Yes, and in total, more of them have been committed FOR us than AGAINST us. That's why we are the winners who write history.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:26 PM on February 27, 2014


excuses and explanations

It is important to realize that these are two different things. I want explanations for everything. I am not that interested in excuses for certain things.
posted by srboisvert at 4:43 PM on February 27, 2014 [2 favorites]


I sort-of enjoyed the article, but she keeps slipping between different meanings of "deserves a hearing": "everybody deserves a trial", "unpopular opinions should not be silenced", and "don't censor yourself". I'd like it a lot more if she chose one of those and stuck to it.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:12 PM on February 27, 2014 [2 favorites]


I wondered what I would do if I discovered that the people who had been picked up in Afghanistan or Pakistan, and who ended up in Guantanamo, had helped commit some heinous crime.

Partly depends on how she "discovered" this.
posted by straight at 5:28 PM on February 27, 2014


For those who don't want to bother reading the article, Slovo is not using "hearing" in its legal sense, but in its literary sense

Similarly, Sufjan Stephens' singing from the perspective of a serial killer. The question is whether an attempt at sympathetically understanding monsters as human beings through art is worthwhile.

There is a real danger here. Some people kill for publicity, literally. Studying monsters may be good for the soul but we don't want to incentivize monsterism.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 5:28 PM on February 27, 2014


"...I don't think we really need a "think piece" about people at Guantanamo..."
That it's still operating means we do.
posted by artof.mulata at 5:40 PM on February 27, 2014 [3 favorites]


Does Titus Andronicus deserve a literary hearing? Does Medea? Do those particular monsters deserve to have their reasons and justifications heard?
posted by happyroach at 7:58 PM on February 27, 2014


The actual question, of course, is, "Are some acts so revolting that the people who are ACCUSED of committing them do not deserve a hearing?"

Actually the question is "Are some acts so revolting that the people who commit them do not deserve a hearing?" This isn't a court of law where judging people guilty or innocent is a thing. People's actions have been established, the question is whether we let them try to explain themselves.

For the worst cases, I'd say no for two reasons.

1) These people have excused themselves from the table of humanity. They can go in the den and play Nintendo or something. They are no longer welcome at the communal table.

2) The purpose in letting them explain themselves would be to hear their reasons and rationalizations for what they did. For certain acts even entertaining the idea that there could be legitimate reasons and rationalizations is insulting to both the journalist and their audience.

I suppose if you want to produce shame porn you could write the stories of people who have done unthinkable harm, but that wouldn't be as much giving them a hearing as taking the chance to mock them.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:10 PM on February 27, 2014 [1 favorite]


Does Titus Andronicus deserve a literary hearing? Does Medea?

That's a really interesting question. In their world Gods really exist and can order humans around. Even the worst acts (*especially* the worst acts) may have been required of a person, so it's worth hearing them out.

But humans in that world are not puppets. They can say no, even if it means dire consequences. Not even the presence of a god would excuse the actions of Demetrius and Chiron; they would get no hearing from me.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:28 PM on February 27, 2014


When governments act as gods, what then?
posted by artof.mulata at 6:08 PM on February 28, 2014






« Older Code Name: Funiculì, Funiculà   |   Scale invariant art Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments