 |
|
|
Wednesday 4/18/2001
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday 4/18/2001
|
|
 Executions don't equal entertainmentEntertainment Network Inc. is suing the government on the grounds that current execution laws are unconstitutional. Federal law does not allow video or audio recording devices to be present in executions. Press coverage is allowed But McVeigh's execution is an execution. It's not entertainment. He was found guilty of killing 168 people in the Oklahoma City bombing, and so he will be killed. McVeigh is a man. Though his crime may have inflated his image in the public mind, he is still a human being. He is not a spectacle. His death will accomplish nothing except ending his life and perhaps comforting the families of the victims. McVeigh has requested that his execution be publicly broadcast. But he does not deserve to be remembered this way. Remembered by hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions willing to pay the fee to see the first man killed live via the Internet. And people will watch. Whether it's "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" or "Temptation Island," the public likes to react with public horror but with private enjoyment. The secret joy of breaking a taboo and indulging our baser impulses, of being able to tell your grandchildren that you were there, you watched while it happened. It's the same voyeuristic impulse that earns reality television shows such as "Survivor" and "Boot Camp" high ratings each week. The same impulse also fuels Entertainment Network Inc.'s other major business venture, VoyeurDorm.com, a Web site in which customers can watch live feeds from 55 cameras placed in a women's dorm. Where do we draw the line at what should be presented for public consumption? Executions are performed with a series of rituals designed to retain both the convicted and the victim's family's dignity. The ritual allows for adequate press coverage of the event without immortalizing it on video. Disrupting this ritual detracts from the grim respect that must be given to the fact that someone is going to die. If the right to Webcast McVeigh's execution is one protected by the Constitution, what about the right to broadcast any execution? The publicity alone should be enough to make other companies consider marketing the idea with other Death Row inmates. Have we finally regressed back to the point where executions are performed in public for the entertainment of the mob? Is the Internet the next gallows or pillory? A broadcast makes McVeigh's death a message — one almost as loud as the one that destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah building. n Editorial Board: Keith Thomas, Tom McHenry, Melissa Davis and Laura Pelner. |
Water safety should be left to individuals
Executions don't equal entertainment
Freedom results from responsibility Sources exist for international news China lacks diplomacy in situation Political comic reflects today's society Rewards contradict University goal Piano man must play classic song
OPINIONS DESK PHONE: Opinions editor:
|
|||||||
|
| ||||||||
