PDA

View Full Version : The Russel Williams Trial: Too much media coverage?


Catapharact
22-10-10, 02:18
Most Canadians (and quite a lot of folks living abroad) probably know about the Russel Williams case.

It certainly shook me quite a bit that a man with such a distiguished background (a respected Airforce Col. with no priors and a clean record) had not only a bizarre underwear fetish (to the point where he was breaking in houses to steal underwear of women and young girls and photograph himself wearing them,) but he actually murdered two women in a very VERY heinous way.

If you want the details about the case, just click on this link:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/10/19/russell-williams-day-2.html?ref=rss

Anyway, it seems that the media might have taken advantage of the judge's ruling to allow e-media devices in his court room. Every gruesome detail about the trail and the evidence included in it was boardcasted on sites like Twitter and various blog pages. Some news papers went as far as putting pictures that Russel Williams took of himself while weaing stolen women's underwear. For some people, it was too much too soon.

Here is an interesting article on the matter:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=russell+williams+trial+media+coverage+too+much&rlz=1R2ADSA_enCA391&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

So IYO, is there is such a thing as too much media coverage when it comes to situations such as these?

Little-Lara
22-10-10, 02:52
First of all, OMG!

I think the old saying fits well here "the higher they are, the harder they fall." Do you remember the OJ Simpsons trials? There was media coverage literally around the clock. Specially when it comes to decorated people or anyone with higher positions seem to attract much more attention than anyone else. And this guy really took it over the top. I'm not in Canada and I don't know who he was.... But he killed two people, I don't understand why they are contemplating giving him years in jail? I mean I don't get how the legal system works in Canada.

Catapharact
22-10-10, 03:13
I'm not in Canada and I don't know who he was.... But he killed two people, I don't understand why they are contemplating giving him years in jail? I mean I don't get how the legal system works in Canada.

Its because Canada doesn't has the death penalty. All serial killers are sent to life imprisonment and (this is the part that really gets to me) they don't have to serve consecutive sentences (and are usually eligable to apply for Parole.) In Russel William's case however, there is more then enough evidence to deny this crud pile's eligibility for Parole.

I hate the fact that the media keeps refering to him as a Colonel. He doesn't deserves that honour!

Little-Lara
22-10-10, 03:52
That "parole" word just hits like a brick wall! like adding insult to injury! It's like (once again an OJ reference please excuse my range) but when OJ said years later "I didn't kill them, but if I had, this is how I would have done it......." Paroles are good ideas, don't get me wrong, but thieves, robbers, people in need of a second chance in life is a great idea, but Parole for a killer?!! I can't even comprehend them doing that.

All serial killers are sent to life imprisonment and (this is the part that really gets to me) they don't have to serve consecutive sentences (and are usually eligable to apply for Parole.)

That's getting me too. "...serial killer...." Imagine a court room... "Alright, you have killed 3 people, but we still trust you, here's your parole.)


I hate the fact that the media keeps refering to him as a Colonel. He doesn't deserves that honour!

Really!! Gross. A Colonel is supposed to be an honoring, respectful title, that everyone would look up to for advice and support. I absolutely agree. (although it might be a tactic for the media for the shock-effect....which is not really okay either.)

Cochrane
22-10-10, 07:36
This is the first I heard about any of this, to be honest, but what coverage you link to already seems excessive. Personally, I think telling every last detail of how those women lost their lives to absolutely everyone is violating the victims’s dignity. And after all they went through up to and including their murder, that doesn't seem necessary, to say the least.

xXhayleyroxXx
22-10-10, 13:08
I've never even heard of this case so I don't think its getting too much media coverage. Due to the nature of the case, I think it deserves all the coverage it gets.

Dennis's Mom
22-10-10, 13:47
Absolutely there is a thing as too much media coverage. The need to fill a 24 hour news cycle has destroyed journalism.

Catapharact
22-10-10, 15:26
This is the first I heard about any of this, to be honest, but what coverage you link to already seems excessive. Personally, I think telling every last detail of how those women lost their lives to absolutely everyone is violating the victims’s dignity. And after all they went through up to and including their murder, that doesn't seem necessary, to say the least.

That's exactly how I see it and I am surprised that you don't know about this considering that newspapers in the U.S. and the U.K. have covered the case in detail:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/10/18/2010-10-18_col_russell_williams_canadian_air_force_base_co mmander_pleads_guilty_to_88_crime.html

U.K's Mail went as far as putting up pictures that he took pf himself wearing women's underwear:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1321764/Pilot-Colonel-Russell-Williams-broke-girls-bedrooms-steal-underwear.html

Evan C.
22-10-10, 15:42
Oh my...he deserves the worst.

Sgt BOMBULOUS
22-10-10, 15:58
This is a bit hard to take in... People like this should be removed from society as quickly and... economically as possible. There is no rehabilitation for an animal like this, I don't care what anyone thinks.

Spong
22-10-10, 16:34
Like most others so far, this is the first I've heard of this case. I agree the coverage is excessive, and I'm stunned that the Daily Mail has published those lurid pictures. It seems to me that the bar has reached an all-time low in terms of negating the feelings of his victims' families just to tell the story. Some things are best left untold, even more so when it's a matter of respect and dignity for those involved.

nick styger
22-10-10, 16:38
A respected Air force Colonel? What is the nature of a military man....peaceful...non-violent...what do you expect?

Love2Raid
22-10-10, 17:04
Yeah, heard about this a while ago. Criminals can be found in all layers of society (haven´t you heard about that recent case that involved an Arabian prince?), so it´s not that shocking.
It´s a case that people would surely find interesting, so no wonder that it´s covered all over the world. He has commited terrible crimes, he doesn´t deserve to be protected by the media. Let the people know the truth about him.

Nick
Military people use violence when necessary, but that doesn´t mean they all have a violent or ´evil´ nature. They serve their country, that´s all.

Spong
22-10-10, 17:06
He has commited terrible crimes, he doesn´t deserve protection in any way. Let the people know the truth about him.

But what about staying sensitive to the victims and their families? It's one thing to tell a story in words, but it's another to show images of the guy in the underwear he stole, clothing that one of his victims might recognise as their own. What's that gotta feel like? The notion is nauseating.

Love2Raid
22-10-10, 17:10
I missed the pictures part, that´s too much, I agree. They should refrain from going into that kind of detail.

Chocola teapot
22-10-10, 17:41
Good Lord.

D:

That is...Shocking.

trXD
22-10-10, 17:56
There was no point in them showing those pictures, that didn't help anything, friggin daily mail.

moodydog
22-10-10, 18:18
I don't believe capital punishment is the way forwards...

But people who have taken the basic human rights away from people (the right to live and the right to be torture free, and the right to have moment)... should also not be allowed their basic human rights.

People who break those three, should be killed. Its not fair!

Cochrane
22-10-10, 19:13
That's exactly how I see it and I am surprised that you don't know about this considering that newspapers in the U.S. and the U.K. have covered the case in detail:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/10/18/2010-10-18_col_russell_williams_canadian_air_force_base_co mmander_pleads_guilty_to_88_crime.html

U.K's Mail went as far as putting up pictures that he took pf himself wearing women's underwear:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1321764/Pilot-Colonel-Russell-Williams-broke-girls-bedrooms-steal-underwear.html
Apparently it hasn’t made the language jump to German, or at least not with as much force, though. Besides, we have plenty problems of our own to occupy our news stations at the moment…

I don't believe capital punishment is the way forwards...

But people who have taken the basic human rights away from people (the right to live and the right to be torture free, and the right to have moment)... should also not be allowed their basic human rights.

People who break those three, should be killed. Its not fair!
It might not seem fair, but one of the core parts of basic human rights is that they apply to everyone - including and maybe in particular those who we don’t like. In my opinion, if we say that killing is sometimes right (not counting self-defense), we are all a lot less free than if it is always forbidden. People might get killed who don’t deserve, maybe because public opinion demanded it. More importantly, though, someone might bend or expand that permission to kill, and that is unacceptable.

Frankly, from what I know, I don’t see any reason to let the person in question here live. I can’t see any benefit to society that depends on him being alive. But I would rather see him live and even walk free than see a government set up a system to kill its citizens.

Sgt BOMBULOUS
22-10-10, 19:19
Apparently it hasn’t made the language jump to German, or at least not with as much force, though. Besides, we have plenty problems of our own to occupy our news stations at the moment…


It might not seem fair, but one of the core parts of basic human rights is that they apply to everyone - including and maybe in particular those who we don’t like. In my opinion, if we say that killing is sometimes right (not counting self-defense), we are all a lot less free than if it is always forbidden. People might get killed who don’t deserve, maybe because public opinion demanded it. More importantly, though, someone might bend or expand that permission to kill, and that is unacceptable.

Frankly, from what I know, I don’t see any reason to let the person in question here live. I can’t see any benefit to society that depends on him being alive. But I would rather see him live and even walk free than see a government set up a system to kill its citizens.

If we were all robots, I suppose that level of reasoning would be understandable. But I would rather die than see what took place here happen to my wife, or to my mother. Furthermore, I'm fairly certain any sane civilization could set up a system that can differentiate between eliminating creatures like this man, and executing civilians at random.