Death Penalty for Juveniles Ruled Unconstitutional!

[Moonlit_Angel]

okay, this drives me a little nuts. here's why.

it is NOT entertainment's job to tell us how to live. it is not entertainment's job to give us pat little stories that affirm what we already believe. it is not entertainment's job to present us with wholesome characters who make decisions that we would make. just because there is violence in a film does not mean that, 1) it's an endorsement of violence, or 2) that the movie is there telling you what decisions you should make.

("Million Dollar Baby" spoiler alert; though probably everyone knows the twist by now)

one thing that has been driving me crazy of late was the campaign orchestrated by right wing movie critic Michael Medved hand-in-hand with Rush Limbaugh. Medved gives away a crucial plot twist in order to state that the film is a pro-euthenasia piece -- and by giving away that plot twist, there's no question that it damaged the film at the Box Office since much of the surprise of the film rides on that. firstly, who cares if it's pro-euthanasia? it has every right to be, should it choose to be, and so long as the topic is presented in a toughtful, adult manner (which it is in the film), what is the problem? why are we so resistant to the presentation of things we don't agree with? why do we have to have our own moral code affirmed each and every time we go to the movies!?!?!

drives me crazy.

characters in movies do not always do what we would do. ometimes they offend us, and that is their right. It is our right to disagree with them. It is not our right, however, to destroy for others the experience of being as surprised by those choices as we were. Eastwood and Swank's characters perform in ways that is entirely consistent with who they are. that is one hallmark of great filmmaking: characters are logically and truthfully followed to their limits, and if you care about the characters (as i did), they force you to think about the decisions they make. if you leave a movie and discuss what should have been done, what you would have done, and what you would wish for your loved ones, then the movie has served a purpose, whether you agree with it or not. a movie is not good or bad because of its content, but because of how it handles its content, whether it's with violence or euthanasia or abortion or whatever contentious issue.

the film was called pro-Nazi, because the Nazis believed in euthanasia. to me, the real totalitarian thing would be a world of movies where everyone in them had to do what we thought they should do.

(end of rant)

.

Thank. You. You put that in much better words than I could...I, too, get bugged when people blame the media for violence in this country. I've watched violent movies throughout my life, and yet I'm not a violent person. And I'm not a violent person because my parents raised me right and taught me that that was the wrong way to handle things.

Angela

 

[A_Wanderer]

Death penalty for terrorists doesnt work funnily enough as it makes martyrs out of them.

The IDF seems to have won the intafada by doing just that, killing terrorists and making martyrs out of them; Sheik Yassin, Rantisi etc. etc.

If a terrorist cannot be captured then assassinate ~ if captured keep alive and interrogate and then lock up and throw away the bloody key (if convicted of course).

These old cliche's of "one mans terrorist = another mans freedom fighter", "the Arab Street will be upset" and "killing a terrorist basically makes him more powerfull than you can possibly imagine" are getting mighty stale ~ get new cliche's .

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Sorry for that extra post...I tried to delete it, and it won't let me for some reason.

Angela

 

[Macfistowannabe]

it is NOT entertainment's job to tell us how to live. it is not entertainment's job to give us pat little stories that affirm what we already believe. it is not entertainment's job to present us with wholesome characters who make decisions that we would make. just because there is violence in a film does not mean that, 1) it's an endorsement of violence, or 2) that the movie is there telling you what decisions you should make.

And I didn't say it was. I addressed it as a problem that they use it to attract attention. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Irvine511]

the only thing i'll add to my post is that i do ask movies to portray contraversial issues reponsibly -- they examine both sides, and the issue is presented as simply more than black and white, and hopefully serves an artistic purpose.

for example: i have no problems with the excessive gore in "saving private ryan"; i do have problems with the gore in, say, "die hard 2."

however, both movies have a right to exist, and if there weren't market demand for the "die hard" style violence, then such a film wouldn't exist.

it also drives me crazy when they blame Hollywood for all the trash and sleaze that's on TV and in the cineplex.

blame the free market; Hollywood doesn't do anything that won't ultimately benefit their bottom line.

if you want to promote a culture of life, speak with your wallet (it's the only way anyone listens in this country, it seems).

 

[deep]

.

Thank. You. You put that in much better words than I could...I, too, get bugged when people blame the media for violence in this country. I've watched violent movies throughout my life, and yet I'm not a violent person. And I'm not a violent person because my parents raised me right and taught me that that was the wrong way to handle things.

Angela

i can't completely agree here


the truth may be in the middle

i don't know where or who should draw the line


as i watched Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers, I had a sickening feeling

i knew the film would spawn copycats
and it did


as for M$B it is not about euthanasia

it was just someone killing someone
(perhaps this should be a different thread)

 

[Irvine511]

These old cliche's of "one mans terrorist = another mans freedom fighter", "the Arab Street will be upset" and "killing a terrorist basically makes him more powerfull than you can possibly imagine" are getting mighty stale ~ get new cliche's .

been reading your Hitchens lately?



while i agree that nearly any shakeup in the ME is a good thing, i still disagree with the manner in which such a shake-up was implemented in Iraq.

the goings-on in Lebanon are, i think we all must agree, a good thing.

and let's not forget to give credit to where credit is REALLY due: to the brave men and women in Lebanon and the Ukraine, emulating their predecessors of 15 years earlier in Poland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, East Germany, and (to a lesser extent) Romania.

power to the people, THEY did it, not the "bush doctrine."

 

[PurpleSeven]

"Today, the Court repudiated the misguided idea that the United States can pledge to leave no child behind while simultaneously exiling children to the death chamber. Now, the US can proudly remove its name from the embarrassing list of human rights violators that includes China, Iran, and Pakistan-nations that still execute juvenile offenders. It can take pride in knowing that it is now in the company of the honorable nations that abandoned this antiquated practice years ago."
- Dr. William F. Schulz, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA

Halleluia and Amen!

 

[BVS]

It's all Adam and Eve's fault. They were horrible parents.

 

[Irvine511]

It's all Adam and Eve's fault. They were horrible parents.

agreed. Adam should have known that temptress Eve was nothing but trouble the minute he laid eyes on her.


here's hoping Adam and Steve would have been much better...

 

[deep]

is this America?


we can not execute children and retarded people anymore





we need Bush to appoint a god-fearing Supreme Court.


i would not blame Texas if they seceded

 

[deep]

here's hoping Adam and Steve would have been much better...

my gay friends told me this could never have been

it would have been

Adam and Stefan

 

[nbcrusader]

i've been working with kids since i've been 15, and any kind of violence -- whether it's throwing rocks on the playground to actual fistfights in jr high or god forbid something worse -- is absolutely NEVER tolerated.

can you substantiate this claim with examples?

One off the top of my head: White, suburban Orange County. High school student joining a gang (noted for their '50's style clothing) violently beats a fellow teenager. I recall news reports of people countering the outrage over the incident with statements like "boys will be boys".

Even violence against property is considered "child behavior" whether it is vandalism or stealing.

 

[Irvine511]

One off the top of my head: White, suburban Orange County. High school student joining a gang (noted for their '50's style clothing) violently beats a fellow teenager. I recall news reports of people countering the outrage over the incident with statements like "boys will be boys".

Even violence against property is considered "child behavior" whether it is vandalism or stealing.

while those comments are stupid, did such actions go unpunished?

i would think the excusing of the action -- as opposed to the excuses offered -- on the basis of age might be evidence of not teaching children that violence is acceptable, but if the members of this gang were punished, i don't see where the tolerance for violent behavior is?

but i also do think it's important to distinguish between the choices made by a 14 year old and a 34 year old. one is a child, the other is an adult. standards of behavior should remain the same, but the understanding of the motivation behind anti-social behavior might be very different between the two.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

as i watched Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers, I had a sickening feeling

i knew the film would spawn copycats
and it did

Anyone who goes out and commits a crime that is in a movie would most likely have done that crime even if they didn't see the movie, because again, it all comes back to not having been raised to know that that kind of behavior is wrong. The people making the film, I'm assuming, were not hoping that people'd go out and commit crimes because of what they saw in the movie, so it seems silly to blame them for it. And if somebody does happen to go out and do something because they saw it in a movie, it's still that person's fault, not the movie's, as the movie/the actors/the writers/the producers/etc. never forced anybody to do what is done in the film.

Also, I agree with Irvine's most recent post.

Angela

 

[deep]

in Southern CA we have had a rash of car chases covered by local channels with helicopters crews

many are saying that their are so many because of the coverage
and want it not aired

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

in Southern CA we have had a rash of car chases covered by local channels with helicopters crews

many are saying that their are so many because of the coverage
and want it not aired

That won't stop car chases. Getting rid of the stuff you see on TV won't solve the problems...they'll still be there, we'll just be basically sweeping them under the rug and acting like they don't exist.

Angela

 

[deep]

not talking about stopping

just reducing


there seems to be a proliferation with the coverage

 

[Dreadsox]

I hope Malvo develops lots of good friends in prison.

 

[namkcuR]

Good, now if we can just get Capital Punishment itself abolished. It is barbaric, hypocritical, not at all a deterent, and wrong. Period.

As for the idea that the media is responsible for kids being violent....no. That's not true, at least not the way a lot of people want to say it is. To say that if a kid sees a violent movie with lots of gunfighting and such, that he or she will then go out and get a gun and commit a crime, is ridiculous. Same goes for video games and music and whatever else you can think of. Take Columbine, for example. Those two guys apparently were fans of 'The Matrix', and in the media that was played out as being a reason why they did what they did. Which is crap. How many millions and millions of people saw the Matrix? And how many of those millions and millions went on to commit violent crimes? I rest my case. The fact is, if a kid sees a movie, plays a video game, hears a song, and is influenced by what he or she sees/hears in it, to commit a crime, then they had pre-existing problems, namely that their parents haven't properly taught them that shooting people is wrong, etc etc. It's also about having a good support system and not being angry. An angry kid that feels neglected and unwanted will be more likely to be influenced by such movies/games/music. That is a fact.

I'm lucky enough to have parents who have a thirty year togetherness/marriage, a great family/support system. Guess what? I own all three Die Hard movies, both Rush Hour movies on DVD, watched them countless times in my life. I've seen all the Lethal Weapon movies and Matrix movies and so on and so forth. I've seen a LOT of violent movies. I have played some VERY violent video games, the kind where you can see blood coming out of your victims, and you have arrays of 50 guns to choose from. I have seen Beavis and Butthead burn down a house and commit other crimes. I have heard my share of rap music(although it is one of my least favorite types of music), I've heard some really bad lyrics in my time. All of that, and I have never, ever commited a crime in my life. Never even wanted to. And I am not alone in that situation of having been exposed to media violence like that and not being influenced about it.

People who say that the media is to blame for teenage violence and whatnot are missing the real problem. It's about having a good set of parents, a good support system. It's about feeling like you are loved and cared about and appreciated. Trust me, I have seen examples in my life of kids who didn't have that support system, didn't have that love, who went down some pretty bad, dark roads. And the media had nothing to do with it.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Good, now if we can just get Capital Punishment itself abolished. It is barbaric, hypocritical, not at all a deterent, and wrong. Period.

As for the idea that the media is responsible for kids being violent....no. That's not true, at least not the way a lot of people want to say it is. To say that if a kid sees a violent movie with lots of gunfighting and such, that he or she will then go out and get a gun and commit a crime, is ridiculous. Same goes for video games and music and whatever else you can think of. Take Columbine, for example. Those two guys apparently were fans of 'The Matrix', and in the media that was played out as being a reason why they did what they did. Which is crap. How many millions and millions of people saw the Matrix? And how many of those millions and millions went on to commit violent crimes? I rest my case. The fact is, if a kid sees a movie, plays a video game, hears a song, and is influenced by what he or she sees/hears in it, to commit a crime, then they had pre-existing problems, namely that their parents haven't properly taught them that shooting people is wrong, etc etc. It's also about having a good support system and not being angry. An angry kid that feels neglected and unwanted will be more likely to be influenced by such movies/games/music. That is a fact.

I'm lucky enough to have parents who have a thirty year togetherness/marriage, a great family/support system. Guess what? I own all three Die Hard movies, both Rush Hour movies on DVD, watched them countless times in my life. I've seen all the Lethal Weapon movies and Matrix movies and so on and so forth. I've seen a LOT of violent movies. I have played some VERY violent video games, the kind where you can see blood coming out of your victims, and you have arrays of 50 guns to choose from. I have seen Beavis and Butthead burn down a house and commit other crimes. I have heard my share of rap music(although it is one of my least favorite types of music), I've heard some really bad lyrics in my time. All of that, and I have never, ever commited a crime in my life. Never even wanted to. And I am not alone in that situation of having been exposed to media violence like that and not being influenced about it.

People who say that the media is to blame for teenage violence and whatnot are missing the real problem. It's about having a good set of parents, a good support system. It's about feeling like you are loved and cared about and appreciated. Trust me, I have seen examples in my life of kids who didn't have that support system, didn't have that love, who went down some pretty bad, dark roads. And the media had nothing to do with it.

.

Angela