@Boogie , I'm certainly not defending showing this. I said I think it's disgusting. I simply pointed out that some good may come of it despite the evil. Also I did say "if they tune in of their own free will". Kids being shown it by their parents are not watching of their own free will.
I think you meant to reply to me not Boogie - and you are quite right of course wrt the free will comment.
@Boogie , If they tune in of their own free will to watch the show, I have little sympathy for their trauma at seeing it.
There will be plenty of children expected to watch who have no choice in the matter.
You mean they'll have no choice because children can't make an informed decision, or because they will be somehow compelled to watch the video even if they don't want to?
The latter.
My parents "made" us watch certain TV programs when we were kids. Of course that was a long time ago, and the programs were no more harmful than Lawrence Welk, Guy Lombardo, and Tennessee Ernie Ford.
Yes. What's wrong with that? Their existence, and the activity of good faith gatekeeping, was valuable. Now we have dopamine seeking novelty as the only principle of selection. What on earth is good about that?
The relative amount of harm done by organized establishment gatekeepers vs. free-wheeling dopamine pushers could be its own separate thread. For now, I'll just recollect that there were at the time media who refused to run the Abu Ghraib torture photos, under perfectly good-faith-sounding rationalizations like "If we publish these, it could increase anti-American sentiment globally and lead to more terrorist attacks". Granted, I think it was mostly the obvious Murdoch villains who outright refused to run the photos, but there were voices in mainstream media defending the choice as well.
And yeah, the dopamine freaks sending their customers war-gore as a bonus for buying ten abattoir videos prob'ly aren't going straight to Heaven either. But, insofar as the issue is the Abu Ghraib photos and insofar as we are just comparing those two media factions, I'd say it's the actions of the snuff kings which are bringing about the greater public benefit.
See also the suppression of Titicut Follies for a similar discordance between moral purpose and result. In that case, it was the film-makers purporting to protect the public's right to know about conditions in a hospital, versus the bureaucrats purporting to protect the patients' privacy. Anyone can have the last word on any of this.
[Hm. Apparently Titicut Follies was produced by an outfit called Bridgewater Film Company, which seems to have been set up strictly for purpose of making the film, and distributed by GROVE PRESS, the semi-underground beatnik imprint involved in numerous censorship controversies.]
I remember journalist Daniel Pearl's execution. Ugh.
I watched that a couple of times at an internet cafe in Korea. The only things that stand out about the experience are that the scream at the end REALLY sounded like an overdub, and that the manager of the cafe noticed what I was watching and non-chalantly stood behind me to watch it until it was over.
There is a long history of the US Supreme Court hearing cases around "cruel and unusual punishment". I am not sure if an American lawyer amongst us could give a precis as to how the court has approached this question over time.
I believe it was Furman vs. Georgia that prompted the 1970s moratorium on the death-penalty, which lasted a few years until Utah found a way to execute Gary Gilmore within Furman's parameters. Not sure of all the details, but that's the basic bookending of the era.
@KarlLB Sorry - I have a subscription so paywalls don't show up for me.
@Dafyd I'll have a go.
First, Mr Syed titles his article "A livestreamed execution is the ultimate gift to jihadist death cults". He leads off by stating that he refuses to name the person in the Camp Hood attack because to do so gives the publicity that he craves, and which was part of the reason why he did it. He reminds the reader of the many people who have written and spoke against public executions, starting with Seneca (in On Clemency) and includes a memorable quote from Charles Dickens: "I am solemnly convinced that nothing that ingenuity could devise to be done in this city, in the same compass of time, could work such ruin as one public execution, and I stand astounded and appalled by the wickedness it exhibits." He also refers to George Orwell.
The central part of his piece points out that jihadists want to die publicly, that martyrdom is not just about being reunited with God but about inspiring more would-be jihadists and martyrs. In other words, if the livestream goes ahead Mr Hegseth will be giving nihilist would-be martyrs what they want on a plate, and he quotes the Isis manual of 2016 to back this up.
None of the American Networks or streaming services will stream the execution. I don't think American internet services can stream it either. This can be much ado about nothing.
An electrocution at New York's Sing Sing Prison in 1928 was photographed by a newspaper reporter who had smuggled a camera in. His photo ran on the front page of his newspaper.
An electrocutionat New York's Sing Sing Prison in 1928 was photographed by a newspaper reporter who had smuggled a camera in. His photo ran on the front page of his newspaper.
That's disturbing enough. Why was a journalist let into the prison in the first place. But he photographed surreptitiously because he knew he was not supposed to.
When the state, which is supposed to represent justice and the right way of doing things, stoops to this dismal populist level, it seriously undermines the culture and ethical standpoint that underlies society.
An electrocutionat New York's Sing Sing Prison in 1928 was photographed by a newspaper reporter who had smuggled a camera in. His photo ran on the front page of his newspaper.
That's disturbing enough. Why was a journalist let into the prison in the first place. But he photographed surreptitiously because he knew he was not supposed to.
When the state, which is supposed to represent justice and the right way of doing things, stoops to this dismal populist level, it seriously undermines the culture and ethical standpoint that underlies society.
It could be argued the 'culture and ethical standpoint that underlies society' has been seriously undermined for some time.
It's been said in recent reports in the UK that J D Vance has hinted (no more than that) that the execution may not actually be filmed for public use IYSWIM.
Is this likely? It would seem to fly in the face of the bloodthirstiness of Trump and Hegseth, but would be a welcome concession...
An electrocutionat New York's Sing Sing Prison in 1928 was photographed by a newspaper reporter who had smuggled a camera in. His photo ran on the front page of his newspaper.
That's disturbing enough. Why was a journalist let into the prison in the first place. But he photographed surreptitiously because he knew he was not supposed to.
When the state, which is supposed to represent justice and the right way of doing things, stoops to this dismal populist level, it seriously undermines the culture and ethical standpoint that underlies society.
It could be argued the 'culture and ethical standpoint that underlies society' has been seriously undermined for some time.
An electrocutionat New York's Sing Sing Prison in 1928 was photographed by a newspaper reporter who had smuggled a camera in. His photo ran on the front page of his newspaper.
That's disturbing enough. Why was a journalist let into the prison in the first place. But he photographed surreptitiously because he knew he was not supposed to.
When the state, which is supposed to represent justice and the right way of doing things, stoops to this dismal populist level, it seriously undermines the culture and ethical standpoint that underlies society.
I don't understand this comment. A journalist reporting on an event is not endorsing that event. Journalists reporting on prison brutality has been hugely important in prison reform. Journalists having access to terrible things happening is incredibly important for journalistic integrity. Why are you assuming that the journalism is aiming for populism rather than demonstrating the ugly reality of the death penalty? Do you think that photojournalists should only take photographs of things they agree with?
An electrocutionat New York's Sing Sing Prison in 1928 was photographed by a newspaper reporter who had smuggled a camera in. His photo ran on the front page of his newspaper.
That's disturbing enough. Why was a journalist let into the prison in the first place. But he photographed surreptitiously because he knew he was not supposed to.
When the state, which is supposed to represent justice and the right way of doing things, stoops to this dismal populist level, it seriously undermines the culture and ethical standpoint that underlies society.
I don't understand this comment. A journalist reporting on an event is not endorsing that event. Journalists reporting on prison brutality has been hugely important in prison reform. Journalists having access to terrible things happening is incredibly important for journalistic integrity. Why are you assuming that the journalism is aiming for populism rather than demonstrating the ugly reality of the death penalty? Do you think that photojournalists should only take photographs of things they agree with?
I took @Enoch to mean that the prison authorities allowed the photographer in so as to publicize the execution. Though it's a bit ambiguous, because he also says that the photo was taken "surreptitiously".
FWIW, there are almost always formal witnesses to executions in the USA, so the journalist could have been one of them in that instance.
I took @Enoch to mean the current proposal by Hegseth when he said:
When the state, which is supposed to represent justice and the right way of doing things, stoops to this dismal populist level, it seriously undermines the culture and ethical standpoint that underlies society.
I took @Enoch to mean the current proposal by Hegseth when he said:
When the state, which is supposed to represent justice and the right way of doing things, stoops to this dismal populist level, it seriously undermines the culture and ethical standpoint that underlies society.
France carried on guillotining in public, though at ground level, until 1939. The execution was supposed to at dawn though it was delayed this tine. A film cameraman got into a nearby building on the second floor and filmed the execution. Thereafter all executions in France were behind prison walls.
It should also be noted that the modern "long drop" method used for hanging in the UK, Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth could and did cause decapitation from time to time. The last hanging in Canada (a double execution) resulted in the near decapitation of one of the condemned men.
Hangings were moved indoors to partially to hide botched ececutions.
An electrocutionat New York's Sing Sing Prison in 1928 was photographed by a newspaper reporter who had smuggled a camera in. His photo ran on the front page of his newspaper.
That's disturbing enough. Why was a journalist let into the prison in the first place. But he photographed surreptitiously because he knew he was not supposed to.
When the state, which is supposed to represent justice and the right way of doing things, stoops to this dismal populist level, it seriously undermines the culture and ethical standpoint that underlies society.
I don't understand this comment. A journalist reporting on an event is not endorsing that event. Journalists reporting on prison brutality has been hugely important in prison reform. Journalists having access to terrible things happening is incredibly important for journalistic integrity. Why are you assuming that the journalism is aiming for populism rather than demonstrating the ugly reality of the death penalty? Do you think that photojournalists should only take photographs of things they agree with?
I took @Enoch to mean that the prison authorities allowed the photographer in so as to publicize the execution. Though it's a bit ambiguous, because he also says that the photo was taken "surreptitiously".
FWIW, there are almost always formal witnesses to executions in the USA, so the journalist could have been one of them in that instance.
In the US the witness rooms for an execution are relatively small. Usually, a pool reporter--one selected by the media which is covering the event on the outside will be allowed to be a part of the group that witnesses it. That pool reporter is there to confirm the execution has taken place, and the condemned person is indeed dead.
Also, what happens these days is the witnesses will see the preparation for the execution, the person placed on the gurney/chair, and then a curtain is drawn to hide the actual execution, then when the condemned person has been confirmed dead, the curtain is withdrawn so the witnesses can see the remains.
In Pike's case there must have been an audio that was still heard by the witnesses, though they could not see the attempts at putting her to death. Witnesses reported her talking during the first attempt, and snoring during the second attempt.
An electrocutionat New York's Sing Sing Prison in 1928 was photographed by a newspaper reporter who had smuggled a camera in. His photo ran on the front page of his newspaper.
That's disturbing enough. Why was a journalist let into the prison in the first place. But he photographed surreptitiously because he knew he was not supposed to.
When the state, which is supposed to represent justice and the right way of doing things, stoops to this dismal populist level, it seriously undermines the culture and ethical standpoint that underlies society.
I don't understand this comment. A journalist reporting on an event is not endorsing that event. Journalists reporting on prison brutality has been hugely important in prison reform. Journalists having access to terrible things happening is incredibly important for journalistic integrity. Why are you assuming that the journalism is aiming for populism rather than demonstrating the ugly reality of the death penalty? Do you think that photojournalists should only take photographs of things they agree with?
I suspect you have more respect for journalists than I do. Even if the convention in 1928 New York was that a journalist be nominated as a representative of the collective press to report that the execution has taken place, for him to smuggle a camera into the execution so as to put the photograph on the front page comes over as a particularly offensive and tasteless scoop.
@Bishops Finger you are quite right. My second paragraph was nothing to do with the 1928 incident but is about Hesgeth and the regime he is part of and typifies.
for him to smuggle a camera into the execution so as to put the photograph on the front page comes over as a particularly offensive and tasteless scoop.
His newspaper, the New York Daily News, was then and is now a tabloid of similar ilk to London's News, Mail and Express.
An electrocutionat New York's Sing Sing Prison in 1928 was photographed by a newspaper reporter who had smuggled a camera in. His photo ran on the front page of his newspaper.
That's disturbing enough. Why was a journalist let into the prison in the first place. But he photographed surreptitiously because he knew he was not supposed to.
When the state, which is supposed to represent justice and the right way of doing things, stoops to this dismal populist level, it seriously undermines the culture and ethical standpoint that underlies society.
I don't understand this comment. A journalist reporting on an event is not endorsing that event. Journalists reporting on prison brutality has been hugely important in prison reform. Journalists having access to terrible things happening is incredibly important for journalistic integrity. Why are you assuming that the journalism is aiming for populism rather than demonstrating the ugly reality of the death penalty? Do you think that photojournalists should only take photographs of things they agree with?
I suspect you have more respect for journalists than I do. Even if the convention in 1928 New York was that a journalist be nominated as a representative of the collective press to report that the execution has taken place, for him to smuggle a camera into the execution so as to put the photograph on the front page comes over as a particularly offensive and tasteless scoop.
@Bishops Finger you are quite right. My second paragraph was nothing to do with the 1928 incident but is about Hesgeth and the regime he is part of and typifies.
Can you explain why it's offensive to expose the brutality of the death penalty? Do you think that the news should only show photographs of nice things? I don't understand why you think it's offensive to show reality. Yes, it's shocking - but surely it should be shocking.
for him to smuggle a camera into the execution so as to put the photograph on the front page comes over as a particularly offensive and tasteless scoop.
His newspaper, the New York Daily News, was then and is now a tabloid of similar ilk to London's News, Mail and Express.
I'm not sure how that's relevant. Does a newspaper have to be a broadsheet before it's allowed to publish photos of unpleasant things most people are shielded from?
My father was a journalist witness at an execution. It was, in fact, of a woman, by electric chair, and it left him a life long hater of the death penalty. Just saying.
for him to smuggle a camera into the execution so as to put the photograph on the front page comes over as a particularly offensive and tasteless scoop.
His newspaper, the New York Daily News, was then and is now a tabloid of similar ilk to London's News, Mail and Express.
I'm not sure how that's relevant. Does a newspaper have to be a broadsheet before it's allowed to publish photos of unpleasant things most people are shielded from?
Given @Hugal's comment about the rapper's supposedly "offensive and tasteless scoop", I took @Amanda B Reckondwyth as possibly just providing some cultural context for why that particular paper would engage in that sorta thing.
If we were supposed to extrapolate further that since morbid sensationalism is the paper's stock and trade, therefore we should be suspicious of their moral reasons for publishing, that gets back to my earlier point about the discrepancy between the reasons for publishing and the results of publishing. If the Daily News published the photo to appeal to vengeful bloodlust among hoi poloi, can progressives still hope to find social value in its documentation of state violence? What if 60% of the readers respond with bloodlust, and only 40% with thoughtful reflection on state violence?
An electrocutionat New York's Sing Sing Prison in 1928 was photographed by a newspaper reporter who had smuggled a camera in. His photo ran on the front page of his newspaper.
That's disturbing enough. Why was a journalist let into the prison in the first place. But he photographed surreptitiously because he knew he was not supposed to.
When the state, which is supposed to represent justice and the right way of doing things, stoops to this dismal populist level, it seriously undermines the culture and ethical standpoint that underlies society.
I don't understand this comment. A journalist reporting on an event is not endorsing that event. Journalists reporting on prison brutality has been hugely important in prison reform. Journalists having access to terrible things happening is incredibly important for journalistic integrity. Why are you assuming that the journalism is aiming for populism rather than demonstrating the ugly reality of the death penalty? Do you think that photojournalists should only take photographs of things they agree with?
I suspect you have more respect for journalists than I do. Even if the convention in 1928 New York was that a journalist be nominated as a representative of the collective press to report that the execution has taken place, for him to smuggle a camera into the execution so as to put the photograph on the front page comes over as a particularly offensive and tasteless scoop.
@Bishops Finger you are quite right. My second paragraph was nothing to do with the 1928 incident but is about Hesgeth and the regime he is part of and typifies.
Can you explain why it's offensive to expose the brutality of the death penalty? Do you think that the news should only show photographs of nice things? I don't understand why you think it's offensive to show reality. Yes, it's shocking - but surely it should be shocking.
FWIW, even knowing what is taking place in that photo, I don't find it shocking enough to imagine that it would in any way push me toward opposing the death penalty were I not already opposed. Unless maybe I thought the person being executed was innocent.
A journalist reporting on an event is not endorsing that event. Journalists reporting on prison brutality has been hugely important in prison reform. Journalists having access to terrible things happening is incredibly important for journalistic integrity. Why are you assuming that the journalism is aiming for populism rather than demonstrating the ugly reality of the death penalty? Do you think that photojournalists should only take photographs of things they agree with?
Can you explain why it's offensive to expose the brutality of the death penalty? Do you think that the news should only show photographs of nice things? I don't understand why you think it's offensive to show reality. Yes, it's shocking - but surely it should be shocking.
You asked why Enoch thought the journalist was aiming for populism. I believe Enoch's response was that the newspaper has a reputation for populism.
Do your statements about journalism apply if the journalist is working for the Daily Mail or Telegraph?
The further question about showing reality is I think whether or not photos of someone dying invade their privacy, or objectify them, or otherwise fail to respect their dignity as human beings.
for him to smuggle a camera into the execution so as to put the photograph on the front page comes over as a particularly offensive and tasteless scoop.
His newspaper, the New York Daily News, was then and is now a tabloid of similar ilk to London's News, Mail and Express.
I'm not sure how that's relevant. Does a newspaper have to be a broadsheet before it's allowed to publish photos of unpleasant things most people are shielded from?
It goes to motive. Was the paper trying to expose a horrific thing, or was it trying to capitalize on and even stoke popular fascination with violence?
"The further question about showing reality is I think whether or not photos of someone dying invade their privacy, or objectify them, or otherwise fail to respect their dignity as human beings."
There is something a little bit strange talking about the privacy of a now deceased person in the context of a religion which has historically been all about dead people.
I do not know whether Enoch is a Roman Catholic (they could be an atheist for all I know) but the Roman Catholics often seemed to see human relics themselves as important objects. Then there are all the images of death and dead bodies, statues, paintings. Skulls and so on. I do not think this is just Roman Catholicism is it?
He can correct me, of course, but I’m pretty sure @Enoch is Church of England.
In any event, I think describing any tradition of Christianity as historically being “all about dead people” demonstrates a pretty shallow understanding of Christianity.
... In any event, I think describing any tradition of Christianity as historically being “all about dead people” demonstrates a pretty shallow understanding of Christianity.
I agree. And I do not see any connection between relics and the disrespect involved in circulating photographs of ordinary people dying, being killed or of their bodies.
In the period of time since the invention of photography, I wonder if any high-candle churches have venerated photographs of dead or dying martyrs, the way they venerate indirect artistic representations like paintings etc.
In the period of time since the invention of photography, I wonder if any high-candle churches have venerated photographs of dead or dying martyrs, the way they venerate indirect artistic representations like paintings etc.
Sorry, I cannot resist this one.
Most of the canonised martyrs died before the invention of photography.
In the period of time since the invention of photography, I wonder if any high-candle churches have venerated photographs of dead or dying martyrs, the way they venerate indirect artistic representations like paintings etc.
Sorry, I cannot resist this one.
Most of the canonised martyrs died before the invention of photography.
So you mean the number of canonized martyrs post-photography would slight enough to rule out the possibility of their deaths or the events adjacent to their deaths being photographed?
I mean, people venerate images of the crucifixion, which is literally an execution.
Yes, but those doing the venerating are not venerating the execution or the crucifixion as such. They’re venerating the the image of the person they believe willingly offered himself as a sacrifice, who died, and who rose again. The one being worshipped through the veneration of the crucifix is explicitly understood to not be dead.
Comments
I think you meant to reply to me not Boogie - and you are quite right of course wrt the free will comment.
My parents "made" us watch certain TV programs when we were kids. Of course that was a long time ago, and the programs were no more harmful than Lawrence Welk, Guy Lombardo, and Tennessee Ernie Ford.
The relative amount of harm done by organized establishment gatekeepers vs. free-wheeling dopamine pushers could be its own separate thread. For now, I'll just recollect that there were at the time media who refused to run the Abu Ghraib torture photos, under perfectly good-faith-sounding rationalizations like "If we publish these, it could increase anti-American sentiment globally and lead to more terrorist attacks". Granted, I think it was mostly the obvious Murdoch villains who outright refused to run the photos, but there were voices in mainstream media defending the choice as well.
And yeah, the dopamine freaks sending their customers war-gore as a bonus for buying ten abattoir videos prob'ly aren't going straight to Heaven either. But, insofar as the issue is the Abu Ghraib photos and insofar as we are just comparing those two media factions, I'd say it's the actions of the snuff kings which are bringing about the greater public benefit.
See also the suppression of Titicut Follies for a similar discordance between moral purpose and result. In that case, it was the film-makers purporting to protect the public's right to know about conditions in a hospital, versus the bureaucrats purporting to protect the patients' privacy. Anyone can have the last word on any of this.
I watched that a couple of times at an internet cafe in Korea. The only things that stand out about the experience are that the scream at the end REALLY sounded like an overdub, and that the manager of the cafe noticed what I was watching and non-chalantly stood behind me to watch it until it was over.
I believe it was Furman vs. Georgia that prompted the 1970s moratorium on the death-penalty, which lasted a few years until Utah found a way to execute Gary Gilmore within Furman's parameters. Not sure of all the details, but that's the basic bookending of the era.
Paywalled unfortunately
@Dafyd I'll have a go.
First, Mr Syed titles his article "A livestreamed execution is the ultimate gift to jihadist death cults". He leads off by stating that he refuses to name the person in the Camp Hood attack because to do so gives the publicity that he craves, and which was part of the reason why he did it. He reminds the reader of the many people who have written and spoke against public executions, starting with Seneca (in On Clemency) and includes a memorable quote from Charles Dickens: "I am solemnly convinced that nothing that ingenuity could devise to be done in this city, in the same compass of time, could work such ruin as one public execution, and I stand astounded and appalled by the wickedness it exhibits." He also refers to George Orwell.
The central part of his piece points out that jihadists want to die publicly, that martyrdom is not just about being reunited with God but about inspiring more would-be jihadists and martyrs. In other words, if the livestream goes ahead Mr Hegseth will be giving nihilist would-be martyrs what they want on a plate, and he quotes the Isis manual of 2016 to back this up.
When the state, which is supposed to represent justice and the right way of doing things, stoops to this dismal populist level, it seriously undermines the culture and ethical standpoint that underlies society.
It could be argued the 'culture and ethical standpoint that underlies society' has been seriously undermined for some time.
Is this likely? It would seem to fly in the face of the bloodthirstiness of Trump and Hegseth, but would be a welcome concession...
I don't understand this comment. A journalist reporting on an event is not endorsing that event. Journalists reporting on prison brutality has been hugely important in prison reform. Journalists having access to terrible things happening is incredibly important for journalistic integrity. Why are you assuming that the journalism is aiming for populism rather than demonstrating the ugly reality of the death penalty? Do you think that photojournalists should only take photographs of things they agree with?
I took @Enoch to mean that the prison authorities allowed the photographer in so as to publicize the execution. Though it's a bit ambiguous, because he also says that the photo was taken "surreptitiously".
FWIW, there are almost always formal witnesses to executions in the USA, so the journalist could have been one of them in that instance.
When the state, which is supposed to represent justice and the right way of doing things, stoops to this dismal populist level, it seriously undermines the culture and ethical standpoint that underlies society.
Plausible reading, yes.
It should also be noted that the modern "long drop" method used for hanging in the UK, Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth could and did cause decapitation from time to time. The last hanging in Canada (a double execution) resulted in the near decapitation of one of the condemned men.
Hangings were moved indoors to partially to hide botched ececutions.
In the US the witness rooms for an execution are relatively small. Usually, a pool reporter--one selected by the media which is covering the event on the outside will be allowed to be a part of the group that witnesses it. That pool reporter is there to confirm the execution has taken place, and the condemned person is indeed dead.
Also, what happens these days is the witnesses will see the preparation for the execution, the person placed on the gurney/chair, and then a curtain is drawn to hide the actual execution, then when the condemned person has been confirmed dead, the curtain is withdrawn so the witnesses can see the remains.
In Pike's case there must have been an audio that was still heard by the witnesses, though they could not see the attempts at putting her to death. Witnesses reported her talking during the first attempt, and snoring during the second attempt.
@Bishops Finger you are quite right. My second paragraph was nothing to do with the 1928 incident but is about Hesgeth and the regime he is part of and typifies.
Can you explain why it's offensive to expose the brutality of the death penalty? Do you think that the news should only show photographs of nice things? I don't understand why you think it's offensive to show reality. Yes, it's shocking - but surely it should be shocking.
I'm not sure how that's relevant. Does a newspaper have to be a broadsheet before it's allowed to publish photos of unpleasant things most people are shielded from?
Given @Hugal's comment about the rapper's supposedly "offensive and tasteless scoop", I took @Amanda B Reckondwyth as possibly just providing some cultural context for why that particular paper would engage in that sorta thing.
If we were supposed to extrapolate further that since morbid sensationalism is the paper's stock and trade, therefore we should be suspicious of their moral reasons for publishing, that gets back to my earlier point about the discrepancy between the reasons for publishing and the results of publishing. If the Daily News published the photo to appeal to vengeful bloodlust among hoi poloi, can progressives still hope to find social value in its documentation of state violence? What if 60% of the readers respond with bloodlust, and only 40% with thoughtful reflection on state violence?
FWIW, even knowing what is taking place in that photo, I don't find it shocking enough to imagine that it would in any way push me toward opposing the death penalty were I not already opposed. Unless maybe I thought the person being executed was innocent.
Deleted
Do your statements about journalism apply if the journalist is working for the Daily Mail or Telegraph?
The further question about showing reality is I think whether or not photos of someone dying invade their privacy, or objectify them, or otherwise fail to respect their dignity as human beings.
I also agree with this that @Dafyd said, I think it does.
I do not know whether Enoch is a Roman Catholic (they could be an atheist for all I know) but the Roman Catholics often seemed to see human relics themselves as important objects. Then there are all the images of death and dead bodies, statues, paintings. Skulls and so on. I do not think this is just Roman Catholicism is it?
In any event, I think describing any tradition of Christianity as historically being “all about dead people” demonstrates a pretty shallow understanding of Christianity.
By the way I am CofE and male.
The Church of England is not, IME, greatly 'into' relics and their veneration, though there are a few nosebleed-high parishes which are...
Commemorating holy women and men in the liturgy, whether officially canonised or not, is a different thing, of course.
/as you were/
Most of the canonised martyrs died before the invention of photography.
So you mean the number of canonized martyrs post-photography would slight enough to rule out the possibility of their deaths or the events adjacent to their deaths being photographed?
Right. That's what I was originally wondering. I thought that @Enoch might be saying that the question is moot, because no such photos exist.
Thats in line with the RCC teaching that capital punishment is wrong.