<< Drugs, the Victimless Crime... | Main | Monday SCOTUS Orders >>


Question: When Does Murder Disappear?

| 5 Comments
Answer:  When it presents a problem to the liberal agenda.

The case I'm referring to is the hushed-up Philadelphia murder trial of Kermit Gosnell.  Gosnell spent decades providing abortions.  When some of his extremely late term work turned out to produce the live birth of a viable baby, he had the answer.  The answer was murder.  This happened repeatedly.

When Matthew Shepard was murdered, it was national news for weeks, and rightly so, because it opened the window on a national problem, that being bigotry and violence against gays.  Shepard's killers richly deserved the death penalty, but unfortunately got off with LWOP.

I don't know yet if Gosnell deserves the death penalty, but I know his trial deserves coverage in the press.  The Washington Post has quietly admitted as much, belatedly covering its backside.

But the question remains:  Why the blackout?  Jeremy Lott of RealClearPolitics explores the answer.  Hint:  It has to do with which crime narratives advance Political Correctness and which don't.

Note:  CJLF takes a position on murder but no position on Roe v. Wade or related issues.

5 Comments

Isn't it also possible that this case is not receiving the coverage it deserves because Gosnell's victims were poor women of color and their unwanted offspring?

The story of the notorious Green River Killer, Gary Ridgway, received a little bit of national coverage due to the sheer number of his victims (he has thus far pleaded guilty to murdering 49 women), but it did not receive nearly the coverage it deserved, most likely because the victims were prostitutes. Moreover, I firmly believe that Ridgway got away with his crimes for as long as he did in large part because his victims were marginalized women on the fringes of society.

This happens again and again. For example, the horrific crimes of Robert Pickton in British Columbia come to mind as another instance where the crimes weren't taken very seriously, by either the police or by the media, because the victims were marginalized (i.e., drug users and prostitutes).

I think there is more to the story here than the supposed political agenda of the "liberal" media.

First and foremost, this is a tale of the liberal media looking the other way.

Moreover, it was pressure exerted from woman's rights groups that caused the state to suspend meaningful inspections of abortion clinics that allowed this atrocity to germinate.

James Taranto of the WSJ weighs in here.

My reasons for thinking that a political agenda lies behind the media's essentially covering up the Gosnell case are nicely explained in the WSJ piece Kent linked. The pro-choice forces are simply very uncomfortable with it.

On the other hand, I agree that the murders of people toward the bottom of the economic rung, and the murders of blacks in particular, are given woefully inadequate attention. It seems to be just accepted that some black (or Hispanic or Asian) clerk at the convenience store will get his (or her) head blown off every Saturday night.

It is this phenomenon -- cultural quasi-acceptance of murder at the lower end of the economic scale -- that accounts for the phenomenon of race-of-the-victim "discrimination." As Kent brilliantly described in a piece he did in the Federalist Society magazine "Engage," big city prosecutors (like, say, Kamala Harris before she moved on to being the incompetent AG of California) simply refuse to seek the DP for murder in their jurisdictions. Since the murder victims in those jurisdictions are overwhelmingly black, the result is that, overall, there are proportionately more capital prosecutions of murders with white victims.

What this illustrates, however -- and I'm sure you agree with this -- is not that we should end the DP as racially skewed in "favor" of white victims, but that we should apply it more frequently when the victims are black.

In my view, there is no excuse for the Kamala Harrises of this world, or any other urban area prosecutors, to refuse, simply as genuflection to hidebound abolitionist ideology, to continue to devalue the lives of poor or black victims.

Perhaps the color of the babies (and the word is babies, not fetuses) killed by Gosnell has something to do with it, but the reality is that a serial baby-killer is news. Additionally, Gosnell's crimes put in stark relief the utter immorality of the partial-birth abortion crowd. People like our President think it's ok to terminate a 36 weeker (i.e., a close to full term fetus). From a moral standpoint, how is that any different from Gosnell's crimes? But there is zero coverage of that issue in the press. Compare that, notablogger, to the wall to wall coverage of the alleged link of Sarah Palin to Jared Laughler's motives in Arizona.

Leave a comment

Monthly Archives