Am I the only one sick of news reports of people murdering out of love?  I know that it’s probably due to my choice of news outlets — who never miss a chance for a sensational “Romeo Kills Juliet!” story — but this seems to be becoming a distressingly-familiar story:  Boy meets girl, boy falls in love, girl tells him to get lost, boy murders girl.  Or the reverse:

Blaze Wallace is charged with the murder of Samuel Mayo, 34, in Lower Richmond Road on Monday, July 18. They had become engaged in June.
‘Witnesses have confirmed there was an argument that evening between the victim and the defendant and the defendant tell Mr Mayo to “pack his bags and leave” approximately 45 minutes before he was fatally stabbed.’
Police attended the one-bedroom flat Wallace had shared with her fiancé for the previous six months and she was arrested on suspicion of his murder at 2.25am in the early hours of July 19.

By the way:  the murderous bitch was a lawyer, not some drugged-up hooker.

After all this nonsense, I can only say that I rejoice in this legal decision:

An Egyptian court is planning to broadcast the live hanging of a killer who stabbed a student to death when she turned down his marriage proposal.
Mohamed Adel, 21, was found guilty of murdering his Mansoura University classmate Naira Ashraf when she turned him down, with the court sentencing him to death on July 6.
The court has now called for his execution to be broadcast live to deter similar crimes from happening in future.

We need more of this, and I’m not just being bloodthirsty, this time.  One of the reasons for public executions was that people could see the consequence of murder.  I know that some (e.g. professional hitmen) might be unswayed by the prospect of their lifeless bodies swaying in the breeze, but for the amateur killers like the two scumbags above, there might just be a little hesitation before reaching for the carving knife.

I know, I know:  in today’s fainting-couch culture, people would be traumatized by the occasional public garrotting — but that’s precisely the point, isn’t it?

Murder is a horrible, ghastly business, and the less it and its consequences are sanitized, the better for society as a whole.


  1. It’s really marvelous, how smoothly the ability to murder someone meshes with the ability to be offended by them. When do we start growing tails again?

  2. That first quoted paragraph was *painful*. I’m surprised you didn’t go on a full-blown grammar-rant. But really, where would you start?

  3. I took a sociology class in College where the (redundancy alert) left wing instructor bemoan that publicized executions only lowered the murder rate for about a week. My comment that we should just execute one a week was not taken well.

    I think that broadcasting executions on TV will have no positive effect. First off, this isn’t 1975 when there are three channels in the US and everyone watches one of them. There’s 800 channels and Youtube. Secondly, on most of those channels we see all sorts of violence and mayhem, how is a simple execution going to compare with Hollywood?

    Murders like the ones you mention are not committed by people thinking of the future, they’re not done in careful consideration of what happens next. It would probably dissuade some of the “shoot the clerk, take the till” type robberies, but giving the clerk a shotgun would have the same effect.

  4. William you’re right about the abundance of channels. Decades ago everyone pretty much watched the same stuff so the next day at the water cooler the conversations were predictable and about last night’s broadcast. Now everyone does their own thing.

    In my opinion we should bring back the public pillory for minor crimes, add in rotten produce for $5 a throw or so and go on up to public execution. Build a scaffold inside a building built from steel it would only require a few licks of paint every so often. You have the labor right there in the prison. The only consumable would be the rope which is cheap and could be sold as souvenirs with the proceeds given to the victims.


  5. Kim, you seem to be implying that it’s more socially acceptable to be a lawyer than a drugged-up hooker. I’m not sure most of us would agree. I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.

    1. I have a brother-in-law who is a lawyer. Thankfully, he’s retired so his harm to society has ceased. Now he keeps my sister away from society, so he’s doing God’s work.

  6. This is one case where a short drop might be more appropriate, let her family watch him kick for a while.

  7. Perfesserioneral Edtior here (you that read right).
    “…to deter similar crimes from happening in future…”
    The phrase ‘to deter similar crimes’ is a complete thought.
    Adding ‘from happening’ contributes nothing to the thought except unnecessary blathering.
    Adding ‘in future’ is one way for the author to proclaim he/she/it/thxy ‘be flunked journalistism schools twice’.
    Probably because of systemic racists.
    And shit.

Comments are closed.