The Herald Sun decides to mock a bereaved son for paraphrasing song lyrics in a tribute to his dead mother, just because that son happens to be a convicted murderer. Would any other person who used a line from a song or poem in a death notice be accused of “ripping off” the artist? Isn’t using such lines from songs and poems in death notices in fact so commonplace that it shouldn’t be worth mentioning, unless it is to score a cheap point about how gauche it is to use lines from a pop song instead of from the literary canon (as if they wouldn’t have mocked him for presumption if he’d quoted Keats or Shakespeare)?
The “rips off Celine Dion” headline may be down to a sub-editor, but article author Paul Anderson felt compelled to make the point that Barbara Williams, mother of Carl Williams, used “cheap” champagne to wash down the medication that caused her death. Again, if she’d been drinking Dom Perignon he’d almost certainly be making an issue out of that as well. No wonder this paper is nicknamed “the Hun”.
The various emotional arguments that Carl Williams doesn’t “deserve” to go to his mother’s funeral because of his own murderous acts fail on logical grounds. Sure, the man is an incredibly unsympathetic figure due to his ruthless killings. However, if criminals generally are given leave to attend the funerals of family members, as I believe they are, then Williams too should be allowed to attend his mother’s funeral.
Capricious exceptions to general rules based on emotional outcries are not the hallmark of a society that respects the rule of law. People owe it to themselves to be better than this.
crossposted at Hoyden About Town
Id like a bit more justification on this line.
“The various emotional arguments that Carl Williams doesn’t “deserve” to go to his mother’s funeral because of his own murderous acts fail on logical grounds.”
The man is a thug and muderer. His mother was a self proclaimed “matriach” of a family up to its eyeballs in drugs/murder/violence. I see no reason to feel any pity for either the bloke or his family. Pictures of Roberta Williams crying just gave me a Cartman moment.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=iBiWtk2K85I
The only downside will be listening to assorted scum at the funeral referred to as “local identities” by the media.
Mole: the fact that Carl Williams ordered the murder of multiple people is not in dispute. He is going to spend the rest of his life in jail for that.
However, I do not see why that justifies not letting him attend the funeral of his mother, under police escort if necessary.
I had in fact assumed, perhaps wrongly, that the need for a police escort would be so obvious that it didn’t need mentioning. He’s been convicted of violent crimes, he’s still in the early years of his sentence, he should be under escort and even in handcuffs because of that. Doesn’t mean that, just like any other criminal, he shouldn’t be allowed to attend a parent’s funeral.
If there was a blanket rule that no criminal ever was allowed to attend family funerals, then denying Williams’ application to attend would be normal procedure. That is not the case though, is it?
I assume if they’re going to let him out for the funeral, they’ll let him be a pall bearer (handcuffs would make that difficult).
Pity is what makes us different from beasts.
If the State denies even Carl Williams compassion in my name, the State confiscates some of my humanity without my permission.
I don’t see how that necessarily follows.
The state is justified keeping a convicted murderer in restraints at any time that he is outside prison walls. If those restraints mean that certain activities (such as pallbearing) cannot be undertaken, then I don’t see that as being unfair to the prisoner.
Plenty of arguments have been made on talkback radio from “the great unwashed” relating to his acts and his punishment.
What hasn’t been stated is the fact that it may be difficult to ensure his safety. He has so many enemies, some so driven by revenge that they may take this opportunity to even the score. Remember, Williams himself set the standard when he ordered the killing of one of his enemies in front of his children.
Yes, Williams deserves pity, but he deserves (and requires) protection even more.
The death of a parent is one of the most wrenchingly kind of grief one can go through. It would show a lack of compassion equal to Willams’s if the State refused to allow him to attend his mother’s funeral. Surely we are better than that, (though I wonder, sometimes.)
As for protection against a payback killing, I’m sure that would be uppermost in the authorities’ minds. And, whatever evil he has done, surely the man has a right to use whatever material he wishes for a requiem epitaph for his mother.Some of us would undoubtedly prefer verses from great poets or the Bible, and, for those, our personal culture is undoubtedly different from Williams’.But that doesn’t make Williams’ tastes any less valid.
As for his mother’s suicide, the virtual loss of a son and husband is an understandable trigger for suicide. The pity is she didn’t have some-one to turn to to help her cope with her despair. And the unremitting media attention probably didn’t help.
And surely Roberta has the right to grieve for some-one she was close to without being castigated.
Strange as it may seem people involved in the criminal world have feelings just like the rest of us, regardless of the heinous crimes some of them have committed.
As another comenter observed, we are better than animals.
Why does Williams deserve pity? Id garuntee he showed none towards the mothers of the fellows he had murdered.
He chose to make himself one step below other peole by bahaving like no more than a modern slave trader, with drug forged manacles on his victims.
How many women and girls hawked the fork to pay for his lifestyle?
How many died or were beaten over drug debts/offences?
How many kids went hungry/lost parents/ were placed in care?
Hes a dog.
Has he expressed any remorse or contrition to the families of his victims? To cry sympathy for the devil to obtain a bit of moral “purity” for yourself is not a virtuous thing to do.
Mole, before you get too worked up about his victims’ families, remember who they were. Other murderous thugs that did their fair share of damage as well. They were all a rotten bunch.
But let him go to his mother’s funeral. It hurts no-one.
Katz, I can only assume you haven’t spent a lot of time with animals.
Paul Burns @ #8, first paragraph: word.
Tigtog’s post is mainly about the behaviour of that rag the Hun, not about the behaviour and treatment of Carl Williams as such, but Mole, your comment suggests that you are exactly the kind of person that the Hun has in their sights to sell papers to. The gutter press, like the “current affairs” programs on commercial TV, exists to make money, which they do by encouraging, legitimising and bringing out the worst in their potential consumers: self-righteousness (’doesn’t deserve it’), superiority (’cheap champagne’) and righteous indignation (’rips off’). The Williams family elicits the trifecta there.
I knew a bloke who knew a bloke who worked for a big company, a multinational. His boss insisted that he accompany him on an overseas trip, even though it would mean missing his mother’s funeral. True story.
It’s not just the great unwashed who think that mothers’ funerals are overrated.
beast = cruelly rapacious person
It does however divert resources/money from elsewhere. Although in general I’d support prisoners being allowed to attend funerals of close relatives, from reports in the papers it doesn’t seem to be that uncommon for permission to be refused for people convicted of serious crimes. And I think it could be reasonably argued that not being able to attend events like funerals is simply part of the punishment of being sent to prison.
Katz — ah, a metaphor. That’s all right then.
Pavlov’s Cat
Nope dont read it. (not available in my state anyway). I have an aversion to mercy being shown to the merciless. And by victims I dont restrict myself to the high profile gangland slayings either. These people have made millions based on misery.
Fine: A young chap who was picked up, beaten and sodomised over a drug debt might be included as a victim as well. (Yes I know one, I also have a cousin who went to jail for fraud committing crimes in order to pay off his drug debts or face the same treatment from this group) These blokes didnt just “catch and kill their own”, they used extreme violence (or sub-contracted it out) rape and murder to keep their market “shares”.
Fine,
I think Mole was casting the net a little wider in the term “victims”. He wrote: “with drug forged manacles on his victims”
Carl’s victims? Murdered persons: certainly. But a chap with a wide network of drug manufacture, distribution (wholesale and retail?) certainly has a very large number of victims. Some no doubt deceased upon overdose. Others driven to robbery; many now in jail, probably. Countless families grieving. What a low trade is the drugs trade.
cheerio
Mole: crossed with your post
Nice economists’ logic, but aren’t you being a little Old Testament about this? The whole point about mercy is that it rises above tit-for-tat eye-for-an-eye logic. It’s a human quality, not money or goods for barter.
To be fair, Celine Dion is funerary cheese. A Tupac lyric would have been a better option for the sophisticated crook.
/bad, bad man
Opponents of the Death Penalty argue that life imprisonment is enough punishment. The we have this type of situation. Either he is banged up for life, NEVER to be released, or we should have the Death Penalty for this sort of scum. His ongoing existence should be a truely miserable one, including missing family funerals.
If there were a general rule that murderers, rapists, armed robbers etc don’t get funeral attendance privileges, I see that as fully defensible. Especially those that have been part of gang conspiracies etc, their going about in public no matter how well restrained and escorted could well be judged an unacceptable risk to others.
But if others convicted of violent crimes have been allowed funeral attendance privileges, then denying the same to Williams smacks of caprice and pandering to the mob. A justice system ought to be more consistent and ethical than that.
And bring back debtor’s prisons, too.
By all means castigate “The Hun” for its treatment of this matter, and many others.
Regardless of funeral attendance, and Robert Merkel’s pondering over the suitability of a police escort, I still think Mole has a good point. To focus on the “gangland murders”, and downplay the wide realm of misery presided over by Master Williams and his family, including his ex, Roberta, and his late mother, is to mistake media “sensation” for reality.
Whether he is uncouth or low-brow is beside the point, when there has been no remorse or regret. IMO
Oh, hell, lets just cut a slab of flesh from his chest without spilling a drop of blood.
tigtog – I definitely remember cases reported in the paper in the past where criminals have been refused permission to attend funerals. Even people on remand, just accused and not convicted of any crime yet (which I definitely disagree with). Agreed that there should be clear criteria on which the decision is made.
I’m guessing that 99.999% of the public’s opinion, and indeed of opinion on this blog, is based on what they saw on Underbelly.
Which, while it was a magnificent work of drama, might or might not have been an accurate representation of the Williams persona.
For my part, apparent Williams’ lack of remorse means he shouldn’t be allowed out to the funeral.
“from reports in the papers it doesn’t seem to be that uncommon for permission to be refused for people convicted of serious crimes.”
Yep. From memory Ivan Milat has been refused permission in similar circumstances as have a couple of the Bilal Skaf rapists. I think it’s more about the security/risk level that attaches to an individual rather than the crime of which he has been convicted.
In Williams case, attempted payback/retribution would presumably be a concern, particularly for the poor dudes accompanying the guy who could conceivably end up in the line of fire.
While the Hun is no better than it could be expected to be in its coverage of Barbara Williams – who must have been living in hell – it seems a bit odd to come over all morally indignant on Carl’s behalf. From memory, Carl thought nothing of arranging to blow Jason Moran’s brains out in front of his kids at an Auskids game -not much family feeling sensitivity there. As I recall, Jason’s father, Lewis Moran, wasn’t given leave from gaol to attend the funeral.
Alternatively, if you’re not a fan of said gent for some reason, why not sample the classic blue-eyed reggae-soul stalker anthem for your urge to dirge? Now THAT is low.
I think a few people have missed Tigtog’s point. As I understand it, her post is a comment on the rule of law. It is not about the death penalty, or the appropriate amount of kindness convicted mobsters should or should not receive, or whether this particular mobster deserves some (or none).
Two basic requirements of the rule of law are as follows: first, that there be rules; second, that the rules be consistently applied (there are other requirements, but these two are enough for now). If the rule is that prisoners of whatever stripe attend family funerals, then Williams ought to attend subject to appropriate security measures. If the rule is otherwise (that no prisoner should attend family funerals, as has been suggested), then – so long as the rule is applied consistently – the rule of law is safe.
As to the comment about the newspaper and its reporting, I think it is fair to say that lawyering and journalism often pull in opposite directions. The disjunct is at its clearest in situations like this, or when lawyers complain about juries having to be discharged or trials aborted thanks to reporting that is either vindictive or careless.
Katz @ 23 and Paul B @ 25 — double-shot heh, both. Though I fear that in the former case the target won’t get it, and the latter almost nobody will get it — Paul B, don’t you know they DON’T TEACH SHAKESPEARE IN SCHOOLS ANY MORE RANT FROTH DROOL EVIL POSTMODERNISM oops wrong thread.
I’ll see your puffery and raise you Coolio, MC Sideshow.
Relevant section of the legislation, in NSW at least: LINK.
Given the public outcry generated by the usual suspects, no doubt the discretion implicit in the legislation will be exercised not in the applicant’s favour.
Should make most of the above posters happy, at least until the next outrage to common decency comes along.
Liam, isn’t there a Missy Higgins post somewhere on which you ought to be posting appalling music videos?
‘The quality of mercy is not strained;
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath; it is twice blest.
It blesseth him that givesand him that takes;
Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown.
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to force and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings;
It is an attribute to GGod himself,
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this:
That in the course of justice none of us
Should see salvation; we do pray for mercy
And that same prayer do teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much
To mitigate the justice of thy plea,
Which if thou follow, this strict court of Venice
Must needs give sentence ‘gainst the Merchant there.”
I’m not going to translate it, but its something for those of you baying for Williams’ blood to think about.
Excellent stuff. Especially ‘in the course of justice none of us / Should see salvation.’
Also, Paul B, I must apologise; I completely forgot, at #31, that you were one of the anti-pomo commenters, albeit an unrabid one — that little spit was not aimed at you, just following on from the Shakespeare ref.
Mole, I’m fully aware of the misery drug addiction causes, having lost friends to it. It’s a good reason to make possession legal. But basically, I take skepticlawyer’s viewpoint. Williams was sentenced to a suitably harsh 35 year sentence. He wasn’t sentenced to a regime in which he’s shown not one skerrick of mercy. You may wish that to be the case, but thankfully it isn’t.
Mercurius, probably. But this is a thread dedicated to the new lows and appalling taste of the gangsterariat. Or Herald Sun editors. Or something.
Anyway, here’s my final submission. Not guilty, etc.
It isn’t as simple as saying: one prisoner gets let out to attend a funeral, why can’t they all?
It is a security issue. There are people at large who want to kill Carl Williams. There are people who want to spring him from custody, anticipating reward (not necessarily from Williams) for doing so. The Victorian government is under no obligation to make Barbara Williams’ funeral any more of a lightning rod for criminal activity than it is already. There is no reason why the authorities should thrust themselves in harm’s way if this can be avoided.
Arrangements could be made for the hearse to go via the prison for both Williams and his father to participate in a private service. See, there’s my compassion – I recognise the difficulty of this situation and am trying to come up with a solution. If this suggestion doesn’t work – well, I tried and it isn’t my responsibility anyway.
It isn’t true that all prisoners have a right to attend funerals under guard, or that Williams would be the first to be denied this “right”.
Yeah, his mum died. Someone’s mother dies every single day. This would be overwhelming if I thought about this too much.
Yeah, he’s vulgar. I don’t think that counts for much either way.
Yeah, he’s unremorseful. That’s where we wheel in that quality-of-mercy stuff and say: I know you weren’t listening when you first heard this at school, Carl, but now that you know something about forgiveness and punishment you might like to revisit this.
skepticlawyer wrote, inter alia: “I think it is fair to say that lawyering and journalism often pull in opposite directions” Yes indeed, but most of us are non-lawyers, and we’re more interested in mercy and justice than ‘lawyering’.
Andrew E wrote: “Someone’s mother dies every single day.” Bloody hell, does she? Day after day? Gets resurrected each time, then has to die again? The poor lady. That’s a story worthy of a front page. Hold “The Pearly Gates Echo”! Big story coming through…..
I am not especially interested in judging the ethical worth of Williams but I rather think it demeans anyone who seeksto fill his life with misery in some form of vengeance.
Yes, Martin B. And comment #40 very unfunny.
PC @ 36,
No worries. I didn’t feel your comment on anti-postmodernism was directed me.
In any case, if one gets into a stoush, one takes what’s flung at you or doesn’t stoush.
apologies adrian, it’s the inner pedant – out of control again
No worries – I’m in a grumpy old man mood this arvo.
Liam and Fyodor and FDB (wherever youse is) your irregular afternoon tubeway army antics are hugely appreciated by umm.. me, don’t know about others.
LP wouldn’t be the same without your superior afternoon derailing efforts, imo.
And OT – agree with Tigs and SC and others – rule of law with security concerns being the only proper grounds to make these types of decisions.
And what the hell does it matter to anyone without any direct personal involvement in the case that Williams should be taken from his cell for a few hours to some cemetery for a hour and back to prison, probably the only time for the next three/ four decades… are you going to personally monitor his tv watching and gameboy usage for 30 years as well, how many sugars he has in his cuppa? AFAIC, the poor bastards who have to live with/secure these people know well that arbitrary and overly punitive regimes makes their job more dangerous and unpredictable.
Maybe if wingnuts were more supportive of funding for drug outreach, drug rehab programs, further decriminalisation, better juvenile justice programs so kids don’t go to prison the first time, more funding for vocational education and training and so on, they might have a foot in the door, but as usual – make Carl cry is as deep as it goes.
And this doesn’t mean that hardened career crims like Williams won’t come and go as they always have, but reducing their footprint of influence is within our purview.
So Carl Williams has bad taste as well as the heart and eyes of a reptile. My heart bleeds lakes of salty regret for him. So what.