We can go on an infinite philosophical tangent with that. “Isn’t the act of killing, in any fashion, a ‘murder’ of another human, etc…” If you want an exercise in sophistry, have at it, but I’m not participating.
Man shoots neighbor. Doctor operates, tries to save neighbor, botches the job (because it’s hard), neighbor dies. One dead person, two killers. I mean, the intent and circumstances might be different but the act and the end result are the same.
Given that he also tried to compare a grown man trying to fuck a 14yo girl with a consensual relationship between adults that happen to have a large age gap between them, I’m guessing he’s just trying to get a rise out of people now.
It’s interesting how everybody cherry picked only the “murderers” part to respond to and ignored the rest.
And sort of ironic, given that only 1.2% of ex-cons convicted of homicide ever commit another homicide. Of all released prisoners, you would probably have the least to fear from them.
What’s the source of this? Doing a quick search for 1.2% gives me this, which is definitely not ‘ever’:
A 2002 study by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), which tracked 272,000 paroled prisoners in 15 states, including New York, found that 1.2 percent of those released after serving a sentence for murder were rearrested on homicide charges within a three-year period. In absolute terms, of course, that’s 1.2 percent too many additional homicides.
Maybe because people already answered that question upthread?
I was looking at a 1994 study from the Bureau of Justice Statistics rather than the 2002 one you found. There is a 2018 study, but they lumped homicide into “violent crime” so you can’t really see if the numbers changed a lot.
Yeah, since they apparently haven’t done a study longer than nine years, I shouldn’t have said “ever”, but the three-year number is normally cited by criminologists because the vast majority of recidivists are re-arrested in the first three years. There is a plateau after the first few years (the following is for ALL crimes; the recidivism-rate for violent crimes is less, but follows a similar parabolic curve):
Now that I look at it, my phrasing was incorrect: I said only 1.2% commit homicide [in the following 3 years], but that’s wrong: only 1.2% are ever ARRESTED for homicide; presumably the conviction rate is less than 1.2%
Aren’t most murderers known to their victims? That might have at least a little to do with the relatively low rate of recidivism among them. Wouldn’t make me any more comfortable to work alongside someone that was able to cross that line, even knowing they’re unlikely to repeat. My feelings have changed quite a bit since becoming a parent though, as I’ve become much more aware of the people that could be around our daughters. If I didn’t have kids then I think I’d be more willing to be around former felons.
Yeah, from memory something like 90% of homicides are between family members and/or “friends”, and like 85% of murderers turn themselves over to the police within an hour of the crime.
Most murderers are not serial killers or you know killers for hire, so I suspect they don’t repeat very often but that doesn’t mean everyone wants to work with a murder. Having said that, we have a registered sex offender list, that is public, and we don’t do the same for these other crimes. Trying to sex a registered sex offender has some magical right to privacy is clearly false… this is public information. I could find a map right now and find a fair amount of information on them.
Norm Mcdonald is not having a very good time.
“There are very few people that have gone through what they have, losing everything in a day,” said Macdonald, referring to C.K. and Barr. “Of course, people will go, ‘What about the victims?’ But you know what? The victims didn’t have to go through that.”
His apology was quick in coming:
“Roseanne and Louis have both been very good friends of mine for many years,” he tweeted. “They both made terrible mistakes and I would never defend their actions. If my words sounded like I was minimizing the pain that their victims feel to this day, I am deeply sorry.”
In the meantime, a few scheduled talk-show interviews he had scheduled to promote his new series have been canceled, most notably with Jimmy Fallon.
Jimmy ‘ruffled trump’s hair’ Fallon?
This Jimmy Fallon? To hell with the lot of ‘em.
Awww, c’mon, Trumpy’s just a non-threatening racist authoritarian. He’s like the Bryan Adams of wannabe dictators, nothing to worry about or normalize here!
I found what Norm Macdonald wrote to actually be quite thoughtful and compelling, but also found the response to it to be utterly predictable.
I think he raises very important questions. I think, however, he is unfortunately raising them with respect to two people who did not just have single incidents or issues, but appear to have an ongoing pattern of being pretty terrible.
It is much easier to get behind the notion that someone should not be destroyed for a mistake when the mistake is not repeated over and over. (I understand we do not have multiple incidents of Rosanne’s racism, but we do have so many other incidents of her just being fucking kooky, and supposedly horrible to work with.)
Another one bites the dust
Thoughtful huh. Comparing the loss of jobs to the victims pain? That’ ridiculous. I am not sure why Roseanne is being lumped with in CK, but losing your career is not even close to being on level with being a victim of sexual violence.
And let’s be clear here, absolutely clear. Even though Roseanne and CK are not on the same level to what they did… they did it. They are the actions. It didn’t happen to them. They made it happen.
And Roseanne has a history of racism.
Norm Macdonald has morphed into something like a Canadian version of a troll. All of his podcasts are his deadpan, across the line of decency, sort of humor. This kind of stuff is hardly the worst things i’ve heard him say but when he was reduced to basically talking to himself in a studio nobody seemed to care.
IE, he’s not raising issues. He’s doing the up-to-date form of Gilbert Gottfried.
The criticism of Norm seems to me to be right on point. Norm is basically expressing his sympathy for those two people because he knows them. And, because he knows them, of course he exaggerates their suffering. Unless someone has stripped Louis and Roseanne of all their assets while I wasn’t looking, they did not ‘lose everything in a day’. In relative terms, they lost nothing at all. And, since he doesn’t know the victims, he minimizes their suffering, which can’t be as dire as that of his friends. As statements go, it’s damned obtuse, and criticism was easy to predict.
His statements were the opposite of thoughtful.