I frequently write about the importance of listening to the other side on tough issues, but are some positions so odious that they never deserve a hearing?
A couple of years ago, an Australian friend was directing a documentary about a difficult subject: child sex-abuse in his Jewish community. One of the interviewees was a former abuser who had gone on to live a normal family life for decades.
My friend had filmed a conversation between this man and a well-known sex-abuse survivor who had become a whistleblower. He needed someone to film the former abuser — now living in Los Angeles — reading a statement in his home. I’m a film director too, so my pal reached out to me. I figured that if a victims’ rights advocate was OK with interviewing this man, I was OK with filming him.
“Former abuser” is a message by itself.
Ok, everyone, a show of hands: How many of you think that the headline was different than you expected? I FIRST expected this to be an expose of a vigilante, someone who did something that seemingly most people want. Unless you are a photographer or videographer, I’m sure the sensationalist rage you felt changed once you read the story. For what its worth, the headline should have been better contextualized for the subject matter to avoid confusion.
“He had been relatively young when he committed the crime, about 10 years older than his teenage victim”
So…. 27 and 17? 23 and 13? Mid-twenties and old enough to be prosecuted as an adult?
just like -> stole a pack of cigarettes at 7-11 or robbed a bank while shooting it up with his AK-47.
Without that information this article is useless. Except to illustrate the silly notion of “sex offender”. Fail!
Oh, and this… “As I entered his house, I couldn’t help noticing that it was nicer than mine. Evidently, paying for his crime had not impeded his business.” Meaning, he is lucky not to be living under a bridge, but a double wide is really all he should ever be living in, for the rest of his life.
More Fail! Epic Fail!