Hacker News Reader

Comment by mherdeg | Hacker News Reader

Note that this text is in some cases censored. See Cameron Todd Willingham's statement:

"Yeah. The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man - convicted of a crime I did not commit. I have been persecuted for 12 years for something I did not do. From God's dust I came and to dust I will return - so the earth shall become my throne. I gotta go, road dog. I love you Gabby. [Remaining portion of statement omitted due to profanity.]"

The full text is in fact pretty profane; see http://www.theawl.com/2009/12/cameron-todd-willinghams-real-... .

The New Yorker article which lays out the case for Willingham's innocence omits the latter half of the statement entirely — see last paragraph of http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_... .

View on HN

I find it profoundly dissonant that, while reporting the last words of people who were then legally murdered by the state (an inexcusable, brutal injustice, to my mind), the functionaries responsible yet found prissiness enough to cut out the swear words.

State-sanctioned murder? No problemo! A couple of swear words in the victim's dying breaths? Woah, hold it right there - there might be children present.

Unbelievable.

Children should not be present at executions to begin with.

Reminds me of Apocalypse Now. Kurtz: We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene!

There's a strange sense of morality in being able to execute someone but not show their full last words due to swearing. The US media seems to view the world in a similar way.

It isn't the morality. It is the fear that we'll turn them into martyrs.

I don't think profanity and vitriol is really going to win hearts and minds... well spoken ones such as Napoleon Beazly[1] however are more likely to.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7822629

Hm, for some people they are martirs and for people denying the right of the State to the death penalty, they are martirs because they bear witness to the futility of the act.

Regardless of what they say.

Are you saying that the profanity is censored because it's feared that the man would become a martyr? That makes no sense at all.

I have read that article several times. It fascinates me every time I see someone mention it. I am inclined to believe he was innocent, but have never read an article from anyone who views him as guilty (besides some links to case files)

EDIT: And now I just read the link at awl.com and it is a look for a different angle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com