Shannon Mathews

I'm not sympathising with the actions of Hindley, all I'm saying is she was not as complicit as Brady. What she did was abhorrent, what he did was much worse. Though, she obviously is just as bad as him eh?

WTF?

Other than the recording of a little girl no one except Brady and Hindley knows (knew) what happened.

Hindley always claimed she turned a blind eye, was not present at the murder/had some other excuse but then the police found the recording - and she still denied she took an active part.

She claimed she was 'looking out the window' or 'running a bath'.

She was photographed by Brady at the graves.

I think part of the reason why we know these names is that it was a woman, until then children were warned about 'strange men' but suddenly a woman was just as bad.

Oh wow, that TV show idea is in very poor taste.

I know that they're filming a dramatisation of the events with Sheridan Smith playing Karen Mathews next door neighbour....I also know that they had to move where they were filming as there had been protests

I hope this never sees the light of day.

With regards to Maxine Carr, I'm not even sure if that venom towards her was because she was a woman or simply that it was such a high profile awful case. I just don't know

I got the distinct feeling at the time that the tabloid press wanted to frame her as the new Hindley, and unfortunately to a great extent they succeeded.

I have a very hard time believing that she thought he was innocent, but even if she did....a false alibi is false....it was not up to her to decide he wouldn't have done it and she should have given the police the facts. That said, the police should not have trusted her at all.

Like many women before and after her, she believed the man she loved. Goodness knows, we see enough of that on relationship boards here. In the previous case where she provided an alibi for Huntley, the victim said that Huntley was not the person who attacked her and it appears to be the case that the alibi was genuine. Once she realised what Huntley had done she gave evidence that was very material in convicting him.

Yes, what she did was absolutely wrong. She was convicted and sentenced accordingly and has served her sentence. The point is that she has suffered far more than her prison sentence - she had to move to a new identity and lives in daily fear of exposure and lynch mobs. That is massively disproportionate to her crime.

Was Shannon ever adopted?

Given the Internet I'm sure she's very aware of any media coverage of her. (Inc pos this thread)

Yes but the OP doesn't actually mention Karen Mattews it says Shannon Matthews and jumps from how horrible it was to how people demonised her ? ive requested a title change to Karen Matthews.

The thread is about demonising Karen Matthews, the mother of Shannon Matthews. No one is demonising the victim.

How did the press Demonise a 9yr old child have i hit my head here or something ? If anything she was treated with respect and privacy and has lived her life in private with her new adopted parents since. She'd be in her late teens by now and is probably very happy and oblivious to any media coverage about her which is non these days.. let's keep it that way and let the poor girl live a happy life.

How would you describe rape and murder? I don't think you can really over egg the awfulness of Myra Hindly or Rose Wests' crimes, Or those of Ian Brady or Fred West or Robert Black. They are all utterly heinous and I cannot comprehend why anyone would want to offer any kind of excuse for any of them or how any public revulsion can be too strong.

Karen Matthews is of a different order, but as it was her own child it is in many ways as repugnant a crime, but a different crime, as Shannon Matthews is still alive.

Murder is the worst crime as there is nothing to be done to make it OK for the victim, no hope for a better future. I think some people forgot that in their rush to show compassion for certain murderers.

Well, ok but they're not actually being turned into demons are they?

Does it matter if we say some crimes are reprehensible and exclude you from society, I guess is the question.

But this is OP's thread so ignore my question.

"Does it matter if awful criminals are demonised?"

Probably does if their crimes were awful, but not demonic.

Just to say I didn't want to get caught up on the DV stats it was just that as it was quoted as so high that alone would suggest that there was violence daily even if it had been 1000 it still lends to the fact that it probably happens daily, it was just the stat I remembered. My point was more the other half of my post

"Double deviance conversely suggests that men are naturally violent, and that this behaviour is totally expected from them."
Expected, yes, that's toxic male socialization, but reading the first few paragraphs of the linked article, it says nothing about men being 'naturally' violent. They may be perceived or expected to be naturally violent though, that is quite common, and hence part of the problem. And conversely women are expected to not be violent (unless they are protecting their children, for example, where violence is expected?). Hence women that are violent are somehow non-women as well as being bad.........

Does it matter if awful criminals are demonised?

Serious question.

The figures here give a broader picture as regards domestic violence:

www.refuge.org.uk/files/Statistics-domestic-violence-and-gender.pdf

No Elendon I did not say there were no public executions anywhere in the world. I was referring to the UK.

Your level of what aboutery on this thread has been impressive.

Historic executions in the UK, public execution elsewhere, throw in The Handmaid's Tale for good measure, lob in irrelevant reference to bringing back hanging.

Your minimising of Hindley's crimes was breathtaking.

So I do have to leave this discussion now. Thank you OP for bringing it up. It's a valid argument you bring to the table.

Double deviance conversely suggests that men are naturally violent, and that this behaviour is totally expected from them. I don't believe that men are naturally violent at all.

Lass, are you saying that there are no public executions on this planet? I do believe that a cabinet member who likes to roam foreign lands, recently spoke out against one of those countries that use public executions as a day out for the family.

There are people out there who would love capital punishment brought back for a lot less than the 'most heinous of murders' - and who decides what is 'heinous'?

Going back to the original point made by the OP. Double deviance theory Argues that women are punished twice, 1st for their crime then behavior against female gender norms.

Someone mentioned Amanda Knox upthread, this is a good explanation of DD theory using AK georgamankarious.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/double-deviance-and-the-bad-woman-representations-of-amanda-knox-in-the-tabloid-media/

Louisville between 1900 and 1949, 621 men were executed as opposed to 11 women.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_Kingdom

Now, given that women during that time were seen as sub humans, not capable of voting, breeders, property, no divorce, no contraception, no abortion; can you imagine that with such sexism and misogyny, that there were marauding hordes of violent women? Or have women finally caught up with men, re violent acts, due to empowerment no doubt, in the 21st century?