Judith Regan's Reasons To Publish "If I Did It"

[CmdrBretz]

If this belongs in another topic subset please correct my mistake.

I want to get your reactions to this article. I found it to be very selfish and I liked it.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1jr.htm

[BrassDragon]

Regan's explanation revolves around the topic of justice and how it should be absolute, and that is definitely interesting. To her, there is clearly no moral grey area. That's a good thing. She's willing to hold people accountable for their actions. And that she can so strongly condemn some people suggests that she could also recognize greatness in others.

The piece is well-written, but I only read half of it when I originally saw it (before you mentioned it) because I got tired of reading about her problems with her ex-husband. My gut reaction was that it was tasteless for her to go into so much depth about her personal life, but now I see how much it added to the article and supported her point.

Her take on selfishness is excellent, but I have two points I'm critical on.

(1) Publishing something for selfish reasons is not contrary to publishing something for the sake of preserving history, scholarly research, etc. The two are not mutually exclusive, but a casual reader will be strengthened in his likely belief that things that are good are done selflessly because of the way this piece is written.

(2) She talks about the importance of confessing crimes so that justice can be done, which is good. And she talks about confession in a religious sense as a horrible experience. But some readers will conflate the two, as she doesn't actually come down very hard on religion; you have to read between the lines to realize she's coming out against it, but it's not clear whether she sees that kind of authoritarian religious experience as "pure evil" or "necessary evil."

*edited to fix typo

Edited November 17, 2006 by BrassDragon

[Thales]

Judith Reagan says the following:

In the past few days, since the announcement of the forthcoming book and televised interview If I Did It, it has been strange watching the media spin the story. They have all but called for my death for publishing his book and for interviewing him. A death, I might add, not called for when Katie Couric interviewed him; not called for when Barbara Walters had an exclusive with the Menendez brothers, who killed their parents in cold blood, nor when she conducted her celebrated interviews with dictator Fidel Castro or Muammar al-Gaddafi; not called for when 60 Minutes interviewed Timothy McVeigh who murdered hundreds in Oklahoma City, not called for when the U.S. government released tapes of Osama bin Laden; not called for when Geraldo Rivera interviewed his dozens of murderers, miscreants, and deviants.

When she says "they have all but called for my death", then she is saying nobody has called for her death. I'm sure what has happened is that she has been ridiculed for publishing such a book, which is entirely fair so long as the criticism is rational. I'm thankful there is such criticism out there. It shows that lots of people still have a sense of right and wrong. I have zero interest in hearing what any killer has to say, and would not buy a book by one as a matter of principle.

I made the decision to publish this book, and to sit face to face with the killer, because I wanted him, and the men who broke my heart and your hearts, to tell the truth, to confess their sins, to do penance and to amend their lives.

Murder is the ultimate crime. There is no way to make up for it. The lives have been taken. This is the central point. The "breaking hearts" part I think is a bit over the top. This was a double murder, not the breaking of someone's heart. This was a high priced German knife across the throat and in the gut. It was a premeditated murder.

That she’s even seeking value in such a person seems a bit depraved anyway. There are actually good people in the world from whom to seek values.

[BrassDragon]

The "breaking hearts" part I think is a bit over the top. This was a double murder, not the breaking of someone's heart.

She was talking literally about her husband's violence against her; this particular wording refers to the Simpson case only metaphorically.

Like I said, all the personal stuff about her heart being broken does seem over the top until you realize that without wrapping the Simpson issue up with her compelling personal story, Regan's reply to her detractors likely would have seemed intellectual, dry and weak.

[Thales]

She was talking literally about her husband's violence against her; this particular wording refers to the Simpson case only metaphorically.

She used the Simpson case as an exemplar. This is a case for which there is no forgiveness.

Like I said, all the personal stuff about her heart being broken does seem over the top until you realize that without wrapping the Simpson issue up with her compelling personal story, Regan's reply to her detractors likely would have seemed intellectual, dry and weak.

I really have to stand by my evaluation above. I consider her argument to be weak and indefensible. There is no value to be gained from a killer. She needs some self-esteem.

[BrassDragon]

Certainly there is no forgiveness in the Simpson case or in her personal story. But I don't think she was looking for admission of guilt as a precondition for forgiveness - she was looking for admission of guilt from the killer(s) for some other reason.

I agree that there is no value to be gained from a killer, i.e. from a killer's admission of his guilt. She shouldn't need a killer's moral sanction of her judgement that his actions were wrong - her judgement alone should be enough. And if she thinks the killer confessing his crimes will make her feel better, she does need some self-esteem and a good dose of reasonable thinking. So I agree with your point.

But I also stand by my points, which are that the piece is well-written to give a strong emotional appeal in her own defense, which is what she was trying to accomplish; and that the piece touches on some imortant moral concepts, albeit imperfectly.