Victims and Public Policy

Chris from Arma Borealis notes some disagreement between himself and a certain Brady Board member about the status of victims in the public debate. I think victims deserve a say just like anyone else, but I’m not sure it’s at all true that victims have unique insight. In fact, I think victims are more likely than not to have their judgement clouded by their unresolved grief. Chris wonders what you do when victims disagree. Does Joan Peterson’s experience give her the same moral authority to speak as Suzanna Gratia Hupp? I doubt Joan Peterson would agree, but to accept victims have special insights presents you with Chris’s question. What do you do when they disagree?

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Bullies and Victims
  2. Misplaced Grief
  3. The Activists Commeth

10 thoughts on “Victims and Public Policy”

  1. I’ve wondered about that myself, specifically in cases in which a murder victim’s family opposes the murderer’s execution and that fact is used to argue that the murderer shouldn’t be executed. What if the family wanted the murderer executed? Should their opinion have bearing then?

  2. “Victims should be allowed to establish policy for the rest of society.”

    So the fewer victims there are, the fewer the number of people who will make the policies? That doesn’t sound like a great road to be traveling down.

  3. “Victims should be allowed to establish policy for the rest of society.”

    So a tiny minority should be allowed to dictate the enforcement of likely unconstitional laws based on their own biases with no input from the remainder of society? Huh. Last time I checked we were a Republic. Even in a pure democracy you would need the support of 50.01% to do that sort of thing. Well the first thought that comes to mind based on that ends with “and the horse you rode in on.”

  4. This reminds me of when Obama was campaigning. It seemed like nearly every time someone would question his qualifications, they were just being ‘racist’. It was like he was bullet-proof, no one could say anything about him and still be politically correct.

    With Joan, she frequently uses her sister as an example of why we need X or Y, but we can’t say anything about her. She’s like this untouchable piece of data that we can’t examine and draw our own conclusions from. Think about that from a scientific perspective. What kind of credibility would researchers have if they made claims or performed experiments but wouldn’t let others analyze the data or procedures? Wouldn’t you think they were hiding something or being dishonest in some way?

  5. I don’t think Suzanna Hupp is allowed to be mentioned on Joan’s blog. Certainly no post I have made that mentioned her has been published.

  6. “I don’t think Suzanna Hupp is allowed to be mentioned on Joan’s blog. Certainly no post I have made that mentioned her has been published.”

    Every time I brought her up, it was moderated out. I think pro-gun victims are a huge inconvenience for the other side.

  7. I’m surprised any pro-gun people bother reading her lame-o, heavily-moderated blog. When there’s a good chance what you write won’t even make it to the page, or she’ll just dismiss your points with a few words and an “I’m right anyway” attitude, what’s the point. All it does is give her traffic anyway.

  8. Pyrotek85 – It’s more religious than scientific, isn’t it? A mystery to be venerated (and used as a cudgel when needed), not a phenomenon to be studied and explained.

  9. Wes — Its like a car accident that you can’t look away from.

    Still, I am proposing 1 April as the start of a 72 hour blackout. No visits, links, comments, or other traffic to Joan’s blog or any other anti-gun blog. Let them realize that there is no “silent majority” reading what they write.

Comments are closed.