It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Guess what: Crime DOES Pay!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Online Sites Where Crime Does Pay
by Dean Terry

Convicted murderers can still make a killing - on the web. Online, you can find Items like oil paintings, signed hand prints, pastels and poems by some of histories most notorius serial killers up for sale or bid. These gruesome collectors items are known as murderabilia.

Artwork produced by convicts such as cult killer Roch Theriault can be found at websites such as www.murderauction.com... and www.supernaught.com...

Theriault is serving a life sentence after being convicted of brutal murder in 1993. He was the charismatic leader of a tiny religious group near Burnt River, Ontario between 1977 and 1989. Theriault chopped off the hands of one of his concubines and killed his wife by disemboweling her.


LINK to full story


Am I the only person who thinks this is wrong? I realize technically the law against "profiting from a criminal act" doesn't apply here, but ... it still seems very wrong to me.

If people want to buy this stuff, have the money go to charities, or to the victims and their families. Don't let the criminals profit off of the notoriety they gained by committing gruesome crimes!




posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I agree with you that it does not sit right that they are making money based off their notoriety gained from horrendous acts but in a capitalist society we have to bear it. All the money that goes into weapons development, creating new silly products (Furby anyone?), creating self-destructive products (alcohol, cigarettes, etc.) and MANY other areas make this pale in comparison. There are many things that money SHOULD go to that don't get it. Who are we to tell anyone where to spend their money though? Anything you purchase that is not necessary could be seen in the same light as you are viewing this, would you appreciate your purchases being questioned?



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Scurvy
 


I'm not suggesting that people not be allowed to buy the items. Personally I find it revolting, but then I find most black velvet paintings revolting, too.

If these murderers want to make these items and let people buy them, fine. Go for it. But the money that the people pay for the items is diverted to charity or to the victims and/or the victims' families. The criminal does not get to keep the money.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I agree with both of you. It should be allowed to be sold but ALL proceeds should go to the victims or they're immediate families. Restitution is lacking in our society and this could be one small step towards that goal!

Zindo



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Ah I took it as you were opposed to the sale altogether. That's a good idea that the revenues be redirected. If these criminals felt any remorse for their actions they would not have a problem with helping their victim's family. If they do not agree to this then they should be denied access to materials. It's prison, not an art class.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   
I had a completely different idea when I looked at the thread title.


I thought it might be referring to the idea that many of the wealthy became rich by committing crimes, and then by enforcing the law upon those who were "up and coming" so that no one else could use that mechanism to accumulate wealth besides them.

Like the Kennedy's for instance, whose family fortune was made possible by illegal drug smuggling. (Alcohol, which was an illegal drug at the time) They now enact laws against the use of that mechanism for gaining wealth.

In fact, history is littered with stories like that. Illegal seizures of land or other property, murder to attain the throne, revolution, Kinda makes one wonder about "crime" as a concept.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Scurvy
 


Agreed. If we use Iraqi oil, knowing that the war was unjust and untold number of innocent people were killed in the process of oil companies getting access to that oil what does that make us?

Or, if companies commit crimes, including the hiring of armed forces to murder innocent people, can we buy any of their products if we know that money will not go to the victims?

www.essentialaction.org...


Both Shell and the government admit that Shell contributes to the funding of the military in the Delta region. Under the auspices of "protecting" Shell from peaceful demonstrators in the village of Umeuchem (10 miles from Ogoni), the police killed 80 people, destroyed houses and vital crops in 1990 [17.] Shell conceded it twice paid the military for going to specific villages. Although it disputes that the purpose of these excursions was to quiet dissent, each of the military missions paid for by Shell resulted in Ogoni fatalities[18.]



In Nigeria, it is questionable whether it is multinational oil companies like Shell or the military which hold ultimate control. Oil companies have a frightening amount of influence upon the government: 80% of Nigerian government revenues come directly from oil, over half of which is from Shell. Countless sums disappear into the pockets of military strongmen in the form of bribes and theft. In 1991 alone, $12 billion in oil funds disappeared (and have yet to be located)[23]


Like Scurvy says, it isnt that we dont have a visceral feeling that it is wrong to profit from your notoriety as a murderer. I think we all do. It is that we live in a society that tolerates the profiting from direct crimes, not even just the notoriety, that makes this a difficult topic.

Is it only wrong to profit from crime, or your notoriety as a criminal if you are poor? Or is it always wrong? If it is always wrong, why do we tolerate it from our leaders, corporations, etc.?



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Making profit from a crime is wrong . Murder write book about the act paints pictures of act or surrounding scenes all movie printed media concerning the act should be used for victims retribution. All the proceeds should be used in that fashion

But if using a skill not depicting the crime or came from the crime would be more of a wage and a portion of it liable for restitution payments . Many time people incarcerated for x crime have to work in house or find some other way to pay for personal items. Such as under wear toothpaste any news papers magazines books . Since many states have done away with libraries in the prisons . At exaggerated costs as well .

I am not certain but have heard some states require any book sales from a inmate is given to the restitution fund unless the subject matter has nothing to do with their incarceration .

We have to make a law regarding wages income for people convicted of a crime that is across the board . To deny all rights to a murder like manson making him have the hardest time possible may well be right But the same rule or law will be applied to a unlucky shumk who went to jail for having pot the DWI driver the tax evader protesting the use of tax dollars and protesters in general .

All would have to follow the rules . Some would receive just treatment for their transgressions and others would receive a far harsher penalty than deserved .



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join