Profiting from Crime

GuanYin

I find it very disturbing to see that Maxine Carr is writing a book on the events surrounding the Soham murders.

The woman has been convicted of a hideous crime and refused early release onto the UK criminal tagging system. The judge had this to say about her

Although not charged with murder, your offence was considered so closely related to the events surrounding the murder of the two girls and the police investigation that followed, that you were tried jointly with Ian Huntley

Yet she has started writing a book that will allow her to profit from her crimes. Should the book do well she may even make a substantial sum of money from it. Basically she will be getting rich off contributing to the events which lead to the deaths of two young girls.

Surely there is some flaw to this.

Should there be a law gagging convicted criminals from profiting from the stories of their crimes? Surely the courts could have power over this.

Any thoughts?

seamus

If a publisher rang anybody up and said "We'll give you a shedload of money if you write a book about what happened", you'll find very few people who'd refuse it.

I have no problem with it. An alternative viewpoint is always interesting. To see into a "psycho's" mind also tends to do well, there are some things that exist that people tend not to even consider. Maxine Carr's book isn't exactly going to disturb anyone, as she's not unwell, unbalanced or psychotic, but these days people are interested in anything that gets overhyped by the media.

Frankly I think any money made out of it will be a small consolation to Maxine Carr for the fact that the mass media have effectively ruined her life.

Should there be a law gagging convicted criminals from profiting from the stories of their crimes? Surely the courts could have power over this.

I believe everyone has the right to have their point of view known. In the case of most horrendous crimes, the general public's point of view is spoonfed to them by the mass media, and rarely does it give any kind of humanity to the criminal. Seeing the criminal's viewpoint doesn't justify what they did, but it does give the public a look at all sides of the case, which is the only way to make a fair judgement on it.

GuanYin

Originally posted by seamus
Frankly I think any money made out of it will be a small consolation to Maxine Carr for the fact that the mass media have effectively ruined her life.

Possibly true, but hypothetically, if she earned half a million off the book, surely that is a blatent injustice to the family of the soham murder victims, who won't want their grief revisited with the potential publicity of the book. In this case the victims try to piece their lives together and one of the criminals profits from the crime.

As for her having a right to tell her story. She lied, she was convicted of lying. Do you not think when you are convicted of a crime you should forfeit some of your rights to use that crime to your advantage?

secret_squirrel

Originally posted by syke
The woman has been convicted of a hideous crime and refused early release onto the UK criminal tagging system.

Actually she was only convicted of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.(i.e. helping Ian Huntley with his alibi for the hideous crimes he committed.) Its a fairly important distinction.

Should any criminal benefit from their crime - no - never in a million years.

GuanYin

Originally posted by secret_squirrel
Actually she was only convicted of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.(i.e. helping Ian Huntley with his alibi for the hideous crimes he committed.) Its a fairly important distinction.

Point taken, although considering the nature of what she was covering up, I'd consider it hideous

Specky

I don't know if it's actually disturbing or if it's just another sad indictment of the fundamental nature of the human mind, but if she's writing a book and you've heard about it (assuming this isn't just another media hype thing) then it means she probably has a publicist.

The argument that she and her publicist will use will be something along the lines of "well you don't have to buy the book if you object to it"...but if the book makes it onto the shelves you can guarantee that people will buy it.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Specky
The argument that she and her publicist will use will be something along the lines of "well you don't have to buy the book if you object to it"...but if the book makes it onto the shelves you can guarantee that people will buy it.

I can give you an iron-clad guarantee here and now that I won't buy it, and I frankly wonder at the mentality of those who will.

seamus

Originally posted by syke
Possibly true, but hypothetically, if she earned half a million off the book, surely that is a blatent injustice to the family of the soham murder victims, who won't want their grief revisited with the potential publicity of the book. In this case the victims try to piece their lives together and one of the criminals profits from the crime.

As for her having a right to tell her story. She lied, she was convicted of lying. Do you not think when you are convicted of a crime you should forfeit some of your rights to use that crime to your advantage?

It's quite a thin line. If she wrote a book about her relationship with Ian Huntley, and only mentioned her conviction in passing, then she's not really profiting because she committed a crime.

Ideally you would like to see the bulk of profits go to those directly affected by the criminal's action, but how do you say who has been directly affected? Her lie essentially had very little bearing on the case except that it took maybe a week longer to throw him in jail. The girls were already dead. To get compensation would involve dragging the parents back into court, which would negate any compensation imo.

So it's iffy to me. There's a difference between claiming celebrity for something you did, and having it thrust upon you because of what you did. Let's say for example, she wrote a book about fluffy dice, and the only reason it got any exposure, or sold any copies is because she's known. Where do we stand on that? It will be the same with this book. People will only buy it because of what she's known for, only the subject matter is different. That is, does the subject matter make it wrong? She's still making the same profit for the same reason.

ykt0di9url7bc3

How much was OJ simpson hit for?

25million or thereabouts...

dr_manhattan

Phew, thanks folks:

I actually thought this was gonna be one of those "hang her" threads but the content here is quite balanced.

I think the major point here is that Carr will only profit from people's dumbass tendency to buy books just because the author is (in)famous. It's like Kate Kray: as much as I object to her profiting from being a Kray moll, and now getting a fortune for her frankly worthless catalogues of the lives of thugs in the east end ("kate kray's Hard Bastards 1, 2 & 3" would you believe) I still think that if anyone's to blame for this, it's the mindless muppets that buy it.

And the same with maxine carr. I know I sure as **** will not be buying an unqualified account of a horrible episode. I know that *if* I want to know about the case, and that's a big if, I'll read the work of a police operative or profiler, not the for-profit writings of a woman who's already shown that she's... er... not the sharpest knife in the drawer, shall we say.

So although I disagree with the principle of profiting from crime or proximity to crime, I think that the whole thing is a question of people buying as well as people selling: and if you're gonna be mad at someone, it may as well be the people with bookshelves full of dodgy true crime books, or the dodgy publishers who, in effect, chase mobile crime labs with publishing contracts in their hands, as Maxine Carr, someone whose life is ruined and has been offered some, in effect, free money.

I know if I was building a new identity, I'd take any cash I could. It's not like a book will make the name "maxine carr" any more or less reviled.

"if she earned half a million off the book, surely that is a blatent injustice to the family of the soham murder victims, who won't want their grief revisited with the potential publicity of the book."

well, surely the half million is irrelevant in terms of justice, no? I mean, if what you say is legitimate (which I'm not sure it is) then it's the release of the book, and not the profits, that are the problem?

If the families (note: holly and jessica were not sisters as far as I know) of the soham murders made a half million from their writings, would it be any more or less perverse?

As I say, there are aspects of voyeurism to the idea of a publication about her and huntely's relaionship or the murders themselves that make me uncomfortable: but essentially, given that we're debating this online and the whole of the UK and Ireland know at least a bit about the case, aren't we already in the voyeur zone? Isn't this, strictly speaking, none of our business if you want to get all moral about it?

Syth

I thought it was illegal in the UK to profit froma crime? I remember at the time of the coughing major in Who Want to be a millionare, after he was convicted he wasn't able to charge TV stations for interviews in the UK. Doesn't the some apply here with Maxine Carr?

secret_squirrel

afaik its not illegal to try to profit from a crime after you have been convicted. (not counting the proceeds of a crime).

I suspect the cheeky sod was trying to charge for an interview/his story and they told him to stuff it and made it up instead.

Specky

No, I think he agreed to do the interview but they refused to pay when he insisted on having his wife, brother in law and great aunt gemima in the audience throughout....

Hobbes

Originally posted by Syth
I thought it was illegal in the UK to profit froma crime? I remember at the time of the coughing major in Who Want to be a millionare, after he was convicted he wasn't able to charge TV stations for interviews in the UK. Doesn't the some apply here with Maxine Carr?

I thought this as well, as Hindley also tried to do something similar in regards to a book.

df001i6876

very lucky woman?i hope she gets charged for every book she sell /? and all the profits go to children in need . she will all ways be knowen to people no matter what name she is going under. she will have no hiding place. one day. she will have kids off her own.if she writes a book]. best thing for her too do is keep her ugly mouth shut. Just like mary bell ]. Thats how they found out were she was. ? mary bell killed two kids].good luck to you maxine .I will say makeing money this way is sick and so are you. justice is comeing too you ;[to maxine carr ]

df001i6876

benefit fraud say it all ?

Sangre

Okay.........

Anyway, its a very tricky situation and one I shouldnt be replying to before bed but I felt it was quite interesting.

If you feel its sick to publish this kind of book then surely no one should be able to publish the back, even the families. What if one family wanted to publish a book and not another? Surely that is just as disrepectful.

In the eyes of the law, once you serve your time, then surely it is a fundamental principle that you have now served your sentence and are cleared. Once you are not committing a crime I find it hard to believe the courts would prevent this, freedom of expression etc.,

I dunno though, Id be more critical of the people who buy it then her.

Specky

In the eyes of the law, once you serve your time, then surely it is a fundamental principle that you have now served your sentence and are cleared.

ouch....cleared. Not a good choice of words. You can never be "cleared" if you were convicted unless your conviction is subsequently overturned.

You will always be guilty of the crime you commit.

...but I think I know what you mean.

Plenty of people have done it in the past. Remember McVicar? Real person, real crimes. Roger Daltry everntually played him in the film depicting his story, I think I recall the real McVicar went on to become quite a celebrity appearing on the Parkinson show etc.

We'd have to go into "degrees of wrongness" argument to decide the relative rights and wrongs of whether a bank robber can publish his story but a child killer cannot.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be inclined to buy her book personaly but other people will if it is published and I don't think it really matters what we,this tiny minority of people, the subscibers to this forum think about it, people will buy the book.

Publishers generally only produce books for which there is an audience so if you want to criticise anyone's moral standards here then it would have to be those of the book buying public for it is they that will provide her with the opportunity to profit from her story.

I am led to believe, by the way, that life for an ex-con is actually no bed of roses, particularly those who were convicted of serious crimes. They live under a lot of restrictions. I'm not trying to solicit sympathy for them, I'm just making the point.

Imposter

Is this really any different to song lyrics that promote crime, movies that portray and glamourise crime and computer games where you are encouraged to play the role of the criminal?

Personally I think if there's a market for it then fine. If people feel it's profiting from crime then don't buy it. If enough people feel this way then there's no market for it.

Paddy20

Re: Profiting from crime ?..

If we were to really to enforce severe prison sentances on those guilty of commiting a "Crime". Then we would have to lock up members of most political parties and the Directors of most Oil Multinationals and other large worldwide multi - national business concerns who are guilty of putting profit first, and commiting crimes on a worldwide scale everyday. Yet ! They are allowed too get away with it ?... mainly in the interest of Capitalism/Mammon.

The young woman referred to by the ill informed starter of this thread is 'free' to do as she wishes, and that is how it should be.

So, get real. Life is cruel get used too it.

P. :ninja:

df001i6876

all whats buts and ifs ?I do not feel sorry for this woman? and will never buy any book to read about /her crime ?people should treat her like a leper /

embee

She is getting out in May, and will have served her sentence then.

She is free to do as she wishes then. I don't see anything wrong with her writing a book, and possibly profiting from it. She may make some money, but, from the massive media coverage of the trial etc, she has been served a life sentence of sorts in that she will never have her privacy or her anonymity again.

She didnt murder the girls.

Yes, she told lies about where Huntley was, but she certainly didnt kill them. Her crime was to tell lies to try to protect the man she loved. It certainly wasnt the case that she KNEW he had killed them, and she was covering his tracks accordingly.

Paddy20

embee,

I thought she had already been released ?...

P.








:ninja:

df001i6876

embee
i am sorry for the bad taste? but i like lemons too?
lemon for you embee
and arsenic for max who?

df001i6876

Originally posted by df001i6876
embee
i am sorry for the bad taste? but i like lemons too?
lemon for you embee +roses too
and arsenic for max who?