Closure?
In his article in today's Toronto Daily Star, columnist Jim Coyle takes exception to the use of the word "closure" by Daniel Sylvester's lawyer when he was explaining why his client turned himself in to the police for the murder of Alicia Ross. (See Sept. 23 entry "to Humanize a Monster") The claim was that the accused wanted to give closure to the family. "What presumption", says Coyle. "What closes? What ends? Not love. Not pain. Not a loss that echoes endlessly in silences and absence. None of it. Not ever. "
Coyle is exactly right in his opining. It is being said that the lawyer is trying to humanize the killer with his statements. How could such a thing ever be accomplished, especially with such trite inanities as Hobson is rhyming off? Is Hobson in any way trying to suggest that it is time for the bereaved family to "come to terms" with their loss, and let his goodie-two-shoes client garner some kind of positive recognition for coming forward?
Coyle says that our society is "a culture impatient with pain, and uncomfortable with discomfort, a culture that presumes intellect and will can trump emotion". Again, he is right. A close friend of mine lost a son to cancer, more than a decade ago. As each anniversary of the death approaches, she fights a bleak melancholy that threatens to engulf her, while others berate her for not yet being able to "get over it". How dare anyone presume to tell a bereaved parent what schedule they should conduct their loss and mourning by, most especially if they have never suffered in kind? Yet such presumption is constantly being inflicted on those who have suffered loss.
Hobson should be taken to task himself for exhibiting crass inhumanity toward the dead woman's family, all for the sake of publicity and money. Even more, he should be charged with some count of duplicity, since he and his client supposedly were in discussion for five days before they made the trip to the police station. How could he have known that he was sitting in conversation with the confessed murderer and not have gone immediately to the police? By what criteria did he dare judge himself authorized to decide when the family should receive their "closure"?
Coyle is exactly right in his opining. It is being said that the lawyer is trying to humanize the killer with his statements. How could such a thing ever be accomplished, especially with such trite inanities as Hobson is rhyming off? Is Hobson in any way trying to suggest that it is time for the bereaved family to "come to terms" with their loss, and let his goodie-two-shoes client garner some kind of positive recognition for coming forward?
Coyle says that our society is "a culture impatient with pain, and uncomfortable with discomfort, a culture that presumes intellect and will can trump emotion". Again, he is right. A close friend of mine lost a son to cancer, more than a decade ago. As each anniversary of the death approaches, she fights a bleak melancholy that threatens to engulf her, while others berate her for not yet being able to "get over it". How dare anyone presume to tell a bereaved parent what schedule they should conduct their loss and mourning by, most especially if they have never suffered in kind? Yet such presumption is constantly being inflicted on those who have suffered loss.
Hobson should be taken to task himself for exhibiting crass inhumanity toward the dead woman's family, all for the sake of publicity and money. Even more, he should be charged with some count of duplicity, since he and his client supposedly were in discussion for five days before they made the trip to the police station. How could he have known that he was sitting in conversation with the confessed murderer and not have gone immediately to the police? By what criteria did he dare judge himself authorized to decide when the family should receive their "closure"?
1 Comments:
Lawyers should be beaten! Not necessarily for any reason ... but you've given more than enough reasons here.
Post a Comment
<< Home