Philip Pickett sentenced to 11 years imprisonment

[jean]

Indeed - I'm surprised noone's mentioned Gesualdo yet...

Or Eric Gill...

Or that footballer jailed for rape (what was his name?)...

There might be a difference between allowing a convicted musician or whatever to resume his career after his release as if nothing had happened, and continuing to listen to recordings already made.

[doversoul1]

There might be a difference between allowing a convicted musician or whatever to resume his career after his release as if nothing had happened, and continuing to listen to recordings already made.

I don’t think it makes a slightest difference to the victims who were sexually abused by the person whom they trusted, and those who are close the victims. I think this (their lives) is the matter that should be given utmost priority, and not our musical interest.

[richardfinegold]

I take the point about the victims still being alive and the need for justice in that respect. But I also think that we have different standards for re-creative artists. They are a part of the particular era they happen to be living in, and can't be separated from it. Creative artists - or at least the ones that have lasted - stand outside of time, and no matter how a performer may traduce them in one way or another, the work is still there to be recreated all over again. It would be unimaginable for a performer like Furtwangler to exist today; I don't think modern audiences and critics could accept his vagaries of interpretation. Likewise, a lot of great instrumentalists of the past might have a hard time getting a hearing today, with all the high technical finesse on display by lesser artists. I wouldn't want to say that someone is 'only' a performer, because you can't have one without the other, but I think we are all aware that they are closer to us and able to be judged accordingly. But, however abhorrent Wagner's views were, for example, it seems slightly silly to censure someone like that who occupies a more rarefied plane. It probably isn't very logical, but I think most people have an instinctive awareness of the difference between the two.

you and I seem to be in agreement that we tend to forgive Creative Artists for their imperfections more than we forgive re creative Artists, and we agree that such an attitude is probably not logical.

[french frank]

I don’t think it makes a slightest difference to the victims who were sexually abused by the person whom they trusted, and those who are close the victims. I think this (their lives) is the matter that should be given utmost priority, and not our musical interest.

But that poses the question: what about other crimes? What when the convicted offender has served time in prison? A musician mows down a child in a car whilst drunk and maims him for life (or kills him - that still affects family). Is the distinction just that the victim didn't know and 'trust' the offender? So the crime isn't so wicked? Are lines to be drawn entirely arbitrarily? Such as: once the offender is dead, he can no longer benefit from our 'custom' so it's all right to buy/listen to the records again?

What kind of 'logic' can be applied?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

well one aspect of the 'logic' is to distinguish between the proceedings of the justice system [accusation, trial guilt or no, sentence or free, etc] and our social response to the individual found guilty ... in a free and open society we will know who did what to whom and there can be no restraint against shunning an individual if their crime is deemed reprehensible ... there can and will be of course legal restraint against unlawful acts against such a person .... which i confess would not deter me from vengeance were my daughter a victim

[Pabmusic]

But that poses the question: what about other crimes? What when the convicted offender has served time in prison? A musician mows down a child in a car whilst drunk and maims him for life (or kills him - that still affects family). Is the distinction just that the victim didn't know and 'trust' the offender? So the crime isn't so wicked? Are lines to be drawn entirely arbitrarily? Such as: once the offender is dead, he can no longer benefit from our 'custom' so it's all right to buy/listen to the records again?

What kind of 'logic' can be applied?

You're so right, FF. I am dismayed by the way many want to impose extra punishments. We employ judges to decide the appropriate punishment, yet we want to add more. Just what is being suggested? That we ban offenders from being employed in certain professions? Well, courts have that power in some very special circumstances (even I would agree that it's not a good idea to employ paedophiles as - say - teachers of young people). But we seem to be saying that such people should be prevented from taking up any work for which they're qualified and might earn money.

It's difficult enough for ex-offenders to recover a life - that's one cause of recidivism generally - but we seem to want to limit their opportunities even more. What ever happened to the notion of rehabilitation?

As far as classical music is concerned, the listeners have the choice, don't they?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

... it's clearly illogical nonsense to apply different standards for different people.

It is - but there are other factors than logic at play here: if a work of Art moves us emotionally, if we derive solace and strength from it, then we create a bond between it (and, by association, its creator) and ourselves. It can feel as if the creator - rather than the work he has created - is on "a more rarefied plane" than other people, and, as a result this can make us feel - illogically - somehow "guilty by association" if it turns out that the creator has committed crimes of such repugnance as those we are discussing on this Thread.

If the plumber who fixed the leak in the bathroom tap is discovered to have been such a criminal, then whenever we use that tap we are reminded of him and his offences and might even feel the need to replace the taps completely. How much more intense and personally felt when the product of a mind that has created a work that has affected us at a very deep psychological (in itself, suggesting an illogical affinity between ourselves and the work) level.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

... which is why we need the rule of law to make decisions and judgements that our irrational/illogical emotional responses aren't capable of dealing with justly.

[teamsaint]

... which is why we need the rule of law to make decisions and judgements that our irrational/illogical emotional responses aren't capable of dealing with justly.

well quite. But beyond that , wider society needs to deal with its responses in a more satisfactory, rational, and if possible fair way, EG the differing opportunities afforded to Jonathan Rees Williams , (who is unable even to perform in a voluntary capacity,) and Robert King, post prison.
one might also point to the differing treatments by the media and the football community of Ched Evans, and Marlon King, for example.

Just speculatively, JRW might have his rehabilitiation/reintegration assisted by resuming some sort of musical life, but this has been denied to him by wider society, not by the legal system.

[MrGongGong]

You're so right, FF. I am dismayed by the way many want to impose extra punishments. We employ judges to decide the appropriate punishment, yet we want to add more. Just what is being suggested? That we ban offenders from being employed in certain professions? Well, courts have that power in some very special circumstances (even I would agree that it's not a good idea to employ paedophiles as - say - teachers of young people). But we seem to be saying that such people should be prevented from taking up any work for which they're qualified and might earn money.

It's difficult enough for ex-offenders to recover a life - that's one cause of recidivism generally - but we seem to want to limit their opportunities even more. What ever happened to the notion of rehabilitation?

As far as classical music is concerned, the listeners have the choice, don't they?

I think part of the problem with some of these cases is that folks such as Robert King are allowed to work with children after their release (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-23248200).
Like many involved in education there are people who have I known who have gone to prison for downloading things and as a consequence will never be able to work with children again.
Rehabilitation and recovering "a life" is to be desired BUT (as in the case of the footballer) maybe this means NOT being in the public eye?

If that means we miss on the great skills of some footballer or conductor then I think its a small price to pay for the victims not have to see their abusers in the media as successful people.

[Pabmusic]

...Rehabilitation and recovering "a life" is to be desired BUT (as in the case of the footballer) maybe this means NOT being in the public eye?...

I don't disagree. But what seems to be suggested is that such offenders* should be prevented from being in the public eye. What power is being sought here?

As for rehabilitation, I mean bringing an offender back into society.

*[And this doesn't even begin to consider what 'non-sex' offenders should face. Shoplifting? No tax and insurance?]

[french frank]

Just what is being suggested? That we ban offenders from being employed in certain professions?

But only certain professions - like performing musicians? What about our supermarket supervisor, cited before? Do we boycott the supermarket if he is re-employed as a supervisor? Is it all right if he's demoted to shelf stacker? And if that supermarket doesn't agree to re-employ him, but another one does (our regular supermarket), do we boycott that one and go elsewhere on the grounds that we would otherwise be contributing to his wages?

As far as classical music is concerned, the listeners have the choice, don't they?

Indeed: the answer is for ourselves in our own hearts and heads. As it is for those who prefer to avoid Wagner's music altogether. It must never be thought that our solution is somehow the 'just' one.

[Pabmusic]

But only certain professions - like performing musicians? What about our supermarket supervisor, cited before? Do we boycott the supermarket if he is re-employed as a supervisor? Is it all right if he's demoted to shelf stacker? And if that supermarket doesn't agree to re-employ him, but another one does (our regular supermarket), do we boycott that one and go elsewhere on the grounds that we would otherwise be contributing to his wages?

Indeed: the answer is for ourselves in our own hearts and heads. As it is for those who prefer to avoid Wagner's music altogether. It must never be thought that our solution is somehow the 'just' one.

[PJPJ]

You're so right, FF. I am dismayed by the way many want to impose extra punishments. We employ judges to decide the appropriate punishment, yet we want to add more. Just what is being suggested? That we ban offenders from being employed in certain professions? Well, courts have that power in some very special circumstances (even I would agree that it's not a good idea to employ paedophiles as - say - teachers of young people). But we seem to be saying that such people should be prevented from taking up any work for which they're qualified and might earn money.

It's difficult enough for ex-offenders to recover a life - that's one cause of recidivism generally - but we seem to want to limit their opportunities even more. What ever happened to the notion of rehabilitation?

As far as classical music is concerned, the listeners have the choice, don't they?

[Dave2002]

ff has now suggested one way in which the BBC and R3 really should be involved - whether we agree or not. If any performances by the various convicted persons are played on BBC channels, should there be any money paid over to the criminal? Since in many cases, other musicians and artists who were not charged and convicted were involved in the production, would it be right to deprive them of any (small) income they might receive by having participated in a production?

One severe problem which I feel our criminal justice system has is that too often there is nothing returned to the victims which could really help them. Fines don't help victims AFAIK, and putting people in prison or making them do community service might make victims feel slightly better (though perhaps not) but doesn't do much at all to help the victims in any other practical sense.