3 men 1 hammer should not be online

After reading her refutations, I still support the Con position. Pro addressed several issues, but some are not contested by Con. I fully agreed in my RD 1 response that many would be fascinated by the video. I said very clearly, "I agree these two killers will be idolized by some people and many will find the horror fascinating" (Rd 1). I am not contesting this issue, so any points (including the video) are agreed upon. Pro needs to show these points of agreement override my points of contentions. Pro presents her next point i. e. the killers want this attention and that, logically, that is the only reason they recorded it. Pro is probably right. The killers stated they intended the videos to be sold in the market for "snuff films" and that sort of thing. The goal was to sell them, and now they cannot. The killers received life sentences from the videos, not money. The do have the recognition for the killings, but their confessions accomplished the same goal. The killers would have the recognition for murdering 20 plus people without the videos so I do not see how this could have been prevented. Several serial killers are world famous (Bundy, Zodiac, Dahmer, etc) without any videos. Due to the fascination people have with these killers, the fame will follow. I see no way to prevent it from happening. Pro feels people are watching the video for entertainment purposes. I agree. I never contested this point. Now, for the websites making money from the video, I ask for proof as I can find the video for free on pages with no advertisements and no charges. I do not know how anyone is making money from this video. Pro asks, "I ask Con why we need that video online to give people a perspective of how crime is really done? [W]hy do we need to watch this video ? " I answered both of these questions in RD 1. In her conclusion, Pro states the Con position shows no real justification as the video only provides minimal knowledge of crime. I adamantly disagree. In support I offer Pro's words, "Me being a true liberal , i don't condone the death penality (sic) is any way but i truely (sic) believe this video will make people have a skeptic view on capital punishment. " If this video will affect a person's view of the death penalty, then we cannot call the effect minor. I firmly support that many anti death penalty advocates will pause after seeing this because some of these proponents have never witnessed a crime of this nature. I recommend state executions to be made public so people can see what they support. People need to witness the true nature of crime and punishment before forming an opinion since these people elect the law makers. Claiming opposition to the death penalty by only watching movies is equivalent to forming an opinion on prostitution after watching "Pretty Woman". Knowledge of true crime for a citizenry who votes on law makers is far from a minor point. Pro's best point is that of exploitation of the victims. Unfortunately, this cannot be helped when dealing with serial killers. Pictures of victims are displayed and their actions are brought forward to the public with or without a video of the crime. Many victims have been subjected to harsh criticism in the courts and little can be done to prevent it due to the nature of criminal prosecution. Outside the courts, things do not get better. Murder victims and their killers are on public record so news outlets have close to free reign when dealing with this information. As will the point Pro offered concerning the fame the killers receive, this exploitation will result without the video so it is not relevant to the presentation of the video itself.