Inspired by this Pit thread, regarding a child rapist, I wanted to open up a discussion. I’m not a regular habitue of Great Debates, but I hope this may turn out interesting despite any of my own shortcomings as Debate OP.
In the linked thread, a number of posters made and defended the assertion that a child rapist is not human. I’ve heard people make similar claims about serial killers. This seems like dangerous rhetoric to me. Literally, these violent criminals are, in fact, human. Right? DNA-wise, they’re certainly human, as far as I know. They have sentience, consciousness. I, personally, would argue they have souls, although that’s obviously not subject to scientific validation. In any event, it seems dangerous to me to assert that they are not human – a kind of wishful thinking that can lead to a willful blindness about human nature, as well as justifying gross mistreatment that can only diminish us as individuals and as a society.
But that’s where I’m coming from. I’d like to understand what the people who claim that these criminals are “not human” mean when they say that. Is it just a rhetorical maneuver, or do they really believe that these people are something other than people? If the latter, what do you think they are? Aliens, animals, demons? And what evidence (other than their acts) can you present to support this belief?
I can’t think of any. Back in Cesar Lombroso’s day you could perhaps get away with describing certain criminals as atavistic throwbacks to a pre-human past, but that ain’t gonna fly today. People are people. Some are less functional than others, but that doesn’t remove their humanity. They’re “inhuman” only in rhetorical fluorish or in outbursts of emotional outrage. Legally they’re still people.
From a quasi-legalistic rather than genetic/scientific approach, if we consider humans to be bound and defined by a “social contract,” could a sufficiently gross violation of the terms of that contract serve to forfeit your membership in the community of the human race?
Nah! I’m not convinced either. Put one more down for hyperbole.
I consider myself human. I consider the people I work with human (well, most of them, anyway). I consider the people I play with human.
As a human, I place these people into a separate pool, as I don’t want to consider myself “guilty by association”. I don’t need to demonize them - they’ve already done the job. So, as such, it is rhetoric.
Maybe a better term is broken-human. The serial killer, the child rapist, the sociopath - there is something very wrong in the way they are put together. We don’t know what broke them: environmental factors, brain chemistry, a mix, something else? We just know that they’re broken.
This is exactly what I mean when I call them “not human”, but I also recognize there is no practical method of severing that relationship.
While I don’t believe this personally, I think it could be an interesting springboard for debate, if we were to try and determine between a “human being”, meaning a creature of human society, and a homo sapiens, a speceis of unusually bright mammal.
While no-one is denying that criminals are genetically “human”, one could argue that it takes more than genes and sentience to be a valid human being- you need to interact socially with other humans, and obey a certain set of rules, ideals even deeper than the “social contract” but which are engraved at a fundamental level in every existing human social group with any size or cohesiveness. Such ideals might be, quite simply, do not kill others, do not take what is recognized as the property of others, and do not commit taboo actions (these would change according to society, but no incest, no cannibalsim and no violation of children might be fairly constant).
These rules, this “human contract”, could obviously be violated by someone who remained a human, but perhaps a particuarlly egregious violation (such as that practised by a serial killer, perhaps the most obvious example of a human animal that is unable of existing in any society) would be enought to actually seperate the offender from society. By that action, the offender would have demonstrated that they have no regard or desire to remain under the human contract (which would be, unlike the social contract, something that could be considered instinctive to the human condition). They have also demonstrated that their patterns of thought are so far removed from the average humans that they can no longer be considered, mentally, part of that race- they are, in a sense, an animal that happens to share some aspects of human appearance and behaviour.
Imagine an ape that had been shaved, operated on with plastic surgery, and taught to mimic human speech and action. It might, perhaps, be able to pass for human, but its mind would remain animalistic, not even remotely bound by the considerations of the human species. If that ape then commited an act in line with its animalistic nature- a la murders in the Rue Morgue- would it be “to blame” for these actions? Manifestly no, but that would not mean that we could not take any action against the creature. It would obviously be destroyed, to protect humanity. Now consider the serial killer as the ape, a being with pyschology so warped that it can no longer be even remotely considered human in mind. However, unlike the ape, it was aware of the taboos it was violating, and conciously chose to place itself outside of human society. Human society, in turn, should feel no shame in rejecting this creature, and equally should feel perfectly justified in destroying it- not “killing”, for that implies putting an end to some recognisable form of sentience.
None of this message is IMHO. Except that bit. (And that bit). And that bit…
I think that’s understandable. It’s extremely unpleasant to contemplate sharing any characteristics or traits with someone who would commit a heinous crime. And perhaps it’s difficult to imagine why one should have to contemplate it. I suppose if one were an actor having to portray such a person, or a forensic psychologist having to profile one, or a law enforcement agent on the track of one, finding something one could identify with or relate to in the criminal could be necessary. I do wonder whether being willing and able to identify with them on some level is also necessary for successfully tackling the issues of prevention, treatment, deterrence, and punishment.
That terminology feels so much more productive and realistic to me. It allows us to investigate things like: “In what way are they broken?” “How did they become broken?” “Is there any way to repair them?” “How can we prevent this kind of breakage in others?” “How can we recognize this kind of broken person before he or she harms someone?” “How can we protect people from the harm that the broken ones do?” There’s more room for compassion there, too, which I think is a virtue.
Happy Clam, I think you’ve proposed something really interesting. Do we agree that to be fully human one must be able and willing to function in human society? It sounds like a reasonable proposition to me, but I have some as yet unidentified misgivings about it. What are the differences between a serial killer and the strategically-shaved ape you hypothesize?
I thank the OP for opening this thread. I am one of the voices that is participating in the linked thread. Further, I am one (possibly the first) to refer to the child molester as an “animal”.
I obviously concur that the criminals in question are in fact homo sapiens. To do otherwise would be foolish and unfounded. I use the term as some have said up-thread in that they have ventured out of that which makes one human. The social contract mentioned before is a good phrase if somewhat nebulous and difficult to define. I used the term animal in the sense that, unlike jackals we don’t turn on a weak or injured member or our species and tear them to shreds. Unlike the lioness, we don’t kill our “cubs” with no apparent remorse or compassion. What makes a human a Human is difficult to define and I’m sure it will vary from person to person.
I think much of it lies in the personality and the way one interacts. Someone can be a recluse, avoiding socialization and still be human. They can be lacking in limbs, senses or even complex brain function and their humanity is not diminished. Hitler sought to rid his country of the mentally retarded under the guise of their being less-than-human. Anyone having worked with these people know how wrong that is and how, at times, they show a better side of humanity than some “fully functional” ones we meet.
I go on longer than I intended. In summary I’d like to concur that you are correct and that in a purely clinical they are human. My point was that they had crossed a line by committing an act that voided any claim they might have had to the treatment we have contracted to give each other.
You’re welcome - thanks for coming along to participate in it!
I think I understand the distinction you’re drawing here – you believe one can be a Homo sapiens without being human. You acknowledge that the definition is going to be highly subjective, so I don’t know how useful the distinction is when it comes to determining how society overall is to act with respect to violent criminals. Even if there were an objective way of determining whether someone was an “animal” in the sense that you use the word here, what then would we do with that “animal.” Euthanize it?
And that’s where I run into real trouble. If you and I have a contractual agreement, and you don’t live up to your side, I’m not required to live up to mine. OK. But if the contractual agreement is to treat one another like human beings, then I don’t feel like I can ever be morally released from that obligation, even if you fail on your side.
Saying a heinous criminal is “not human” makes as much sense as saying an especially bright dog is no longer a dog. Behavior isn’t a taxonomic criterion in any strict sense, so I think people who deny the humanity of others are simply using the word “human” in a sloppy fashion.
Perhaps some folks can’t stomach the notion that denying a heinous criminal certain human rights as part of their punishment in no way changes the status of the criminal as a human being?
So, if I understand this correctly, bad actions on the part of the individual justifies bad actions on the part of society? In smaller terms, if someone is mean to me, it gives me an excuse to be mean to them?
I was raised that no other person’s behavior excuses mine, regardless of the provocation. I still believe it’s true, even in the broader sense of criminal justice. Just because someone violated another person’s human rights does not mean we get to violate theirs in retribution.
If by “mean” you refer to sneaking into a child’s window of her home, covering her mouth to keep the parents that love her from hearing her terrified screams, beating, raping over the period of days and finally burying her alive to die a slow and terrifying death in the darkness alone, then yes, I somewhat agree.
Only difference is, he will be in a clean, well light and quiet environment were he will have a chance to have said goodbye to loved ones (unlike the victim and their families) and will even get an alcohol wipe of the injection site before getting a calming injection and slowly going to sleep. I can see your point that this is practically the same thing as he did to his victim, a child that did no harm to anyone.
On review, I’m not sure this is in keeping with the intent of the OP and ask a call from Aholibah. To him I say, I understand your position and your perspective and I respect them as stated.
Perhaps I was unclear, and I apologize. By “mean” I was referring to basic daily interractions. (As in, if someone is rude to me, is it okay to be rude to them?) If I don’t agree with it on a small scale, why should I agree with it on a larger scale? I don’t believe that because someone was cruel to another person that society should be cruel to them in return.
Thanks. I think it might have strayed a bit in subject, and it wasn’t all I’d like to see in tone (not to Junior Mod). I appreciate your consideration and your statement of respect. (And I’m a she).
Here’s my theory – which is not my own, but comes from a famous actor who’s notorious for playing excellent villains. (I think it was Bernard Lee, but that’s probably wrong.) He was asked, how do you play such compelling villians. Here is his (heavily paraphrased) reply:
Yes, there are Evil people in the world. But NOBODY is Evil for the sake of being Evil. (Except in comic books.) Evil people, have their own moral baseline, their own ethical judgments, their own special REASONS that justify the things they do. In their mind, they are GOOD people, doing GOOD things. Or, they are driven by outside forces to do them. They are motivated by Lust, Power, Greed, Envy, Jealousy, and/or Justice – all VERY human desires. Everyone, from John Wayne Gacy to Osama bin Laden.
That’s not to say, Evil people deserve forgiveness. Far from it. But, it is important to understand that person’s point of view, especially if he/she did something terrible to your loved one. No healing is possible, without that
Great OP, well thought-out and a lovely starting point. Aholibah, post more in GD!
My take:
There have been human societies that, as entire societies, practiced cannibalism, mass murder, that glorified institutionalised child abuse, etc.
Are we to say the Maoris, collectively, were not human? The Aztecs? The Ancient Greeks, tribal Africans or Ottoman Turks? A Maori who killed and ate a slave, an Aztec who ripped the still-beating heart out of a sacrifice, a Greek sodomising his catamite - all are acting within the bounds of their society, as much as the serial killer and child rapist are out of the bounds of ours.
I therefore think the “societal norms” test of humanity falls short somehow, and there is no-one who shares my biological species who isn’t human. The serial Killer, the rapist? All too human…that’s the scary part.
While never questioning the humanity of a child rapist, I question his (or her in rare cases) personhood. I think the denial of humanity will, as Argent Towers points out, lead with all haste to the slipperiest of slopes. The facts of the matter are that these criminals ARE human, and that calling them anything else is pandering to an inward, simplistic desire to distance ourselves from that which we find distasteful or frightening. Adult rapists are JUST as frightening, (though not quite as wretched as the child rapist) yet are referred to less often as monsters or animals when their crimes are addressed.
IMO, humans who commit rape against a child are guilty of a sub-human act. For that act, the punishment ought to be the removal of that human from the society. The idea of the Broken-Human (which I’ve long touted) is indeed more productive. It allows for the possibility of repair or prevention of future sub-human acts committed by OTHER humans, but for the current criminal, there is very little chance of repair.
Are we talking here about our right to regard and to *talk about * the child rapist as subhuman? IMHO, everybody has that right, and I think that the emotional outcries like the one that inspired the OP, should be regarded as an exercise of that right.
Or are we talking about the ethical justification of treating the child rapist as subhuman? Again IMHO, different subject. As others have said, the current civilized stance in our society is that actions of the child rapist don’t mean we can treat him equally bad. We want to end a chain of violence and retort, not continue it.
Bottom line: we have to treat every human as a human, and grant them the rights we grant all humans, no matter what we call them in free speech.
As to how we prevent these people to do (more) harm, that’s a “how” discussion, in which the “broken”-analogy currently is prevalent.
