# In what sense can certain criminals be declared "not human?" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 25, 2006, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-what-sense-can-certain-criminals-be-declared-not-human/354202 "2006-04-25T21:00:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![GSV\_Consolation\_of\_Dreams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f1d935/32.png) [@GSV\_Consolation\_of\_Dreams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GSV_Consolation_of_Dreams)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2006, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-what-sense-can-certain-criminals-be-declared-not-human/354202/21 "2006-04-26T11:38:08Z")
If they aren’t humans or “persons” what are they? Untermensch perhaps? ---
**Author:** ![Nic2004](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/4491bb/32.png) [@Nic2004](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nic2004)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2006, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-what-sense-can-certain-criminals-be-declared-not-human/354202/22 "2006-04-26T13:55:03Z")
I concur that my earlier description of these criminals as animals is inaccurate and hyperbole and do hereby retract my earlier usage. I agree to the “Human committing sub-human acts” concept for purposes of this debate. I think the term “Broken Human” may be on the right track but smacks a bit of the new-speak terminology that detracts from the severity of the crime (IE: beaten=abused, raped=assaulted). Adolf Hitler should not be described as anti-social. Perhaps Defective Human has more of an accurate ring to it to my thinking. \*\*de·fec·tive (dĭ-fĕk’tĭv) adj. Having a defect; faulty: a defective appliance. Marked by subnormal structure, function, intelligence, or behavior: defective speech.\*\* YMMV. **Aholibah** -Sorry for the straying and for the gender mistake. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2006, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-what-sense-can-certain-criminals-be-declared-not-human/354202/23 "2006-04-26T14:17:29Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > 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. The above means, logically, that society shall impose no punishments or coercion of any kind upon an individual. No one could ever be jailed, or even arrested. The “tyranny of the powerful” would soon follow – an anarchous, every-man-for-themselves scoiety is the result. Just what are you getting at? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2006, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-what-sense-can-certain-criminals-be-declared-not-human/354202/24 "2006-04-26T14:25:41Z")
By the Bible, for any person to be executed that must be done by society as a whole. For instance, by all the townsfolk stoning the person to death. The reason being that no human can righteously take the life of another human. Only through inquest and societal, reasoned debate can a human be sentenced to death without the following out of such being a crime before God. So by Judeo-Christian morality, and modern law, murderers and such are still human–as no individual can carry out the sentence. But the combined power of reasoned laws, juries, lawyers, judges, and all in combination would be more than human. And thereby righteous. If this righteous body should and did relegate child rapists to being worm-food though, saying they are “worm-food” rather than “human” seems reasonable. Incorrect as indeed technically they are still “human” and answerable only to this greater body–but as a way of cutting to the chase, why not? At present the only reason why it wouldn’t be a valid shortcut for saying “someone who would and should be executed by fair trial, based on proof beyond any reason of doubt, for guilt of a crime that is entirely impossible for any being to recompense” is because at current it isn’t a crime that leads to execution, both by law and the common scarcity of evidence to allow for proving anything beyond any reason of doubt. What word is used isn’t terribly relevant, just what definition is intended. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2006, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-what-sense-can-certain-criminals-be-declared-not-human/354202/25 "2006-04-26T14:27:36Z")
> [@bordelond](#): > > The above means, logically, that society shall impose no punishments or coercion of any kind upon an individual. No one could ever be jailed, or even arrested. The “tyranny of the powerful” would soon follow – an anarchous, every-man-for-themselves scoiety is the result. > > Just what are you getting at? _Human rights_ are not incompatible with criminal justice. I should know-- my husband works in a prison, and one of his jobs there is to ensure that the inmates’ rights are not being violated. (I.E, they are fed, decently housed, given medical care and not abused.) Being against the death penalty does not make me “soft on crime.” I believe that dangerous criminals should be incarcerated, but I don’t think it’s right to kill people, no matter how much we despise them. ---
**Author:** ![Aholibah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Aholibah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aholibah)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2006, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-what-sense-can-certain-criminals-be-declared-not-human/354202/26 "2006-04-26T15:14:31Z")
> [@Maastricht](#): > > 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. I wasn’t thinking in terms of curtailing anybody’s right of free speech. I agree whole-heartedly with the distinction you draw between how a person is entitled to regard or talk about a child rapist and how a society or individual is entitled to treat one. I am concerned that the one may affect the other, though. Perhaps my concern about the language that brands a criminal as an animal, a monster or a subhuman is that it tends to suggest that certain ethical considerations need not enter into the discussion of how to treat that criminal. Maybe it’s a slippery slope worry. Maybe it’s the kind of automatic unease I tend to feel in the presence of rhetoric, propaganda and sloppy language, especially around life-and-death issues. Part of the reason I feel a kind of knee-jerk approval of the “broken human” language (contrasted to the knee-jerk alarm I feel at the “animal/monster” language) is that my religious tradition teaches that we are _all_ broken. It then becomes a matter of degree and kind of brokenness. I was really moved by the compassion and empathy in **FlyingRamenMonster** ’s posts in the other thread, and by the courage I see in them and in **Zoe** ’s post here. In other news, **Nic** – no problem on the gender thing. Mine is one of the handles that leaves room for doubt. And **MrDibble** – Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![Maastricht](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@Maastricht](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maastricht)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2006, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-what-sense-can-certain-criminals-be-declared-not-human/354202/27 "2006-04-26T15:26:41Z")
> [@Aholibah](#): > > Perhaps my concern about the language that brands a criminal as an animal, a monster or a subhuman is that it tends to suggest that certain ethical considerations need not enter into the discussion of how to treat that criminal. Indeed. Does such language allow people to let of steam, so then can all sit down aferwards and reasonably look at the best course of action? Or does such language only act to inflame ? Personally, I don’t know. That debate reminds me a bit of the “violence on TV”-debate. And wasn’t the result of that was that children do get a bit inflamed by violence on TV, but not nearly as much as was feared, and thet the kids affected by violence usually already have more problems? ---
**Author:** ![JustAnotherGeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/58f4c7/32.png) [@JustAnotherGeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherGeek)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2006, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-what-sense-can-certain-criminals-be-declared-not-human/354202/28 "2006-04-26T16:39:07Z")
I also agree with the notion that there are _Homo sapiens_ walking around whom I do not consider to be human. I could, perhaps, adjust my vocabulary to call them (instead of inhuman) _inhumane_. I don’t think that it will solve the subjective question of when to apply the term. Would I feel fine with a _Homo sapien_ that I define to be inhuman being executed? Yup. Would I be the one to “pull the switch?” … I think that I could. But, perhaps I’d better explain that. I hope upon hope that I never actually have to find out if the above is true, but here is my thinking. If I saw someone brutally attacking one of my family or friends, they are, now, by my definition, inhuman (or “monster” or “animal”). I would take whatever steps are necessary to stop the current attack and prevent future ones. If I feel that this can be done without killing someone, then that’s how it will be done. If I feel (and, yes, I fully understand that this feeling will be based upon too little knowledge) that ceasing the attack and preventing future ones cannot be done without this “person’s” death, then so be it. I believe that there are people out there not worthy of even the air that they are breathing. There are people out there that I am sure would make the planet a better place by their absense from it. If I thought that there was an infallible method of determining the “humanity” of a person, I would have no problem seeing those found lacking executed (or “put down”). …however… Outside of my own little world (the one I see with my eyes), I cannot tell who is and is not “human.” There is one and only one reason why I do not advocate the death penalty (for any crime): Our justice system does not dole out 100% accurate judgements. There is an inherent disparity in the levels of legal care one may receive. Thus, what is good for the gander, is not necessarily good for the goose. For instance: > [@The King of Soup](#): > > Death for an inappropriate touch? That’s harsh. Good thing, though, we weren’t doing that back in the 80s: > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False\_memory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory) > > [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mcmartin/mcmartin.html](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mcmartin/mcmartin.html) is a good example of a flaw in the system. And a good reason for not executing people. If there were a system that could overlook race, money, social standing, sex, history, etc. and determine whether a “person” could be a “human,” I would advocate the death penalty as the quickest, easiest, cheapest way to remove from society the creatures that fail the test. Such a system is obviously not in place, nor will it be in place in my lifetime (and likely, never). Also, to be totally honest, I feel that life in prison has two advantages over the death penalty. First, it is a fate worse than death. If I were somehow convicted of something heinous in a system that had no such thing as appeals, and I were given the choice between life enprisonment and eating a bullet, I think I would strap on a bib. Second, luckily, our system _does_ have appeals. This means that a falsely accused person could (hopefully) get released and exhonorated. So, to summarize, I feel that there are fates worse than death, heinous actions from which people be will not be rehabillitated, _Homo sapiens_ who should cease to exist, and no system good enough to be “worthy” of the death penalty. Thus, as I mentioned in the pit thread, I am in favor of life terms for people guilty of child molestation. (With the one caveat of there needing to be a better definition; a 19y/o with a 17y/o does not automatically define child molestation.) …and now, on rereading, I notice that I have not answered the OP’s question. I have not defined “inhuman _Homo sapiens_.” I will try to think on it and post my definition later. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2006, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-what-sense-can-certain-criminals-be-declared-not-human/354202/29 "2006-04-26T17:06:13Z")
I refuse to distance myself from killers and criminals and bears, oh my. They have to serve as a warning, just as regimes like Stalin’s have to serve as a warning, or presidents like Nixon. Claiming that some humans are “other” is failing to learn a valuable if painful lesson. After all, I don’t need to guard against behaving in horrible ways if I consider myself inherently incapable of stooping so low. Thus every action I take is right and just because _only animals_ behave otherwise. I can’t afford that way of thinking. I can’t afford to be less than vigilant about my own capabilities, my own darkness. People who do horrible things are or were just like me. That could be my future. I can’t just stick my fingers in my ears and scream lalala. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-what-sense-can-certain-criminals-be-declared-not-human/354202.md?page=1)