If they aren’t humans or “persons” what are they? Untermensch perhaps?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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?
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:
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.
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.