Intellectual Debate - Murder, Prison, Death, Empathy
 

I'm bored and can't sleep (again) so, how about a debate? The topic is "Murder (Prison or Death) and the role of Empathy in the process."

Here is my view. Of course this is colored by my culture so take it for what it is, a personal view.

If you kill someone without good reason (I do believe in "good reason" but define it at your own risk) then you are a murderer. As such you belong in a special class of sub-humans along with the likes of rapists, corrupt politicians, child pornographers, wealthy lawyers and L. Ron Hubbard, just to name a few. Such people, and I use the term loosely, should not be afforded the rights of "good citizens".

To me this makes sense because by engaging in the activities of these group members (murder, r a p e, abuse and so on) you reject the basic foundation of our society, law. Law, or rather the respect and/or fear of law, is the only thing that protects most of us from the rest of us. Without law there would be only Darwinism in it's purest form. So, in rejecting the foundation of society, law, one rejects society and so rejects their rights and the protection of society. Why do I say that? Well, because everything we tend to label as a "right" is in truth a "gift" given by our society and protected by our society.

We, in our natural state, have no "rights" outside of freewill. Does a tiger I meet in the jungle have any notion of my "right" to live? No. But it does, at some basic level, understand that I will fight or run. Those are my basic choices when I am alone in the jungle with a tiger. The choice is mine to make hence even in the most primal of instances I have freewill. This can not be taken, I always have a choice...even if I don't like the options I have them. For that reason freewill is a "true right" and, I think, the only "true right". So, back to rejecting law by committing a crime.

To recap - In rejecting the foundation of society, law, one rejects society and so rejects society's gifts and protection. While this sounds like the beginning of an argument for the death penalty, it is not. That comes later, after I talk about empathy.

Empathy (identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another) is a key factor in a society. It is as important as law, if not more important. Law without empathy leads to petty dictators. When a society's members have the correct level of empathy the need for law is diminished. People do things for the proper reason (because it is correct) rather then fear of the law. It is my opinion that our society (American) lacks the proper level of empathy as is evident by the way we treat one another, but that is different topic.

The arguments for or against the death penalty vs imprisonment most often evoke one or more of the following: deterrence, retribution, discrimination and innocence (or the question there of). I think that (on a case by case bases) each of these are needed to determine the penalty for murder (or even the decision of if a murder has occurred) but they must be harshly governed by empathy in addition to law. This would necessitate a long and drawn out process but, shouldn't it? A decision and penalty of such a magnitude (death penalty) must have exactly this kind of process and the members of the society must be unified in their dedication to see it through and provide the best quality of information on which to base the decision.

In using this process we would find that in some cases murders should die and in other cases they should be imprisoned. We would also find that as our prisons stand today (at least in America) they are the more cruel of the options. What we do in prisons is unconscionable. By that I mean the animalistic situations prisons put people in thereby forcing people that already may not be as "human" as they could be to become less "human" then they should be. As it stands now, I think that in more situations then not the more humane choice is the death penalty. Also I have no clue of how to fix it without a very long and drawn out process of re-education for ALL parties.

Just my two bits on the treatment of murders and a comment on our society. And now, I'm finally a bit sleepy...

I would agree with a large part of what you said, but I think that someone who rejects society has also forfeited his rights to the empathy of that society as well as the gifts and protections of it. That said, I'm for the death penalty for a more practical reason. Prisons are overcrowded and it costs more to keep an inmate incarcerated than to just kill them.

I think a society that withholds it's empathy, even in this case, would be in danger of ceasing to grow it's empathy. Growing empathy is essential because with a high enough level of empathy the need for law is diminished and the number of citizens breaking the law should also drop. That would lessen the burden of prison cost as well.

I'll check back later...sleep comes....at fucking 7:45am...

I'm not sure I'm convinced, unfortunately as our society seems hell bent on becoming more apathetic every year, I don't think we'll ever be able to find out for sure.

This thread is so INTELLECTUAL, fuck, I feel like stroking my mind's massive shaft just looking at it.

I was going to join this INEFFECTUAL DEBATE but then ... ooh, I just saw something shiny out the window!

Thats not true, because of all the legal costs of a death trial and subsequent appeals its more expensive to sentence a man to death than to life in prison:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692/

And for the OP, I stopped reading when you said people are subhuman. Like murderers and wealthy lawyers. What are you smoking?

Sounds to me more like we need to find a way to fix the appellate courts, the only reason it's more expensive is because the appellate system is a waste of resources.

Let me clarify my position here before I get accused of not fully reading the article. What these law-makers that are interviewed are saying is that it is cheaper and easier to ignore the problems with the legal system and get rid of the death penalty than to fix the legal system to make things work appropriately.

That's pure and simple laziness, taking the easy way out of a problem that is only going to show its head again at a later date. I despise that attitude in anyone, but especially it pisses me off coming from legislators these people should know better. Sure, fixing the legal system is hard, and it has become a knot of interconnected problems that are only getting worse. Since when is the appropriate response to escalating problems to ignore them and hope someone else will fix them at a later date? No, saying that because the appellate courts are clogged, and that because of this death row inmates are spending exorbitantly long periods sitting in rooms that make most homeless facilities seem like rat traps doesn't impress me with a need to remove capital punishment, it impresses me that they've identified one of the major factors of the increasing problems with our current legal system and that problem needs to be addressed.

So, your comment would lead one to think you are OK with killing and murder. The term sub-human is used to reflect my point of view that such people, by committing these acts, show their lack of humanity...hence "sub-human". You seem not to think so. Does this mean you think murder and r a p e humane activities that any and all should engage in Saya?

In our lifetime perhaps not. Let me try to point out the growth of empathy, within society, during our history...I should say the history of humans. Basically, to empathize with someone you need to feel a connection to them. In our early history, the hunter gather phase, we felt a connection with our immediate group. The people we foraged with (most often a family or clan) were the only ones this connection was found in. The survival of the clan is our survival, so we worked together. All others were "outsiders" to our group and were in competition with us for resources so no bond formed with them and no (or very little) empathy.

Later, as our social structures evolve, we move to the agricultural phase. We settle the land and towns begin. Our bubble of empathy expands. At this point we see that connection begin to extend beyond the clan level. The survival of the town is our survival after all. We work together and empathy grows.

Then religion comes in as a glue for many towns. Again, our connection spreads and our empathy extends to people beyond the walls of our town. We feel a closeness based on religion. Later, nations form and empathy grows again, it begins to go beyond the bounds of religion. We then feel connected with the people of our nation. Still later, industrialization comes into the picture and, from that, corporations form. This grows our empathy again and we see groups of people working together across national boundaries.

Finally, we come to our situation today. The growth of the internet allows us to pull people together on a global scale. Some of us begin to think in terms of all humans. Our empathy should grow as well, but this is all still new so we are not yet at the point of global empathy. It takes time to grow. It may take generations. It could happen but it could fail just as well. This is a time flux.

Looking at our empathic history we can see a general, if not total, growth of empathy among humans. Does that move you any closer toward being convinced of the role of empathy in society (and its necessity to grow) RH?

Well, if it gets you hard then I guess I can just be happy of spreading some joy to the world. *shrug*

Exercise you mind! It's fun!

I see where you're coming from.. I really do, but the internet was at it's strongest in the days where you needed chatrooms and forums to connect to other people, today, we have twitter. You can connect to 100,000+ people and never know or care who they are, they don't effect you, and you don't really effect them.. The need for the social bond is fulfilled in some sense, but the connection to them as more than nameless faceless masses is not there. That bond, to realise that there's actually another person on the other end of the connection is essential for any empathy to be shared. We seem to be moving away from that connection into a phase of 'talk about yourself in the presence of other people it fulfills the same need.' That undermines the growth, and in many ways retards it. As our technologies get better, our needs for one another become harder and harder to notice, they're still very real no man is an island as they say, but without the ability to notice those around you as actual people, you can't empathise with them.

I suppose I can see a benefit in the empathic bond you're talking about, I just find it harder to convince myself that we are still growing that bond when the majority of technologies we are producing and using are making it easier to not bother with it at all.

So you dig empathy but you think that murderers are subhuman?

Ok RH, I see your point. What about future technologies (say 50 years out)? The internet is still very young, we only have one generation that has never known a time without it. What will that generation, as yet still too young, do to reshape the internet. What we see now is the "me" generation's (the 80's kids) putting their stamp on it. What will the children of the 90's do? How about the children of the 00's?

I think it's too soon to call the growth of empathy on a global scale totally stagnant. There are players yet to take the field.

I think that their actions show a lack of humanity and by committing such acts they make themselves less then human, less human then they could be. That is the context in which I use the term "sub-human".

While neither of us knows for sure what will happen in the future, I have a nephew and a niece. I don't hold out much hope.

True, we don't know but we can hope. This is a slow process but still in progress. Passing hopelessness to the next generations will only increase the chance of failure.

Do you think that murderers are subhuman?

In the use of the term as I have outlined it above.

No, my comment would lead me to say that wealthy lawyers do not equal murderers, and even if someone is a murderer it doesn't take away their human rights. This kind of thinking leads to lynching and inquisitions. If you want to form some sort of reich under which all people who have commited sins are put to death, how are you better than them?

RH, do you think that we shouldn't appeal and make damn well sure that someone is guilty before they are executed? Because that is why its a lengthy process, many innocent people died when you hung them as soon as a verdict was found.

Secondly, you shouldn't base your morals on the less expensive route.

I don't think your have read the whole thing and taken some time to absorb it on an intellectual level. You seem to just go with a gut reaction rather then thinking about it. I'm going to suggest you try again.

I told you I haven't because its stupid and a joke to call it intellectual. The moment you begin to categorize people as subhuman you're capable of the things they do. R ape, murder and exploitation is all about power and putting other people beneath you, so how is categorizing a wide scope of "guilty" (I have to use quotations because I still fail to see how a wealthy lawyer is so guilty as to be considered beneath you) as subhuman any better?

Secondly, rights are not privileges, they cannot be taken away, you cannot say that a person does not deserve their rights. This is why torture is not allowed, this is why everyone is due a fair trial and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. No matter what, all humans have a dignity that no one, not even the law, has the right to take away.

So you didn't read it but you want to judge it. Silly silly child. *facepalm*