Today at the end of the class I think it was Stephan who brought up the inalienability of human rights. We all understand that human rights is universal and should be applied to all humans even if they happen to be a sociopath or psychopath. However if someone is one of the two, where does human rights stand with them?
One thing that I don't understand is that if human rights is supposed to be justified and applied to everyone what happens to those who don't respect those inalienable rights? If a psychopath decides to kill someone should they not be penalized for their actions just because they are a human being? Wouldn't we in fact be uplifting them in a direction that would cause them to do more harm because we do not punish them? If someone commits a heinous crime towards another human they have already violated that person's rights as a human being; so I don't think that there rights should be respected in the least bit. They become null and voided. I'm not saying that person should not be considered a human being because that fact cannot be ignored, but the law is clear to a certain extent even if the person does not have the ability to make morally right decisions there is a system set in place to help them respect those who do have that capability.
Another thing that stood out to me was when we spoke about the book that Nicole read, even though the man in the book did commit the crimes he did and had the mindset he had he is still considered to be a human being, yet he knew what he was doing was wrong how do we just set that aside? We can't. Allowing someone to hide behind the fact that they are human isn't going to bring justice to those who the wrong committed injustice to. I honestly think that it depends on the circumstances when dealing with who deserves what rights, and that depends on their actions.
I can understand how you (and I) would feel about someone who hurts someone else or who commits a terrible crime and I think that as individuals, our anger or hurt might cause us to retaliate or seek revenge. But our laws cannot be emotional; they should be fair and consistent. I don’t think anyone is advocating that a criminal is not penalized for their crime but I think it is wrong to consider that the criminal should lose their ‘inalienable rights.’ What is the criteria and who decides? What about those who truly are innocent and what about biases?
ReplyDeleteThere was a time in this country when many people could justify that certain rights did not apply to indigenous people or to those who were forcibly brought here.
I think we have to find a way to make sure that people who have committed crimes are not allowed to harm others. But I do not think that brutality or disrespecting rights is the answer and I absolutely do not think that our laws should allow us the right to ‘legally’ kill.
I feel like in this conversation of respect for Human beings and criminals, we are all bringing up conflicting perspectives that require clarification.
ReplyDeleteWhen we say that even a murderer deserves respect because she/he is a Human, this does not mean that their Human side makes up for what they have done.
Treating a murderer with respect also does not at all imply that we leave them alone, and neglect to take action against them.
This respect for Human Rights only requires that we take action against the murderer in a specific way. Do you agree, that we could confront a murderer in a way that is not demeaning, and construct programs that assist them in developing themselves in a positive way?
Now, constructing the criteria for such a program is a huge discussion of its own, but it is the kind of thing this respect implies in context of criminals, and how we should treat them.
Finally, I think that highest, most respectful thing you could do for a human being that has committed a wrong, harmful, awful act, (big or small) is to confront them honestly and respectfully about what they have done, and aid them in growing beyond it.
To echo what Laura and Justin said, I don't think that respecting someone's rights as a human being and punishing them for horrific crimes are mutually exclusive. Specifically, in the book Nicole mentioned, respecting the man's rights doesn't mean that we set aside his actions, as you suggested -- he's still spending the rest of his life in prison.
ReplyDeleteYou expressed concern that if we respect the human rights of criminals, we would be "uplifting them in a direction that would cause them to do more harm because we do not punish them." I don't believe this is the case, because we would be uplifting their human side, which is contrary to the side of them that provoked their unjust actions.
I agree to a large extent with JonDavid, Justin, and Laura, with one qualification, though it may appear merely terminological at first.
ReplyDeleteWhen we speak of 'punishment,' we invoke something literally punitive, either in the old-fashioned sense of revenge, or in the slightly less-old-fashioned sense of retributing, making right or rectifying cosmically, that person's deed. Where a simple property crime is concerned, this makes sense: if you steal my bicycle, you should certainly restore it to me, and compensate me for the loss of its use (as well, of course, as in some way educating yourself about the inappropriateness of the behavior).
Where a violent crime or murder is concerned, however, we can't retribute literally (you can't give someone her life back, or restore her sense of security once you have violated it), so the retributive model demands that we accept some rather remote metaphysical claims about the moral balance of the universe (for which, as it happens, there is no credible evidence). Rather than demand of the entire society a leap of faith of this sort, perhaps we shouldn't punish at all, but simply educate criminals, and (worst case scenario if this seems impossible) lock them away to protect ourselves from them -- it is likely that this will involve a tiny minority of criminals.
I seem to have come to agree with Socrates in the Crito, after all, that we have no business harming anyone, whatever they have done, since to harm them is to make them worse.