M

[Sothis]

That sounds really, really interesting. I should put this movie on my "to watch" list.

I'm actually working on a novel right now that explores a similar theme. Namely: what really defines a person's guilt or innocence? Is it solely a function of their physical actions? Or is it more internal -- a function of their memories, psychology, and tendencies?

For example... let's suppose someone commits a horrific crime, but then they suffer some kind of head trauma or illness that causes them to lose all memory of the event. Can you be guilty for something you can't even remember doing? The intuitive answer might be "yes, of course," but just imagine someone coming up to you right now and saying "hey, you killed someone last year in a fit of jealous rage. We have photographic evidence. We're taking you away." "What?? I don't remember that." "Too bad."

Anyway, getting back on topic... based on Woodsprite's post, I think imprisoning him for life would be a tragic but necessary decision. I sometimes think of criminal insanity as analogous to a malignant tumor. Say you get bone cancer in your foot. It's not really your foot's "fault" that it has cancer, but it's still necessary to amputate it in order to save the rest of the body. The difference is that most people would be sad for the loss of their foot, rather than wanting to make it suffer for what it did.

Violent crime is so devastating and emotional to those affected... because of the depth of that pain, I think humans have a very deep need to demonize the perpetrators in order to derive some satisfaction from their punishment/ destruction. Where else can you place that sense of rage and injustice, if not on the heads of those who performed the act? Dealing with the tragedy of the victims and their loved ones is hard enough... if you were to view the perpetrator's situation as its own tragedy, it would be too much for most people to handle, emotionally.

I can look at this from an abstract, philosophical perspective and say that a disturbed criminal is a person too and that their plight is tragic too, but I'm sure that if such a person killed my little sister or anyone else I care about... all that would go straight out the window and I would want them dead. :-(

[The Man in Black]

Originally Posted by Sothis

That sounds really, really interesting. I should put this movie on my "to watch" list.

I'm actually working on a novel right now that explores a similar theme. Namely: what really defines a person's guilt or innocence? Is it solely a function of their physical actions? Or is it more internal -- a function of their memories, psychology, and tendencies?

For example... let's suppose someone commits a horrific crime, but then they suffer some kind of head trauma or illness that causes them to lose all memory of the event. Can you be guilty for something you can't even remember doing? The intuitive answer might be "yes, of course," but just imagine someone coming up to you right now and saying "hey, you killed someone last year in a fit of jealous rage. We have photographic evidence. We're taking you away." "What?? I don't remember that." "Too bad."

Anyway, getting back on topic... based on Woodsprite's post, I think imprisoning him for life would be a tragic but necessary decision. I sometimes think of criminal insanity as analogous to a malignant tumor. Say you get bone cancer in your foot. It's not really your foot's "fault" that it has cancer, but it's still necessary to amputate it in order to save the rest of the body. The difference is that most people would be sad for the loss of their foot, rather than wanting to make it suffer for what it did.

Violent crime is so devastating and emotional to those affected... because of the depth of that pain, I think humans have a very deep need to demonize the perpetrators in order to derive some satisfaction from their punishment/ destruction. Where else can you place that sense of rage and injustice, if not on the heads of those who performed the act? Dealing with the tragedy of the victims and their loved ones is hard enough... if you were to view the perpetrator's situation as its own tragedy, it would be too much for most people to handle, emotionally.

I can look at this from an abstract, philosophical perspective and say that a disturbed criminal is a person too and that their plight is tragic too, but I'm sure that if such a person killed my little sister or anyone else I care about... all that would go straight out the window and I would want them dead. :-(

Indeed this is a difficult subject to debate about, because, frankly, I can't take a side. For a society that's so screwed up sometimes, it's ironic that we feel it necessary to rid ourselves of those not worthy of living in it. That's the thing though...it shouldn't be about what the affected family wants for the person, they're just as biased as the killer himself. Of course the natural reaction for the affected is going to be punishment, but I'm not sure about punishing someone when it really isn't their fault. Damn...this is one of the tougher debates I've been involved in, lol.

[Sothis]

Originally Posted by The Man in Black

Indeed this is a difficult subject to debate about, because, frankly, I can't take a side. For a society that's so screwed up sometimes, it's ironic that we feel it necessary to rid ourselves of those not worthy of living in it. That's the thing though...it shouldn't be about what the affected family wants for the person, they're just as biased as the killer himself. Of course the natural reaction for the affected is going to be punishment, but I'm not sure about punishing someone when it really isn't their fault. Damn...this is one of the tougher debates I've been involved in, lol.

I think the difficulty is that this question -- like many ethical questions -- has no solution that is "universally" just. There is no outcome that is fair to ALL parties in ALL dimensions.

Faced with this reality, I don't think it's possible to deal rationally with such problems by relying solely on your innate sense of justice and morality. Each alternative will "feel wrong" depending how you look at it. Instead, I think you have to turn to ethical theory for guiding principles. Of course, different ethical principles may produce different recommendations, so you have to decide for yourself which principles you think should take precedence, independently of the specific problem at hand.

One example of a principle from ethical theory is utilitarianism, often summarized as "the greatest good for the greatest number." From Wikipedia:

Utilitarianism (also: utilism) is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its usefulness in maximizing utility and minimizing negative utility (utility can be defined as pleasure, preference satisfaction, knowledge or other things) as summed among all sentient beings. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. The most influential contributors to this theory are considered to be Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

A simple utilitarian argument might say that the killer should be permanently jailed (or perhaps even executed, if he is an escape risk). Even if what he does is not his fault, the decision to jail/execute him is ethical under utilitarianism because it creates the greatest utility for society as a whole.

Of course, other schools of thought may disagree; the "criticism and defense" section of the article is worth a read. I'm still trying to work through it all.

I will say that I don't believe any ethical institution of justice should make "punishment" part of its reason for existence, per se. I'm not saying criminals shouldn't suffer... I'm just saying their suffering shouldn't be the point of the system. In my opinion, the point should be to protect the rest of society from harm and to discourage criminal behavior. Suffering might turn out to be an unavoidable side-effect of these goals at times, but I do think suffering should be minimized where possible.

[The Man in Black]

Originally Posted by Sothis

I think the difficulty is that this question -- like many ethical questions -- has no solution that is "universally" just. There is no outcome that is fair to ALL parties in ALL dimensions.

Faced with this reality, I don't think it's possible to deal rationally with such problems by relying solely on your innate sense of justice and morality. Each alternative will "feel wrong" depending how you look at it. Instead, I think you have to turn to ethical theory for guiding principles. Of course, different ethical principles may produce different recommendations, so you have to decide for yourself which principles you think should take precedence, independently of the specific problem at hand.

One example of a principle from ethical theory is utilitarianism, often summarized as "the greatest good for the greatest number." From Wikipedia:


A simple utilitarian argument might say that the killer should be permanently jailed (or perhaps even executed, if he is an escape risk). Even if what he does is not his fault, the decision to jail/execute him is ethical under utilitarianism because it creates the greatest utility for society as a whole.

Of course, other schools of thought may disagree; the "criticism and defense" section of the article is worth a read. I'm still trying to work through it all.

I will say that I don't believe any ethical institution of justice should make "punishment" part of its reason for existence, per se. I'm not saying criminals shouldn't suffer... I'm just saying their suffering shouldn't be the point of the system. In my opinion, the point should be to protect the rest of society from harm and to discourage criminal behavior. Suffering might turn out to be an unavoidable side-effect of these goals at times, but I do think suffering should be minimized where possible.

I agree. I also think of the book Crime and Punishment anytime I see "utilitarian." In the case of the movie M I would definitely say that the death penalty would be too extreme, as I am never a proponent of the death penalty. As far as these situations, M shows us that we should certainly be thankful in some respects that the general public isn't deciding the fate of our criminals, and that we have a mostly neutral judicial system that shouldn't deliver sentences based on emotion. As you mentioned utilitarianism, the proper course of action would definitely be to send these types of deviants to a mental institution or prison. If, however, we want to compromise between "the greater good" and the human perspective, the proper course of action would probably be some type of mental institution. Now as far as being re-released and re-admitted after committing more crimes, I think advancement in the psychological fields and such may be able to reduce such occurrences. Not only that, but there's now all sorts of tracking devices, house arrest, crime watch, things of the sort to make sure that doesn't happen. But the point that needs to be made is that it does still happen. However, I'm not sure that overcomes the process. What do you guys think?