It's still bugging me

[woodface]

In our modern time and age, our criminals have rights too. No matter how monstrous their deeds, they remain human. Calling anyone a goa'uld, is taking that humanity away. And that is wrong, I don't care if we're talking about a thief, a rapist, a murder or a terrorist or if you put names on it like Bush, Osama bin Laden or Hitler. It's plain wrong.

Why? Why does this bug and upset me? Because taking away the humanity of the criminal is taking away guilt. You stick a label on them and rob them of their face that makes them like you and I. Recognising the humanity of our criminals is recognising the danger that lies within everyone. You're kidding yourself when you label them as inhuman, you're trying to deny the possibility that someone close to you, maybe even you, are capable of bad things. Isn't knowing that, realising that there is a possibility that anyone can do wrong what makes us ultimately human? Isn't it our humanity that makes us recognise the humanity of the "sinners"?

Denying the humanity of a criminal terrifies me. Because the next thing you know, it's alright again to torture them, to take away their rights as a human and treat them like you would an insect.

Comments

[lytarules.livejournal.com]

Well, I agree with you about the dangers of dehumanizing anyone. I'ts the basis for the most horrific crimes committed, both by groups of people and by individuals - the aggressor, in their own mind, dehumanizes the victim. That makes the crime acceptable to the aggressor.

But not knowing how the comparison was used in the story, I can't say that it was an invalid comparison - I've even used it. The question is, are they comparing a normal person they don't like to a goa'uld? Or are they stating that humans can also be monsters?

Real evil exists. It is, fortunately, rare, but I have looked into the eyes of someone truly evil, and while they were human, they were an absolute monster. I'll never forget it. I can't say that they could never be redeemed, that's for God to decide, but people like that should not be allowed loose in society. Ever. They cause an incredible amount of damage, and they don't live by our rules.

And the thing about goa'uld - they are a caricature of what real humans are capable of. I have yet to see a goa'uld portrayed, at least on the actual show, as doing something that any of the real monsters of human history wouldn't happily do, given the technology.

So, I guess I'm saying that if the person is saying that Bush/Blair/any public figure they dislike is as bad as a goa'uld, then they are being juvenile. But if they're saying that humans are capable of real evil, real atrocities, then I agree and it may be a valid comparison.

But then, I think the goa'uld should have rights, too.

[ashism.livejournal.com]

Calling the criminal inhuman is one thing, calling their act of criminality inhumane I believe is another seperate thing - the Goa'uld do inhumane things to people, as do rapists, murderers and terrorists, therein lies the similarities between the two. If Goa'ulds were actually real, that is.

On a related tangent, I don't necessarily believe in torture, but I do believe in doling out the punishment to fit the crime - if it could be proven forensically (ie - through DNA tests), that the rapists and murderers committed the crime, then I believe they should receive the death penalty. But that's just me.

Because taking away the humanity of the criminal is taking away guilt.

Not all criminals have guilt for their crimes. I think it would be fairer to say that taking away a criminal's humanity is taking away their responsibility for the crime committed.

[woodface]

Calling the criminal inhuman is one thing, calling their act of criminality inhumane I believe is another seperate thing - the Goa'uld do inhumane things to people, as do rapists, murderers and terrorists, therein lies the similarities between the two.

*nods* I agree. It is one thing to condemn someone's actions, it's another to condemn the person self.

I do believe in doling out the punishment to fit the crime - if it could be proven forensically (ie - through DNA tests), that the rapists and murderers committed the crime, then I believe they should receive the death penalty. But that's just me.

I can't say that I agree. I don't believe in the death penalty and I'm glad my country doesn't either. But that's just me ;o)

I think it would be fairer to say that taking away a criminal's humanity is taking away their responsibility for the crime committed.

Ah yeah, you're right. Guilt implies responsibility. Then again, you can ask yourself if a soldier is responsible for his actions or not. Or other people. Eichmann probably didn't think he was responsible as he was just doing his job. It could go the other way around too I guess. But I think you can apply both guilt and responsibility.

[woodface]

The question is, are they comparing a normal person they don't like to a goa'uld? Or are they stating that humans can also be monsters?

It actually isn't an open comparison, more implied but strongly enough for me to get on my high horse. Then again that is partly because I know the writers political believes and strongly disagree with them. If I believed it was the latter, I wouldnt have taken offence. But perhaps I'm reading it wrong. It just brought up this whole topic in my mind and I had to vent ;o)

people like that should not be allowed loose in society. Ever. They cause an incredible amount of damage, and they don't live by our rules.

Of course not, that's why we have a justice system. But even then they have a right to be treated as humans. And yes, they have to punished for their crimes.

And the thing about goa'uld - they are a caricature of what real humans are capable of. I have yet to see a goa'uld portrayed, at least on the actual show, as doing something that any of the real monsters of human history wouldn't happily do, given the technology.

*nods* True, they are a caricature. But basically they are in essence made evil; they carry the memories of the other goa'uld and all react the same. Except for the Tok'ra, actually we should be happy the Tok'ra bring some nuance in the black-white universe. Not only that, I am always glad when Stargate portrays one of those in between situations where there isn't a right or a wrong thing to do.

But then, I think the goa'uld should have rights, too.

*laughs* You're probably right. Save it for the next discussion? ;o)

[scarlet1983.livejournal.com]

what's a goa'uld?

moah... I don't really care about criminals... Keep messing up everyting for everyone? Too bad, you lose your rights. Don't want to lose your rights, don't become a criminal. Victims first.

[woodface]

Hmmm, it's from Stargate. They're a race that takes humans as hosts against their will and do all kind of attrocities.

I think the way a civilisation deals with their criminals, tells you a lot about it. I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished and suffer consequences but through out it, they should keep being regarded as humans.

[alliesings.livejournal.com]

Because taking away the humanity of the criminal is taking away guilt.

That is an interesting thing in these days. Lawyers have sought to make the criminals into victims. They can't be considered guilty, because they are victims of something beyond their control that "made" them do it or something like that. (I don't think that is where you were going with it, but that's where I went ;)

Isn't it our humanity that makes us recognise the humanity of the "sinners"?

And that we are all sinners. None of us is perfect or is immune to the impulse to do things that we know we shouldn't do.

But, most of us somehow live without breaking major laws. It doesn't give us the right to treat those who do as inhuman. It is a testimony to law that a handful of American soldiers have been discharged for abusing POWs.