"Steve, can we explore together why it matters whether there was some element of "racial bias" involved in this case?"
I think it's just a question of degree. I mean, there's likely some degree of racial bias (along witho countless other biases) in everything we do. So I think SC's certainty that because these women were Asian, he must ha…
"Steve, can we explore together why it matters whether there was some element of "racial bias" involved in this case?"
I think it's just a question of degree. I mean, there's likely some degree of racial bias (along witho countless other biases) in everything we do. So I think SC's certainty that because these women were Asian, he must have had some Asian bias (fetishistic or otherwise) is both ridiculous and irrelevant. But I think it's far more relevant if there were evidence that he killed them *because* they're Asian.
When Dr. Aruna Khilanani spoke at Harvard about her fantasies of killing white people, the "white" adds a layer of shock and revulsion, no? It certainly did for me. Specifying "white" adds an intentionality to the crime that is different from somebody saying they think about shooting a gun indiscriminately. Both are bad, but one feels *worse*.
As for *why* we feel this way, on a certain level, I don't think it matters. I don't think there's any problem with our added horror at the irrational targeting of a group, purely because of their membership of that group. In fact, I think that added horror is a good thing.
But I guess it's because we recognise the harm this tribalistic thinking can have. And the danger it poses if it's turned upon one of our groups one day. Life is dangerous enough, and we're all aware that we might die because of something we do or a choice we make. The idea that we might also die for something we had no choice in, or responsibility for is more than any of us want to deal with.
And the more likely we are to face that danger for things we have no choice in or responsibility for (ethnic minorities, women, LGBT people, etc) the more likely we are to be concerned about that mindset.
I agree that it's emotionally horrendous to contemplate murder or assault based on involuntary group membership - whether based on "race", sex, sexual orientation, age, or whatever. I'm not sure that I find it any more excusable if it's based on things like being a Catholic, a Democrat, or polyamorous, though (voluntary group membership).
I think we need to distinguish between thing which we find emotionally disturbing, and things which need to be punished more stringently.
George Lakoff and Johnathan Haidt both mention research regarding responses to a scenario where an immigrant family cooks and eats their dog, after the dog is accidentally killed by a car. In that research, (traditional) liberals tended to say "yuck, but there is no harm involved so there is nothing that needs to be punished even if I wouldn't do that", while (traditional) conservatives tended to more think "yuck, that's wrong, they should face sanctions". In that regard, I am on the side of the (traditional) liberals. Imposing punishment should mostly be limited to cases where it can be expected to have a net positive effect, not just because we have an emotional reaction.
We humans often have a stronger emotion is an attractive young mother of three is killed (in an accident or by murder), than an unattractive 40 year old single mechanic. That doesn't mean the the punishment for murder (or vehicular homicide) should differ, though.
So I'm find with our sharing an additional "horror" at some killings, but I don't want to automatically translate that into increased punishments; for each circumstance, a individual case needs to be made for each proposed special punishment, and evaluated based on all anticipatable results, not just on one immediate emotions.
For an example, having federal civil rights laws to prosecute racial violence, may be needed if an especially biased local community is not willing to enforce local laws.
So I am distinguishing between socially castigating Khilanani, and using criminal law, as different tools for shaping society, with different realms. We can be discerning in how we shape policies, considering far more than the factor that something feels bad to us.
"I agree that it's emotionally horrendous to contemplate murder or assault based on involuntary group membership."
I don't think you can (or should) separate the concept of justice from emotion though. The reason we care about a mass shooting or a rape more than tax fraud or insider trading is largely emotional. I don't believe that should change.
If a man beats up a child or a disabled person, for example, I don't want him simply to be tried for assault. The vulnerability of his victim and the danger somebody with his mindset poses to other similar victims should be taken into account.
Similarly, if somebody attacks somebody because of their membership of a particular group, I think the danger they pose to other members of that group should be taken into account. I don't see how we're worse off for doing this. I'm all for live and let live. I'm not talking about being gross out by somebody else's decision to eat a dog. I'm talking about somebody who poses a danger to a specific group of people.
Also, I think one of the legal system's most important functions is to be an expression of the society we aspire to be. We aspire to be a society where there's no murder, so murder is outlawed. But we recognise that there are different degrees of wrongness for murder, so we nuance self-defence and pre-meditation and crimes of passion and crimes against children. We don't just say they're all murder and so should be treated equally. We don't second guess our sense that the circumstances and motivations of the crime matter. What would be the benefit of doing so?
> "I'm talking about somebody who poses a danger to a specific group of people"
This is the kind of rational concern that I consider vital, so we are strongly agreed. I never said that emotion can play no part, I'm just saying that emotion alone is a poor guide.
My point was that we should rationally explore such dangers and choose strategies which have traction on reducing them, rather than rely in immediate emotional reactions, which can produce both counterproductive policies which undermine our goals, and collateral injustices.
Note my screen name begins with "passion", but does not end there. I'm not trying to extinguish all emotion, just balance it out wisely.
I suspect we are essentially in agreement in this regard. Cheers.
"I never said that emotion can play no part, I'm just saying that emotion alone is a poor guide."
Oh yeah absolutely agreed. I'd never advocate blind emotionality. I'm often accused of not being emotional enough😅 I just meant that I don't think we can understand why it matters whether there's a racial element to a crime without allowing emotion to play its part.
"Steve, can we explore together why it matters whether there was some element of "racial bias" involved in this case?"
I think it's just a question of degree. I mean, there's likely some degree of racial bias (along witho countless other biases) in everything we do. So I think SC's certainty that because these women were Asian, he must have had some Asian bias (fetishistic or otherwise) is both ridiculous and irrelevant. But I think it's far more relevant if there were evidence that he killed them *because* they're Asian.
When Dr. Aruna Khilanani spoke at Harvard about her fantasies of killing white people, the "white" adds a layer of shock and revulsion, no? It certainly did for me. Specifying "white" adds an intentionality to the crime that is different from somebody saying they think about shooting a gun indiscriminately. Both are bad, but one feels *worse*.
As for *why* we feel this way, on a certain level, I don't think it matters. I don't think there's any problem with our added horror at the irrational targeting of a group, purely because of their membership of that group. In fact, I think that added horror is a good thing.
But I guess it's because we recognise the harm this tribalistic thinking can have. And the danger it poses if it's turned upon one of our groups one day. Life is dangerous enough, and we're all aware that we might die because of something we do or a choice we make. The idea that we might also die for something we had no choice in, or responsibility for is more than any of us want to deal with.
And the more likely we are to face that danger for things we have no choice in or responsibility for (ethnic minorities, women, LGBT people, etc) the more likely we are to be concerned about that mindset.
I agree that it's emotionally horrendous to contemplate murder or assault based on involuntary group membership - whether based on "race", sex, sexual orientation, age, or whatever. I'm not sure that I find it any more excusable if it's based on things like being a Catholic, a Democrat, or polyamorous, though (voluntary group membership).
I think we need to distinguish between thing which we find emotionally disturbing, and things which need to be punished more stringently.
George Lakoff and Johnathan Haidt both mention research regarding responses to a scenario where an immigrant family cooks and eats their dog, after the dog is accidentally killed by a car. In that research, (traditional) liberals tended to say "yuck, but there is no harm involved so there is nothing that needs to be punished even if I wouldn't do that", while (traditional) conservatives tended to more think "yuck, that's wrong, they should face sanctions". In that regard, I am on the side of the (traditional) liberals. Imposing punishment should mostly be limited to cases where it can be expected to have a net positive effect, not just because we have an emotional reaction.
We humans often have a stronger emotion is an attractive young mother of three is killed (in an accident or by murder), than an unattractive 40 year old single mechanic. That doesn't mean the the punishment for murder (or vehicular homicide) should differ, though.
So I'm find with our sharing an additional "horror" at some killings, but I don't want to automatically translate that into increased punishments; for each circumstance, a individual case needs to be made for each proposed special punishment, and evaluated based on all anticipatable results, not just on one immediate emotions.
For an example, having federal civil rights laws to prosecute racial violence, may be needed if an especially biased local community is not willing to enforce local laws.
So I am distinguishing between socially castigating Khilanani, and using criminal law, as different tools for shaping society, with different realms. We can be discerning in how we shape policies, considering far more than the factor that something feels bad to us.
And I hope we are agreeing.
"I agree that it's emotionally horrendous to contemplate murder or assault based on involuntary group membership."
I don't think you can (or should) separate the concept of justice from emotion though. The reason we care about a mass shooting or a rape more than tax fraud or insider trading is largely emotional. I don't believe that should change.
If a man beats up a child or a disabled person, for example, I don't want him simply to be tried for assault. The vulnerability of his victim and the danger somebody with his mindset poses to other similar victims should be taken into account.
Similarly, if somebody attacks somebody because of their membership of a particular group, I think the danger they pose to other members of that group should be taken into account. I don't see how we're worse off for doing this. I'm all for live and let live. I'm not talking about being gross out by somebody else's decision to eat a dog. I'm talking about somebody who poses a danger to a specific group of people.
Also, I think one of the legal system's most important functions is to be an expression of the society we aspire to be. We aspire to be a society where there's no murder, so murder is outlawed. But we recognise that there are different degrees of wrongness for murder, so we nuance self-defence and pre-meditation and crimes of passion and crimes against children. We don't just say they're all murder and so should be treated equally. We don't second guess our sense that the circumstances and motivations of the crime matter. What would be the benefit of doing so?
> "I'm talking about somebody who poses a danger to a specific group of people"
This is the kind of rational concern that I consider vital, so we are strongly agreed. I never said that emotion can play no part, I'm just saying that emotion alone is a poor guide.
My point was that we should rationally explore such dangers and choose strategies which have traction on reducing them, rather than rely in immediate emotional reactions, which can produce both counterproductive policies which undermine our goals, and collateral injustices.
Note my screen name begins with "passion", but does not end there. I'm not trying to extinguish all emotion, just balance it out wisely.
I suspect we are essentially in agreement in this regard. Cheers.
"I never said that emotion can play no part, I'm just saying that emotion alone is a poor guide."
Oh yeah absolutely agreed. I'd never advocate blind emotionality. I'm often accused of not being emotional enough😅 I just meant that I don't think we can understand why it matters whether there's a racial element to a crime without allowing emotion to play its part.