I want to be clear here, because it's too easy for this point to be misunderstood: I am NOT advocating putting the "perpetrator's" needs and welfare before that of the person or persons who were harmed. Empathy and compassion are not about priorities. Nor are they about compromise. What they are about is mutuality.
To be compassionate is to recognize everyone's humanity and to value everyone's needs. This works because compassion is not a zero sum gain. My feelings of compassion for one person do not lessen my compassion for another. To the contrary, my personal experience is that when I am in a more compassionate and loving space, I have more to give to everyone around me.
I want to be clear too that compassion is a choice. When I am not acting with compassion (and I sometimes don't), it is usually because I have given myself permission to not do so. When this happens, I almost always regret it later. One reason for this is that my lack of compassion rarely results in an outcome I enjoy. Another reason is that compassion is not charity. To be sure, it can be a tremendous gift to another, but it is a gift to ourselves as well. Just as torture and other acts of cruelty dehumanize not only the person tortured but the torturer as well, so do compassion and empathy reconnect us to our own humanity. How can that possibly not be a good thing?
There is, of course, a different perspective on this question. It is the perspective of the quote at the top of the article and of Eliav Shochetman's longer piece. Both arguments ultimately come down to safety. Whether we're talking about terrorists, murderers, or rapists, as citizens, we want some assurance that those who have hurt others before will be unable (or unwilling) to do so again.
The safety needs are legitimate, but will cruelty really contribute to our safety? In some cases, restorative processes (see previous post) can better meet our needs for safety than incarceration, but sometimes involuntary confinement may be necessary to meet society's needs for safety (psychopaths come to mind). But even then, we can confine without being unnecessarily cruel.
The fact of the matter is that the death penalty, torture, and other state-sanctioned acts of cruelty are not really about safety as safety needs can be met just as easily and at considerably less cost through other means. They are, at best, about retribution. And that's one need I can personally do without.
____________________________________________________________
For more racial analysis of news and popular culture, join the | Between The Lines | Facebook page and follow Mikhail on Twitter.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
