Is it wrong to dehumanize criminals?

Curtice (No)

Not all crimes or criminals warrant dehumanizing language to be applied to them. Nonetheless, in the event of heinous crimes (first-degree murder, mass murder, child sexual assault, or other serious felonies), it is perfectly natural and, arguably, correct to call those who do such evil animalistic deeds 'animals.' Using dehumanizing language isn't always dehumanizing. Sometimes, it's just accurate. Using strong words to describe evil, animalistic acts certain criminals commit can be jarring to the hearer. And it should be, as it calls attention to criminals or crime waves that might otherwise go ignored.

A civil society requires its citizens to conduct themselves in a civil and law-abiding manner. Criminals who devalue someone else's life to murder, rape, or otherwise assault them have, in effect, dehumanized themselves and others within that civil society. If found guilty, not only do they forfeit their rights, but they open themselves up for sharp rebukes of their crime. Sometimes, dictators commit such acts on a mass scale. It isn’t far-fetched to dehumanize Hitler or other Nazi leaders for their crimes—we call them 'monsters.' Many states allow for the death penalty for certain crimes, which is a testament that certain crimes deserve such punishment. Harsh crimes deserve harsh words along with harsh penalties. 

Then, there is also a deterrent factor. There are certain crimes that defy logic in a rational, civil society, crimes that can only be considered animalistic or evil. Public shaming can be a powerful motivator. Using dehumanizing language towards individuals who do such grotesque acts to other human beings could perhaps create a deterrent to others who may otherwise be inclined to act out similarly. Also, should such a criminal ever return to society after serving their sentence, perhaps it could discourage them from committing other heinous crimes again. 

Sam (Yes)

Dehumanizing those who commit crimes too readily categorizes society into evil (criminals) vs good (everyone else). This can cause society to overlook the seemingly insignificant yet, beneath the surface, nefarious conduct committed by “good” people. For example, law enforcement, which could be seen as the opposite of criminals, has historically engaged in unwarranted and extreme acts of violence toward civilians, such as instances of targeting people of color. Furthermore, most crimes in the US are nonviolent. Yet, because of societal dehumanization, people who have committed nonviolent crimes have been subjected to overly harsh sentencing. 

The language often used to label a person who has committed a crime also has adverse effects due to its dehumanizing nature. Reducing humans to being “criminals,” ”convicts,” or ”offenders” only leads to justifications for poor prison and jail conditions. It similarly contributes to the stigma towards incarcerated individuals, which is used to justify the mistreatment of these people. Outside of jail, these dehumanizing, reductive labels are weaponized to persecute formerly incarcerated people and keep them ostracized. 

Dehumanization also limits the ability to rehabilitate people who have committed crimes. Criminal rehabilitation programs give inmates the skills and knowledge they need to reintegrate into society as upstanding individuals. Rehabilitation requires the recognition of the humanity of people who have committed crimes. Specifically, it requires the belief that these people are not defined by their mistakes and can be trusted to make better decisions in the future. Effective rehabilitation is essential because it decreases the chances that people will commit crimes again once released from jail. Thus, this approach benefits both the incarcerated individual and the community they return to.