X Close

The Menendez brothers prey on empathy Lack of discernment makes us gullible

Monsters, not victims. Monsters/Netflix

Monsters, not victims. Monsters/Netflix


December 7, 2024   11 mins

On 20 August 1989, 21-year-old Lyle Menendez and his 18-year-old brother, Erik, burst into their parents’ Beverly Hills mansion and shot them dead. They later claimed to have done it because their parents had sexually abused them. In 1996, following two of the most publicised murder trials in history, the brothers were found guilty and jailed for life.

Now, decades later, the case has gone viral again. A Netflix show based on the murders, Monsters, became the most watched show on the platform, and the Menendez brothers’ Wikipedia page became the most viewed entry on the website. More than 400,000 people have signed a petition calling for the brothers to be freed, arguing their claims of sexual abuse were not taken seriously. Their demands have been echoed by several high-profile figures, including Kim Kardashian, and the former District Attorney of Los Angeles County, George Gasc​​ón. Last month, the brothers made their first appearance in court for a hearing that could finally see them freed. The judge has scheduled a second hearing for 30 January.

What makes the widespread support for Lyle and Erik so unsettling is that the brothers are not victims. They’re manipulative predators. And the reason they’re being regarded as victims is that culture and technology have enabled the spread of emotionally-transmitted diseases that debilitate thought. Put simply, stupidity has gone viral.

“The brothers are not victims. They’re manipulative predators.”

The facts of the case are well-established: Erik confessed to his therapist, Dr Jerome Oziel, that he and Lyle had killed their father, José, because he was domineering, and their mother, Kitty, because she was hopelessly depressed. Neither brother mentioned sexual abuse to Oziel. Nor did they mention it to their first lawyer, Robert Shapiro.

The brothers’ abuse claims only emerged after they met Erik’s second lawyer, Leslie Abramson, the following year. She started building a self-defence case, arguing the brothers had acted after confronting their parents about the sexual abuse, when their father threatened them. This was a tough strategy in part because there was no good evidence that the brothers had been in imminent danger requiring self-defence — in fact, the murder was clearly premeditated, with the brothers forging the paperwork to purchase two shotguns before the shootings. Nor was there any good evidence they’d been sexually abused.

By contrast, there was ample evidence of the brothers’ greed. A year before the murders, they were caught committing a string of burglaries in their Calabasas neighbourhood, stealing around $100,000 worth of goods. After the killings, they went on an extravagant spending spree, buying Rolexes, Porsches, and even a buffalo wings restaurant.

In order to counter this image of cruelty and greed, the brothers’ lawyers had to get creative. They tried to portray the brothers as sweet and naïve kids, dressing them in boyish jumpers. Lansing kept referring to them in court as “the children”, and Abramson would often maternally place her arm round Erik, and pick lint off his sweater. Her behaviour was so conspicuous the judge reprimanded her for it.

The lawyers also drew on a wealth of abuse-related pseudoscience. They received diagnostic advice from Paul Mones, a lawyer with no clinical training. Eight of the things the brothers claimed their father had done to them, such as poking them with pencils during rape, are mentioned in case studies in Mones’s book, When a Child Kills. Two witnesses said that the brothers had studied Mones’s book in jail.

Ultimately, the jury was unable to reach a verdict, so a second trial was held. Since the lawyers had failed to show during the first trial that Lyle and Erik’s supposed sexual abuse gave them a valid self-defence argument, testimony regarding the abuse allegations was not permitted in the second trial. Under these conditions, the second jury reached a unanimous decision that Lyle and Erik were guilty of murder, and the brothers were jailed for life with no possibility of parole. In other words, justice was served. The brothers had planned their parents’ murder, killed them while they were watching TV, and then celebrated by lavishly spending their money.

And yet, hundreds of thousands of people are now treating the Menendez brothers as victims. This isn’t the first time something like this has happened. In 2015, the Netflix documentary Making a Murderer convinced vast numbers of people that the rapist and murderer Steven Avery was an innocent victim of corrupt police. A petition to release him was signed by more than half-a-million people despite the significant evidence against him.

Why are people so easily convinced that cold-blooded killers are victims? It can’t simply be blamed on stupidity — after all, many gullible campaigns have in the past been led by respected intellectuals. In 1977, the novelist Norman Mailer was struck by the writing ability of the convicted killer Jack Henry Abbott, and, convinced he was reformed, called for his release. His wish was granted, and Abbott used his newfound freedom to stab a waiter dead.

“Why are people so easily convinced that cold-blooded killers are victims?”

A few years later, the Nobel Prize-winning novelists Günter Grass and Elfriede Jelinek, touched by the writings of rapist and murderer Jack Unterweger, petitioned for his release. Once out of prison, he celebrated by raping and murdering nine more women. The delusions of these authors, as well as those of the viewers of Making A Murderer, were born not from stupidity, but from empathy — or the tendency to try to feel what others feel.

The Menendez brothers, who had both written works of fiction, were masters of evoking both empathy and sympathy. Erik was an aspiring actor and Lyle admitted to his biographer Norma Novelli that he practiced crying convincingly. In the first trial, the brothers made heavy use of their acting and storytelling abilities, relating vivid tales of abuse while weeping with cinematic gravitas.

Curiously, during the first trial, the brothers’ claims proved more persuasive to women than men. Erik’s trial resulted in a hung jury, with all six of the male jurors pressing for a murder conviction, and all six female jurors pressing for a lesser conviction because they believed the brothers’ claims of abuse. Today, too, women seem to disproportionally trust the brothers’ story; most of the names on the petition to free the brothers are female.

One reason for this gender disparity may be that women, like great novelists, tend to be more empathic than the average man. A substantial number of studies have found that in mock sexual abuse trials, female jurors tend to be significantly more empathetic toward the alleged victims, lending greater weight to their expressed emotions and personal testimony when deciding on the verdict. Another study found that in a Menendez-style mock court trial in which the defendant was charged with killing their allegedly abusive father, female jurors were more likely to believe the defendants’ claims of abuse and consider them innocent of murder.

The same crocodile tears that won over female jurors in Erik’s first trial have now gone viral on social media, convincing many more of the Menendez brothers’ innocence. Since 2020, footage of the brothers’ courtroom acting has been frequently sliced into snippets, set to heartfelt music, and posted on TikTok. And yet social media alone is not to blame: the world is not just technologically different from the era when Lyle and Erik were convicted, it’s also culturally different. And culture has been pivotal in spreading falsehoods about the Menendez case.

To understand how culture has changed, we need to look again at the empathy gender gap. This difference doesn’t just affect the verdicts of juries. It likely also impacts the entire field of psychology, which in the 20th century was dominated by men, but in the 21st has increasingly become dominated by women. Between 2011 and 2021, the share of registered female psychologists in the US increased from 61% to 69%, and in the UK, women now make up more than three-quarters of all registered psychologists. This has correlated with a change in the way psychology is conducted, from the old masculine approach of objectifying humans as specimens to be studied with cold and often cruel detachment, to a more feminine, empathic approach that centres the feelings and lived experience of those under examination, even if this conflicts with objective reality.

This matters because the social sciences shape mainstream culture, defining which human behaviours are normal and healthy, and which are aberrations to be cured. In a patriarchal, Islamist country like Iran, for instance, female immodesty is often considered a mental illness, and a mental health clinic will soon open to “treat” women who refuse to wear a hijab. Meanwhile, the West’s matriarchal field of psychology has normalised empathy, defining a lack of it as a problem to be fixed. This helps to explain why the last two decades have seen a surge in the use of the word “empathy” in published books.

One consequence of Western society’s idolisation of empathy is that certain myths have been allowed to flourish because they’re empathogenic: they foster empathy. The most important of these myths is “blank-slatism”, which sees people as “blank slates” who have little to no inherent nature, and are shaped largely by culture. In this view, people only become criminals due to negative experiences such as abuse or poverty, so a core part of any criminal case becomes identifying the trauma that produced the criminal. This is a seductive view for social scientists because it means anyone can be “fixed” through exposure to the right environment. It also encourages empathy because it’s easier and more rational to empathise with others if we’re all fundamentally the same person, differentiated only by experience.

The problem is, we’re not all the same. Blank-slatism has been resoundingly disproven by decades of twin studies. It can also be disproven by common sense. If people become criminals only because of experiences like abuse or poverty, then everyone who was poor or abused would become a criminal, yet the overwhelming majority don’t — and many who are neither poor nor abused do. In fact, the majority of crime is committed by a small minority of repeat offenders, suggesting personality plays a key role.

Since we all have distinct personalities, our minds are more alien to each other than we might assume. This makes empathy an inaccurate way to understand or predict the behaviour of others. A recent study found that, while women do tend to be more empathetic than men, they’re no better at inferring other people’s mental states. And while empathy is useful for some things, such as forming personal connections with others, it is a social guide, not a moral or judicial one. Nowadays, though, people are being encouraged to use empathy as a moral guide, which is dangerously delusional.

A chief reason empathy misleads us is that we never empathise with people, only with the people we think they are. Sometimes we fallaciously use ourselves as the model for others, presuming our own feelings and motivations are theirs. More dangerously still, we begin to idealise them, clouding our better judgement.

When we start identifying too strongly with another person, we will often go to great lengths to defend our idealised image of them. For instance, Lyle and Erik’s supporters sometimes argue that the brothers’ lavish spending spree with their murdered parents’ money was further evidence they were traumatised, because it showed they were trying to cope through “retail therapy”. As if the natural response to a lifetime of sexual abuse is to purchase a buffalo wings restaurant.

Ultimately, empathy is a form of imagination. Cooper Koch, who plays Erik Menendez in Monsters, became convinced the brothers were telling the truth, and even visited them in prison. And yet although it was Koch’s job to put himself in Erik’s shoes, he never actually empathised with Erik; only with the idealised version of Erik he’d decided to portray.

Despite deluding so many people, empathy rarely gets any pushback in the West today. This is because there’s an assumption that empathy is key to compassion, and opposing compassion is a good way to be ostracised from polite society. However, not only is empathy not required to be compassionate, but it can also be an obstacle to it. In his 2016 book, Against Empathy, the psychologist Paul Bloom compares empathy to a spotlight: we only shine it on a few people at a time, and whenever we do, we lose sight of, and concern for, everyone else.

But empathy doesn’t just reduce our concern for others, it can also make us spiteful toward them if we feel they pose a threat to the object of our empathy. In one study, participants were told of a contest between two students for a small cash prize. Those who empathised strongly with the poorer contestant acted cruelly towards her rival — even though her rival was not responsible for her financial distress. Empathy-driven spite can also frequently be seen in the real world, such as in the recent case of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, whose murder was widely celebrated on social media due to his company’s history of denying health insurance claims. In such cases those who empathise with one side’s pain often wish to inflict even greater pain on the other. One might even say empathy is a major cause of sadism in the world.

It should come as no surprise, then, that many mock trial studies that find female jurors are more empathetic toward the alleged abuse victim also find they’re more punitive toward the alleged abuser, demanding significantly harsher sentences. We see this same empathic spite in the online Menendez discourse, most notably in the fact that many people who believe Lyle and Erik are victims also claim they were right to murder their parents. Some TikTok clips even celebrate the shooting. Predictably, TikTok is now also filled with clips attacking Pamela Bozanich, the prosecutor in the first trial. One clip, which so far has more than 120,000 likes, shows photographs of Bozanich as a young woman and then as an older one, and states: “This is how you age when you’re a cunt.”

Not only does empathy make people spiteful, it also makes them unjust. In one study, participants watched an interview with a fictitious, terminally-ill girl called Sheri, and were then asked whether they would move her up the waiting list to receive end-of-life care — even though this would disadvantage other terminally-ill kids who needed the help more. Of those who were told to decide objectively, one-third opted to move Sheri up the list; of those who’d been asked explicitly to empathise with her, three-quarters did. Crucially, the participants admitted their decision to favour Sheri was unfair. Their empathy overruled their principles.

“Not only does empathy make people spiteful, it also makes them unjust.”

This has also been apparent in the Menendez case. Not only did some of Lyle’s friends, including his ex-girlfriend Traci Baker, agree to lie for him in court, but, recently, web users are now knowingly lying on their behalf. A Wikipedia editor called “Limitlessyou” started adding false and misleading claims on the “Lyle and Erik Menendez” page to portray the brothers as victims. One claim was that Erik’s prosecutor, Lester Kuriyama, theorised that Erik’s alleged homosexuality suggested José’s alleged molestation was consensual. The LA Times article that Limitlessyou cited for this claim included no such quote, because the quote was a fabrication; in reality, Kuriyama had theorised that Erik’s supposed homosexuality may have been the real cause of friction between Erik and José. Limitlessyou’s dishonest edit seems to have been intended to portray Kuriyama as a horrid person.

The ease with which people who empathise with Lyle and Erik can be inspired to lie for them is important because it casts doubt on two pieces of evidence recently submitted to exonerate the brothers. The first of these is a recently “discovered” letter, supposedly written by Erik to his cousin Andy Cano a year before the murders, in which Erik alludes to being sexually abused. The second is a sworn affidavit by Roy Rossello — a former member of Menudo, a boy band once managed by José Menendez — in which Rossello alleges he was raped by Jose. This evidence has not yet been authenticated, and yet it was cited by the former District Attorney for Los Angeles County, George Gascón, to support his push for a resentencing hearing to free the brothers.

As a former prosecutor, Gascón should be more discerning of a criminal case than the average TikToker or Hollywood celebrity, and yet he appears to be no less gullible. His political history suggests he’s embraced the same idealistic blank-slatism that characterises our age of empathy: criminals are not born but made, therefore criminals are victims and require understanding, not condemnation. He has spent his career trying to soften California’s approach to crime, introducing policies based on a fictional model of humanity. In 2011, he replaced Kamala Harris as district attorney of San Francisco, a position he held until 2019. During his two terms, San Francisco prosecutors filed criminal charges in less than half of cases presented by city police, and violent crime, which had been decreasing, increased by 15% while property crimes like vehicle break-ins increased by almost 50%.

In the wake of the 2020 George Floyd race riots, having pledged to tackle “systemic racism”, Gascón then became district attorney of America’s most populous county, Los Angeles. His approach to crime in LA was even laxer than in San Francisco, and within three years of his arrival, shoplifting had increased by a staggering 133%. He soon faced a public backlash, including from his own prosecutors, and last month was finally voted out of office. Ironically, the push to unseat him was led by victims of crime, who’d been left in the dark when Gascón chose to shine his empathy spotlight on criminals. It goes to show that when idealistic empathy becomes legislation, the world becomes more dangerous.

Despite Gascón being evicted from office, the Menendez brothers could still be freed, due to a habeas corpus petition they filed last year, which is backed by huge public pressure. For those of us who value objectivity, the best we can do is to learn, and share, the lesson of the Menendez fiasco: that empathy doesn’t work as a moral or judicial guide. Far from making us kinder people, empathy makes us gullible, biased, dishonest, cruel, and unjust. If we wish to know who’s right and wrong, guilty and innocent, we should spend less time trying to inhabit other people’s heads, and make more use of our own.


Gurwinder Bhogal is a freelance writer. His work can be found at gurwinder.substack.com

G_S_Bhogal

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

87 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mrs R
Mrs R
17 days ago

“They’re manipulative predators. And the reason they’re being regarded as victims is that culture and technology have enabled the spread of emotionally-transmitted diseases that debilitate thought. Put simply, stupidity has gone viral.“ Nail on the head. Let’s hope justice prevails.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
17 days ago

This article suffers from a failure to distinguish between naive or extreme empathy and any empathy at all. I don’t pretend I can inhabit the author’s head or heart, but his forceful case would gather additional weight from a more balanced treatment. Just as compassion is not the only virtue, empathy is not the chief culprit in naïveté or targeted cruelty.

David Morley
David Morley
16 days ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Nor is the usual distinction made between affective and cognitive empathy.

Jeff Dudgeon
Jeff Dudgeon
17 days ago

Great article. Surprising it has not been written before.
The Netflix series when the defence introduced the sexual abuse accusation became utterly unconvincing but I suspect most people fell for it.
The stories of unending rape on both boys well into their teens were patently false not least because they were plainly self confident. The actual details were also ludicrous in their extremity and fake as the author demonstrates.
The issue of empathy dominating the legal process is broader in the sense that so much of modern politics and the broadcast media is dominated by, frequently unresearched, victims’ assertions and campaigns.
Victims’ justice like victors’ justice has to be resisted.

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
17 days ago

Empathy tends to be limited and its jurisdiction reveals the inner NIMBY. Those who have to live amongst the perpetrators of crime and do not profit from their crimes tend to be much harder on crime. Criminal gangs themselves have codes of conduct which when violated by members are extremely harshly punished. Leaders of criminal gangs know how to control criminals. It’s true, members of criminal gangs were probably once sweet and innocent but they have been corrupted and no amount of empathy results in reformation or redemption without recognition, repentance and reparation on the part of the perpetrator.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
17 days ago

Key final sentence and well-expressed. But I think in-group self-interest and backyard concerns aren’t empathy proper. While they stretch beyond mere self-absorption, honor among thieves or a focus on your own neighborhood doesn’t preclude, or cause willingness to walk in more foreign, less comfortable shoes, figuratively speaking.
Like the author of the article, you highlight a version of empathy that has blinders on. NIMBYism is more interwoven with sympathy or a lack thereof than Mr Bhogal’s example of a naive, de-stabilizing empathy for killers that never turns its light on those who were killed. Some of that madness is also connected to the notorious fame of people like the Menendez Bros.
I really don’t think we suffer from too much real empathy as a culture, but a fake or too-selective willingness to identify with certain people, using “empathy” as an alibi. Much like “vulnerability” can mask a lot of foolish indulgence and manipulation when it’s treated like an umbrella virtue, or sine qua non of merit.

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
16 days ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Have you ever watched the YouTube videos of those who strongly support illegal immigration (claiming the illegal immigrants are escaping horrors) being interviewed. Their compassion/ sympathy/ empathy does not extend to having them live in their homes. NIMBYism – literally.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
16 days ago

That level of personal challenge would seem to erase the empathy or compassion or sympathy of almost anyone, except a very lonely bleeding heart with a huge acreage and a guest house. I’m not saying there’s no NIMBY factor at play but claiming that refusing to put up an immigrant family or group of paroled murderers in your own house proves the falseness of your compassion/altruism (etc).sounds like a cynical game.

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
16 days ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I completely disagree. I guess you are an empath who doesn’t want an illegal immigrant living in your house. It seems to me, those on the left feel good because they are pressurising the government to do what they believe is good but don’t expect to be inconvenienced in any way by the consequences if their demands are met. An extreme example is those who live in gated communities and have bodyguards demanding the police be defunded. Another one is gays for Palestine. In Christianity there is the idea of purity of heart. Essentially it means if you genuinely believed illegal immigrants are fleeing dangerous situations and should be helped, then you would personally help: The Good Samaritan – genuine empaths willingly take on the costs.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
15 days ago

You’re entitled to disagree, but of course that doesn’t amount to a QED for your side of a question that is falsely being framed as a simplified yes-or-no one.

Do you feel correctly accused of having no compassion or concern for the poor and diseased because you do not give them all your money, nor cram them into your living quarters?

Not everyone can be a saint or a mendicant preacher (truly living the state of need and dependency), nor is that asked of most of us. The better angels of our nature are not thereby rendered empty.

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
15 days ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Your hyperbole indicates ego defence. An attempt to deflect feelings of guilt. I also admire those who stay and fight for what they believe in. I have no patience with those who claim to convert to Christianity and then claim asylum on the basis that in their country of origin Christians are persecuted. A genuine convert would accept the risks. I have a history of standing up for what I believe in. My sister always said I was brave because I said what I thought. She believed that because in our household disagreeing with my mother was severely punished. I accepted that. I have it in me to die for my right to speak freely and in the past I have almost died for refusing to back down so I have history though I have learnt to bide my time and make sure it’s worth it.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
15 days ago

You do this sort of thing almost every time you are legitimately challenged and don’t have a logical or genuine response. Notice I said almost, allowing for a shred of the nuance and degree that you seem to have misplaced today.

The supposed hyperbole is nothing more than a taste of the rhetorical medicine you recommend yourself. A deliberate, warranted challenge that exposes the hole in a phony argument you seem to have swallowed whole.

*I see you have expanded your comment, which I appreciate. It’s brave of you to say what you think, consequences be damned, but not noble to believe everything you think, no matter how intelligent or insightful you are. Especially when you resort to dismissing or ridiculing alternate viewpoints.

I certainly think you have a defensive, egoic, too-self-impressed side, a lot like me. We may be more similar than either of us are keen to admit.

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
15 days ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Pure projection. Produce a reasoned argument against my points rather than making excuses.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
15 days ago

Haha! Rank hypocrisy.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
14 days ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

*Folllow-up: Despite my belief that your initial premise a la YouTube is fallacious, I agree with David that you make some valid individual points. A few remarks that are reasonable and non-reactive (hope you’ll agree):

1) Empaths are not proven fraudulent just because their intellectual or emotional identification with another doesn’t result in the level of help you think it should. In fact, radical empathy can be debilitating or overwhelming. It’s not therefore false, but separate from any specific action. (I don’t claim to be an empath or anything close).

2) Can you name one illegal immigrant who received a caregiver of the sort your mother needs? Is the unearned assistance some self-identified refugees get preventing care for people like your mother, let alone taking services directly from them?

3) I hope your mother receives the care she needs soon. I sense that there’s real unfairness and inadequacy in the treatment she’s getting now.

4) Jesus of Nazareth walked a path of heartfelt, active empathy/compassion/love that was far from soft or gentle at every turn. Even those not called to his level of sacrifice may emulate his example in some measure, to non-trivial effect.

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
13 days ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I have no fallacious points. I haven’t written my arguments in detail just given some bullet points. My argument and its form holds up. I guess you two fancy yourselves as logicians.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
13 days ago

You open with another opinionated assertion masquerading as fact. Next comes a blanket excuse—one that I do accept, to an extent. The foundation you used to shift the topic to illegal immigrants—fixation alert?—is shaky at best. “I hereby refer you to YouTube”. I humored you with a specific and at least plausibly reasoned response. You’ve decided to make another insulting reply, devoid of the substance you attempt to demand from others.

Of course this is a short and limited format. That calls for an additional drop of mutual intellectual charity and humility. Not less. I’m not saying I don’t get confrontational and competitive too (you needn’t bother to claim that you don’t) but I can snap out of it and am less likely to do that in recent years. I don’t get the sense you’re operating in good faith much of the time, let alone willing to allow that I have anything to offer. That reflects what I perceive to be your arrogation of near-infallibility and instances of rudeness in the face of sincere engagement. It’s disappointing to catch those who can and should do better talking down to their interlocutors. I respect your overall contribution to UnHerd, but you do that way too often, Aphrodite.

*I’m pretty sure we’re both misreading one another’s tone and intent some of the time. In fact, I hope that’s true. Please take the last word on this board if you want it.
Regards,
AJ MacK——-

Last edited 13 days ago by AJ Mac
David Morley
David Morley
15 days ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Good point. This argument is used so often without being challenged. And in many contexts. I’m guessing this fallacy must have a name.

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
15 days ago
Reply to  David Morley

No fallacy: one would be sufficient

David Morley
David Morley
15 days ago

My point, and I think AJs is that the structure of your argument is at fault, not the content.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
15 days ago
Reply to  David Morley

The appeal to extremes?

We certainly see versions of insistently reductive or intensified rhetorical technique all over the place these days.

David Morley
David Morley
15 days ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

You’re right. It’s a version of the appeal to extremes. I guess the form this one takes is:
if you take moral position a
then you must make extreme sacrifice b (which is in fact unnecessary for the fulfilment of a)
otherwise you are a hypocrite

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
15 days ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

One would be sufficient.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
15 days ago

One what? I think I can find you several examples of people who do take refugees into their own homes, and even paroled murderers—with very mixed results. I’ve seen a documentary about a woman who did this. It wasn’t a storybook ending, but neither was it a disaster that ended with her or anyone else being murdered.

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
15 days ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

One illegal immigrant claiming to be a refugee.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
15 days ago

You’re tilting the legitimate scale of argument. You must know that. One instance, or ten, doesn’t make something reliably true. These people, murderers and asylum seekers alike, should be assessed as individuals, not according to some formula or game of warring extremes.

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
15 days ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

No, I am just pointing out that it is generally not hard to accommodate one illegal immigrant. You inflated numbers to infer my suggestion was ridiculous. My mother needs a live in carer and I know someone who employed a refugee. I would be very happy to employ her but she now has her own accommodation and a regular job. I am interested in how they sourced their refugee as live in care is exorbitantly expensive and refugees are relatively reasonably priced to employ. A good deal for both parties as accommodation and food is included.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
15 days ago

Fair enough. What firm or certain conclusion does that lead to?

*I’ll stipulate that I don’t accept a zero-sum or an either-or framework for who receives help.

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
15 days ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

This may sound patronising but when I was younger, I thought more like you but now I believe that almost every good deed has a cost and the person actually doing good is the one who bears the cost however unwillingly.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
15 days ago

Well, as a person past 50 who ain’t no dummy and has seen a lot of hard knocks I must tell you that you frequently sound patronising and very arrogant. Then again I still do too—and I used to be more like you when I was younger.

Defensive riposte aside, I see some validity in your point. But I hope you’re not suggesting we all make a policy of not getting involved or taking real risks for others, unless we’re saints or would-be martyrs. By using the word cost, you imply that every consequence is negative or unintended.

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
15 days ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

No, just try and figure out the cost and who is paying. There is saying: the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. In England, illegal immigrants are costing the nation approximately 6.4 billion this year.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
15 days ago

I’ll throw a curveball and say I don’t disagree with any of that. (And I’m familiar with the saying, and it’s high-percentage accuracy). Thanks for the engaging exchange.

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
15 days ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

You are very welcome.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
14 days ago

I didn’t pay enough attention to these details during our initial rapid-fire exchange. I hope you and your mother can get a better deal under what is clearly a somewhat broken health care and immigration situation there, though not in the same way as the U.S.

Carissa Pavlica
Carissa Pavlica
17 days ago

Women are more empathetic toward abuse because they’re more likely to be abused. Hardly difficult to wrap your head around that one.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
17 days ago

Upvoted. That’s part of it. They are also more likely—percentage wise—to fall for the emotional manipulations of narcissists and criminals. Sometimes a mother or wife is the last person still defending a seeming psychopath, maybe with some justification (what villain is ALL bad?).

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
17 days ago

I would have thought that women who have experienced abuse are more likely to be able to identify frauds although men who claim to be women are supported by a surprising number of women in their delusional/fraudulent claims.

Mrs R
Mrs R
16 days ago

Sadly this is not the case. “More than half (51%) of adults who were abused as children experienced domestic abuse in later life, new analysis has revealed” (ONS)
Also from Psychology today re trauma survivors:
Their experiences have been linked to the development of depression, anxiety, substance abuse, as well as eating disorders later in life. Early exposure can also place individuals at a higher risk of experiencing abusive relationships in the future.
As someone who suffered kidnapping and rape when young I can attest to the latter. Therefore, being a victim doesn’t automatically make one a great judge of character.  

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
16 days ago
Reply to  Mrs R

I think the underlying reason is we have a tendency to be drawn to the familiar, which can feel more comfortable, even when the familiar is abusive. It requires insight to recognise why we are drawn to certain people.

David Morley
David Morley
15 days ago

I realise there is considerable evidence for this, though it still is hard to understand. You would expect people who had suffered abuse to spot the signs and avoid people who exhibited them.

One theory is that they are more accepting of unacceptable behaviours because they have become normalised for them. They don’t seem odd as they would to someone who grew up in a healthy environment.

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
14 days ago
Reply to  David Morley

They have a different idea of normal.

Elena R.
Elena R.
16 days ago

an extremely relevant remark ….. ‘every heart knows its own biterness’

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
17 days ago

And women don’t abuse? Ever?

Elena R.
Elena R.
16 days ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

It is not difficult to fugure out if you take a pain of looking up the gender disaggregated likelyhood of being a victim of abuse, rape and assassination. Like, merely over the last 100 years. No need to look backward to the times of witchhunt.

Hilary Easton
Hilary Easton
15 days ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Has anyone suggested that? No.

David Morley
David Morley
16 days ago

Or perhaps they are more likely to believe claims of abuse (true or false) because they were not themselves believed. On a rather more cynical note, this might be the case regardless of whether they themselves were telling the truth or not.

John Tyler
John Tyler
17 days ago

Abuse is no excuse for a planned murder. Dreadful, yes; destructive, yes; but murder is rightly outlawed.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
17 days ago
Reply to  John Tyler

I haven’t seen any claims to the contrary. Yet in many countries Lyle and Eric would already be free after serving a maximum sentence of less than the 30 years they’ve served already. I’m not saying they deserve to be released, just that 30 years ain’t chump change, even for a hideous murder. The celebrity and fangirl aspects are vile, but maybe they should be eligible for parole.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
17 days ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

if you think those aspects are vile now, just wait if they are released. They’ll make a fortune of their “victimhood” because we have valorized the concept in the US.

Jonathan Walker
Jonathan Walker
17 days ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

True, the Netflix series and the gullibility of its viewers shouldn’t in themselves have any effect on parole decisions. But there is a connection nonetheless: a murderer should show contrition for his crime to be eligible for any shortening of his sentence. In the case of the Menendez brothers, that contrition could, in part, be shown by their disowning of the Netflix representation of their crimes, and the repudiation of the petition to release them. If, on the contrary, they were happy to take advantage of both, that would demonstrate a lack of contrition. They are not elderly men, and it would be dangerous to release physically able men who still show the same cynical disregard for life as when they were sentenced.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
16 days ago

I don’t disagree with any of that. I’ve made of point of not paying attention to the fascination with these parricides or the show about them. But I did watch much of the trial when it was shown live in the 90s and by glimpsing and overhearing some of their more recent comments I don’t sense much contrition or reform.
While it might get them a new or quicker hearing, I doubt their “fan club(s)” would exert much influence on the parole board. Then again, I’m still somewhat of a naive idealist.

Elena R.
Elena R.
16 days ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Absolutely. There are parts of the world where it would have been utterly impossible to serve 30 full years in prison for a parricide, especially having been convicted at the age of the brothers.
Curiously, the author nevers asks a crucial question whether the convicts represent a danger for the society, all while expatiating upon the history of release of cold-blooded killers by the gullible idealists.
As for the ‘case law” demonstrating the prevalence of female empathy (read ‘stupidity’) over the masculine perspicacity, it would really take a gullible reader to buy the collection of the far-fetched arguments. The contrary could be shown with exactly the same efficacy.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
16 days ago
Reply to  Elena R.

I think there is justice in your charges against the author’s arguments. They are conveniently and quite cheaply tilted toward his own fixed opinion and “identity” as a lock-em-up know-it-all man. “Mansplaining” is too easily and frequently used to dismiss some claims, but if the shoe fits…

Or perhaps we can remove that part of the equation and agree that Bhogal’s arguments are pre-cooked and not well supported by evidence or fair-minded analysis. It’s true he invited the “gendered” pushback too.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
17 days ago

Great stuff. I don’t care if you don’t like me, either.

Lancashire Lad
Lancashire Lad
17 days ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

I get the irony… but how can we like you or not if you won’t at least distinguish yourself from all the other Unherd Readers with at least a pseudonym?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
17 days ago
Reply to  Lancashire Lad

Seconded.

Frances Killian
Frances Killian
17 days ago

Another excellent article from this author. His insights are very illuminating.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
17 days ago

Great article, but one detail is off: Jack Henry Abbott did not “shoot a waitress”. He stabbed a waiter to death.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
17 days ago

Even if the sexual abuse claims are true, how does that justify murder when both were adults, as 21 and 18 year olds are adults? Lots of victims manage to go their entire lives without engaging in homicidal rages or mass theft.

Jonathan Walker
Jonathan Walker
16 days ago

His political history suggests he’s embraced the same idealistic blank-slatism that characterises our age of empathy: criminals are not born but made, therefore criminals are victims and require understanding, not condemnation.

This is an excellent article, but the whole case threatens to unravel on the basis of this false dichotomy. Granted, if environment is everything, then there are no grounds for punishing crime. But equally, if genetics is everything (if criminals are born that way), then there is again no ground for punishment. It is true that the latter (but not the former) can justify incarceration, but only to protect society, not to punish.
Both the all-environment and all-genetics accounts dehumanize. We are undoubtedly affected by both environment and genetics, which differ from one individual to another, but as humans – as rational animals – we are capable of making moral choices (that is part of the definition of our rationality). Years of making successive bad moral choices, as in the case of the Menéndez brothers, make further bad choices easier, and also make it easier to descend further, as they eventually did with the murders they committed. Vice is habit forming. This is why (traditionally) judges are more lenient on first offenders than repeat offenders.
None of this is specifically Christian, since it goes back at least as far as Aristotle, and even atheistic existentialists embraced it. But if we deny our capacity for moral choices, the concept of punishment no longer makes sense, and ultimately, the concept of humanity is lost, and we are then recast as mere animals, rather than rational animals (the terms are Aristotelian).

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
16 days ago

I completely agree. Losing the sense of doing anything wrong is the definition of corruption. Christianity incorporated Aristotle’s ethics. Christianity has a great understanding of human nature. To repent actually means to see things differently and recognise one’s own wrongdoing. A Christian example of repentance is Saul on the road to Damascus when he had a vision of Christ asking him why he (Saul) persecuted his (Christ’s) people. Saul had been zealous in his application of Jewish law and the punishment for worshipping false gods was death. Saul was a zealot. Paul believed Christ was a false god but after his vision he believed Christ was God – the God of the Jews and the one true God he believed in. He repented: he saw things completely differently. Paul was also a zealot. There was no change in his personality just in his beliefs.

David Morley
David Morley
16 days ago

Great post. Deserves more than just an uptick.

At the concrete level what this probably means is overriding impulses which are in our selfish interest to pursue. We see the thing we want, but we don’t simply steal it. We feel desire, but we don’t simply go ahead and cheat on our spouse.
In the latter, empathy is clearly involved: we think of our spouse – but it is not the kind of mawkish empathy of the internet sob sisters.

Elena R.
Elena R.
15 days ago

You’re right. It is much in evidence that, by ruling out the ‘nurture’ the author singles out the ‘nature’ whose ways are, well, desperately irreparable. Which makes justice totally superfluous.

Hilary Easton
Hilary Easton
15 days ago

Important points. One of the many films about Ted Bundy ends with Ted, about to go to the electric chair, and having explained his entire life to his FBI interlocutor, asks him if he now understands why he did it. The FBI man replies: “Yes, you wanted to”. Spot on, that is what it comes down to, he wanted to, he thought he could get away with it, so he did it without any remorse.

Judy Johnson
Judy Johnson
16 days ago

I just ‘liked’ the only comment but was told I have already voted for it. However, no votes are shown by the comment although the article is dated today.

Mangle Tangle
Mangle Tangle
16 days ago

Not sure I agree with the author’s use and implicit definition of the word empathy, but otherwise a good read.
There are more horse’s arses in this world than there are horses…

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
16 days ago

Excellent article. Well said. The brothers are master manipulators; don’t be fooled.

David Morley
David Morley
16 days ago

such as in the recent case of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, whose murder was widely celebrated on social media 

A key piece of evidence for the authors argument would be if this celebration was disproportionately female. But was it? Does anyone know? And can all righteous anger be dismissed in this way?

David Morley
David Morley
16 days ago

There is no doubt that people with similar backgrounds can grow up to behave very differently, and one can only assume that this is due to innate differences in personality.

At the same time, it is a sociological fact that environmental and cultural factors do have an impact on levels of crime.

I would say that the reason for this is pretty obvious. While blank slateism is clearly false, so is complete innateism. Different environments affect different people in complex ways. Both innate and environmental issues are at work. The author is too quick to jump from a denial of blank slateism to an acceptance of innateism.

David Morley
David Morley
16 days ago

Curiously, during the first trial, the brothers’ claims proved more persuasive to women than men

The author places emphasis on empathy, but arguably (and this is a generalisation) women also tend to believe in the accuracy of their own feelings in cases where empathy is not involved. They seem less inclined to put them to some sort of evidential or rational test than men are. And this belief in the accuracy of their own feelings appears to be unshaken when they turn out to be wrong, or are replaced by contradictory feelings.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
15 days ago
Reply to  David Morley

As men, I’d guess that we might both be biased, but I have to agree. Expressions liked “lived experience” and “my truth” are fundamentally female in some way.

However, I’ll rejoin with the claim that men are more inclined to take a ruthlessly pragmatic or rigidly logical approach when a bit more feeling or intuition is called for.

David Morley
David Morley
15 days ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I think I can accept that. I think that men and women are different but they can learn from each other. In the current cultural moment the view is that men have everything to learn and women very little – but it wasn’t always so – there was a time when the reverse prejudice was in force.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
15 days ago
Reply to  David Morley

Upvoted. The time you refer to is almost the whole of recorded history. And I don’t agree that men do not still have a net social and cultural advantage in the global sense—though rather more slight than in centuries past, to the extent we understand them.

Jane Awdry
Jane Awdry
14 days ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

‘Lived experience’ & ‘my truth’ are two of the most irritating phrases to have recently become popular. And they are always uttered by self absorbed little muppets.
One is a tautology (there’s no ‘unlived’ experience) & the other simply means ‘my opinion’ & assumes all truth to be subjective.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
14 days ago
Reply to  Jane Awdry

Well examined. As I commented about the the first phrase under my NYT pseudonym: Are there abstract or theoretical forms of experience?

“My truth” might sometimes mean more than opinion, as with a heartfelt though unprovable way of seeing the world or a sincere religious faith, but I agree it’s most often used just as you say.

Andrew R
Andrew R
16 days ago

Ask an Utilitaritarian which family member should be “sacrificed” for the greater good… it won’t be one of their own.

Graff von Frankenheim
Graff von Frankenheim
16 days ago

In today’s hyper-liberal culture of non-judgmentalism there is a significant group of people who cannot stand (or abide by) standards, norms and rules and who will seek out any excuse to be exempt and to exempt others often using some trauma experienced in their pasts. It is this group that signs these ridiculous petitions to set free convicted murderers and rapists.

natriley3@gmail.com natriley3@gmail.com

It isn’t empathy, it is 30 years. That is how long they have in prison. Enough already let them see life outside of the walls.

denz
denz
16 days ago

This would go some way to explaining the current love affair with Hamas terrorism practiced by these wokesters every week in London

Jonathan Story
Jonathan Story
16 days ago

Another example of how social media promote mob justice.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
15 days ago

Empathy was invented in about 1910, and it’s not too long to just forget about it.

Michael Clarke
Michael Clarke
15 days ago

An excellent but worrying piece. A very Californian story except it is not confined to California. I knew about the scandalous Austrian case but I had forgotten about Mailer’s foolishness. Mailer was lucky not to end up in prison for committing a violent crime himself.

Chad Trainer
Chad Trainer
15 days ago

I appreciate some of the points made in this article but reject its thesis that it’s empathy that is responsible for judgment failures in the public’s perception of the Menendez Brothers. It’s actually lack of empathy that is at play in one-sided, unnuanced thinking about a crime: either lack of empathy for the victims, or lack of empathy for the accused. Polarization is born from lack of empathy – extreme empathy for one side and none for the other. The solution is to empathize with both sides so that you can rationally weigh both exculpatory facts and inculpatory facts. Also, there are plenty of cases in which empathy extended to convicts has helped release truly innocent people, just as lack of empathy helped get them convicted. Ironically, when someone who is factually innocent is convicted due to one-sided empathy for the victim, justice is served for no one, as the one who was truly guilty remains free. In other words, the problem is one-sided empathy, or bias, while the answer is maximal empathy for both sides.

Hilary Easton
Hilary Easton
15 days ago

Thank you for making the distinction between empathy and compassion. That is very important, more people need to try and understand that. In Buddhism compassion is emphasised as being the very basis of justice and a flourishing individual and society, but recently western Buddhists have started confusing the two and falling into the same trap and is mentioned here. We should be able to have compassion for perpetrators of wrongdoing without in any way excusing them or wishing them to avoid punishment.

Andrew Boughton
Andrew Boughton
15 days ago

Fascinating and important cultural criticism. Perhaps the gender difference stem equally from the readiness to believe that men are not protective, but dangerous and threatening, based on a pseudo-Marxist conception of “power.” Their father was “powerful” because he was older and wealthy. They were “vulnerable” because as children, at the bottom of the pseudo-Marxist hierarchy. Dad is guilty and psychopathic sons innocent as an axiom of historical materialism.

Charlie Two
Charlie Two
15 days ago

finally! some sense!

Peter Mott
Peter Mott
14 days ago

There is a small footnote to this. People who value empathy by that very fact ascribe moral value to feelings. It is possible then to believe you are good person because your feelings are virtuous even though you don’t actually do much good in the world around you. Margaret Thatcher’s ❝Please. If people just drool and drivel they care, I turn round and say “Right. I also look to see what you actually do”❞ becomes very plausible.