I recently listened to an Anatomy of Murder podcast episode “The Man Beneath the Floorboards.” It covered the murder of Mark Koster by John Green. When John Green finally confessed, he was given a hefty sentence. It subsequently got reduced. Anna-Sigga Nicolazzi, one of the hosts, said that a good detective has empathy for all involved. The context was the reduction of a murder sentence because the perpetrator claimed self-defense. Far be it for me to question Ms. Nicolazzi whose worked as a New York City prosecutor and knows her stuff. But it did raise a question for me. Especially since I’ve found it nearly impossible to muster any empathy for the perpetrator of my friend’s murder. And partly I questioned how easily Nicolazzi seemed to buy into the defendant’s self-defense story.
Yes, being empathetic does work in a detective’s favor. Meaning that the detective playing the good cop is more likely to get witnesses to come forward and suspects to speak more openly. Interviewing techniques that lean on developing a good rapport are more successful than tactics that involve being aggressive or confronting the individual. I agree that law enforcement should take into account the state of mind or characteristics of those on the other side of the table. But does that mean that being sympathetic to a slap on the wrist sentence for a killer? My first question was “what happened to disabling someone as a means to self defense?”
I suppose in a professional capacity, you can take account of someone’s feelings and experience without necessarily siding with them morally. The point being to emulate understanding and not judgement. Is this authentic empathy though? Or an investigative tool?
Mike Hatch, a law enforcement agent, learned about empathy formally in a crisis intervention training. His takeaway: “Empathy builds trust, relationships, and connections that can often make any job that much easier. But most importantly, learning how to use empathy can help us be better towards each other and listen to understand instead of listening to respond.” He went on to recount how he took that skill from workplace to home, becoming a better husband and father as a result of practicing the tools he’d learned in the workshop.
The media widely reported that the claim of self-defense didn’t line up with the fact that Green went to some lengths to hide the crime. I was a bit skeptical of this line of defense immediately as well though I could see how Green made a sympathetic character. Based on his own account of the crime though. He was brutally attacked he claimed. Yet the attacker was a friend he’d known for years. Green must have had at least some read on his state of mind or how dangerous he was. It wasn’t as though the man was a complete stranger, someone potentially capable of lethal violence.
So, was Nicolazzi referring to the empathy she felt for the professional tactic or heartfelt response? I can’t know for sure. Is it important for detectives to have authentic empathy or simply be able to pull that profession tool out of their toolboxes? I’m guessing for many detectives there is a line. I don’t envy them trying to suss out who deserves empathy and who truly does not. Then there are likely those that believe in mercy for everyone. Forgiveness lies on a spectrum I suppose.
I know what the self-help eco system has to say about forgiveness. But I don’t go along with it all. Even Gandhi weighed in, claiming those that can’t forgive are weak. Who wants to feel at odds with the moral leader of the Indian independence movement? A man whose very name evokes ideas of justice and forgiveness. Perhaps even Gandhi might agree that just because man has the capacity to forgive does not mean he has to forgive all injustices.
