Crime & Punishment
What, has edjog been reading Dostoevsky? Not for 20 years and while i'd recommend it as an important text: be prepared for a long wade; it's a bit impenetrable, possibly because of the translation. This is in response to the on going poll about what you'd like to see more of, i.e. philosophy. I've wandered into a few logical inconsistencies here, but i'll stand by the bulk of it.
I originally posted this in the forum "Infinite Directions" in a thread entitled "Is ultimate fantasy immoral?" [title link] @ BetterHumans.com. The subject is whether it would be right to allow acts which we deem morally unacceptible in real life to take place in a Virtual Reality game, as we currently do with killing in video games. I've mirrored the original post "Off The Main Page" also. The discussion goes on a fair wander and, as i recall, without going back and reading all of it, nobody really get's into the original question, which the author Cemiess, elaborates on:
I'm guessing you've never been in a situation where a serious breach of the law seemed like the lesser of the evils available as options?
Now before anybody wades in, i'm not for one moment attempting to justify murder/rape/child molestation, because clearly these are all heinous acts which we would all be the better for seeing the less of. However, nothing to do with human behaviour is ever simple. Nobody wakes up one morning, having been a perfectly well adjusted person the day before, and thinks, "Today, for no reason, i'll become a murderer/rapist/child molester. That sounds like a laugh!" There may well be a genetic predisposition to these behaviours, however, by and large, terrible behaviours spring out of terrible environments.
The reason for this is simple: empathy. If our environment is safe, we engage with its other inhabitants emotionally and whilst occaisional destructive thoughts/feelings may enter our heads (and who doesn't get frustrated to the point of fantasy violence occaisionally), the reason we don't act on them is not because it's against the law (otherwise murder would be as common as illegal drug taking), but rather because we have some intimation of how terrible it would feel for the victim/s or surviving loved ones.
If our environment is unsafe, the opposite is true: we do not empathise with anyone, we become all about self, therefore the same level of inhibition is not present. This is surely part of our survival instinct. The answer is not to attempt to stigmatise 'deviants' and change them, but rather change the environment. After all, as CP rightly points out, who knows when these traits might be very necessary. The planet has undergone radical change before and, no doubt, will again. This is quite apart from any hostile environments we may end up colonising off Earth.
This is without considering the fallability of criminal justice systems, malicious prosecution for personal gain or simple governmental oppression.
The trouble with prison is that it does not do this, but rather abrogates rights almost totally, which actually further increases a convict's alienation from society, thus making it that much less likely that they will ever be integrated.
The victims of this unhelpfull feeling could also be helped to re-integrate, without the necessity of a further moral outrage being perpetrated (in the mistaken belief that this would somehow assuage it). That seems to be one of the functions of law, to temper outrage, because if people were to go around seeking revenge biblical stylee, it'd be an eye for an eye until we were all blind.
Quite apart from the morality of capital punishment, given your experience of human nature and knowledge of history, which do you think we would likely be at more risk from, if such technology were available while government per se exists;
that in a safe environment with universal provision of high quality education, health care, food, sanitation and shelter, crime would be a significant problem or;
our rulers would seek to maintain a position somehow demonstrably better off than us 'ordinary people', possibly even going as far as reserving for themselves and cronies the right to remain unedited, and use said to stifle dissent?
There was more until:
This is also why many of us who are like that become drug addicts and/or alcoholics. We must self-medicate, because otherwise we would go mental, conflicted between intolerable feelings and our limited sense of empathy. However even after self medication, the unresolved feelings are still simmering away under the surface. The next time something occurs which threatens to release them, maybe we'll be ok by taking still stronger drugs or more, maybe we'll freak right out and mess somebody up really badly.
In a subject with a personality disorder of this kind, the fear of potential punishment may actually make us worse, by adding that much more stress to an already explosive potential. In somebody who is really far gone, totally divorced from empathy, it may lead to the murder of a witness/police officer.
At best, punishment deters those who are rational enough to appreciate the full consequences of their actions. It's telling that you use the word "discourage", CP, because, even in a controlled environment such as a boxing ring, doing violence to another whilst in full possession of one's faculties takes considerable courage: more than your average person comes equipped with, unless they are subject to tremendous emotional stress, or have been brutalised in some way prior, which tends to remove the inhibition. One gets used to it. But the truth is that if a person is concerned about punishment enough to deter them from aggression, they more than likely haven't the nuts to do anything anyway. How many times have you heard,
Why is it wrong? Because you know you wouldn't like it if i did it to you and yours first and you have enough connection with reality and your feelings to take that twinge of fear at the thought that somebody could (which immediately grows, becoming a complex mix of emotions, as the realisation sinks in) and transfer it onto me. Having instantaneously realised that i would have a similar but worse experience should you proceed, you don't. You may even feel shame for thinking it.
But why, if it's wrong to do it, to deliberately cause suffering, is it not wrong to deliberately cause suffering to the perpetrator? You know it is. Put yourself in that person's shoes for a second, how would you feel if you flipped your lid and thus did terrible things, but had now calmed down, were once more as rational as you get, remorseful even, and then somebody comes along and fucks you over good stylee? If it happened at the time, it would be all part of the same experience, it would seem right. After the fact, with the callous brutality of the law, being made to suffer for something you did whilst you were out of control would do nothing but engender resentment in you.
This is why it's just not on to have mass gun ownership in a civilised society. Because with a gun, you don't have to be completely mental or brave or even under that much stress to kill somebody. All you have to be is unable, or temporarily unwilling, to empathise with your victim's loved ones and pull the trigger. You don't necessarily even have to watch.
However, that is not to say that that person is any less sick. Nor that should somebody do what you have suggested that my reaction to it would be any less sick. Because, lets have it right, fucked in the head is fucked in the head, whichever way you look at it. The trauma would have made me mentally ill. However, whose responsibility is it? Without trying to assign culpability, who is able to respond to the fact that we clearly have some sick people, on both sides of the altercation, when this kind of outrage goes on in our community? Who isn't? Only those who are so sick themselves that they cannot, or will not, empathise with those involved. The only question that remains is what to do about it.
Now, according to John Bradshaw a leading behavioural therapist and researcher, in the US %85 of people are emotionally dysfunctional to a degree which he considers impacts negatively on their lives. He says that in Europe and elsewhere it may be as high as %90, because of an increased social stigma attached to seeking therapy. If you've read him, you'll know he's got a powerful argument, if you haven't, his CV stands as proof that he's not an idiot who would wildly speculate without solid evidence.
Emotional dysfunctionality leads to a sense of isolation, because to some degree dysfunctional interactions with others are dishonest, to protect ourselves from a feared assault on our self esteem. Dishonesty takes effort and breeds shame. Lazyness and shame make us withdraw from the situation; actually, emotionally or both. Isolation is painful because we are naturally social beings. We don't like pain. If something hurts but we are unable to properly examine our own part in the situation for fear of damaging our self esteem (and if we feel ashamed, this is more likely), we look for other causes. The most ready to hand, as it were, is the person/s who we associated with the pain of isolation from in the first place. This becomes a resentment. Resentments inhibit our communication further and we're into a vicious circle which deepens and multiplies them. Our ability to empathise has been curtailed, because we are now all about protecting our very survival from despair by focussing on that which we hate and long for at the same time. Others. If we are focussed entirely outside ourselves, we do not acknowledge or internalise the feelings associated with potential harm to another so there is no transference to them. We never imagine what they feel like with any attendant emotional depth. We are now able to contemplate harm without empathy, we are in fact 'cold hearted'.
Now surely we are not surprised then when our societies are filled with hate, callous disregard, self congratulatory ostentation (the sign of hollow victory), arrogance (the poor man's defence), needless aggression, greed, unhappiness and despair. Yes, in fairness there's a lot of sickness about and actually, unless we start trying to heal some of it, will anyone be left who is able to respond to the tragedies of life?
There'll be those who read this who think yeah, yeah, that's right, yeah... er... hang on a minute! I'm not having that. If you do wrong, you should be punished! Fair do's, tell me where my argumant falls down and let's get into it.
And then:
As i stated, it would only deter a person from similar acts who was able to fully appreciate the consequences of their actions and that person would be highly unlikely to have the courage to do violence anyway, except in circumstances where they were emotionally traumatised, like defending themselves/loved ones.
Nor am i saying that we should do nothing about it, before anybody embarks on the 'if it's not black, it must be white' train of thought. Rather, i'm saying that in a civilised society, the humane response to sickness is an attempt at healing. Once both parties' problems have been unravelled to the point where they have a grasp of what those problems are and how they can proceed without being unhinged by them, some form of restitution by the offender to the victim is very likely to be a useful part of a final resolution.
Technorati Tags: crime violence dysfunctional empathy punishment prison jail morality morals mental illness
I originally posted this in the forum "Infinite Directions" in a thread entitled "Is ultimate fantasy immoral?" [title link] @ BetterHumans.com. The subject is whether it would be right to allow acts which we deem morally unacceptible in real life to take place in a Virtual Reality game, as we currently do with killing in video games. I've mirrored the original post "Off The Main Page" also. The discussion goes on a fair wander and, as i recall, without going back and reading all of it, nobody really get's into the original question, which the author Cemiess, elaborates on:
I've long believed that if someone thinks something, no matter how horrible it is, then they aren't being immoral unless they act up that thought.Which reminded me of a post "A few words before we go: Finders Weepers". But i got dragged into the wider debate thus:
"I was only thinking of the criminals. If they commit extremely serious and violent crimes, the penality they'll have to pay is to have their memories extensively edited, in addition to removal of addictions or other forms of organically caused mental illness. They would be forced to assume totally new identities, including altering of all biometrics. Lesser crimes wouldn't rate this obviously."Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear... Yes, clearly deviants are easily recognised and their behaviour is the result of a simple defect. They are the ones wearing the black hats who don't behave as i do. [/class="also sarcasm;"]
~ Mr. Farlops
I'm guessing you've never been in a situation where a serious breach of the law seemed like the lesser of the evils available as options?
Now before anybody wades in, i'm not for one moment attempting to justify murder/rape/child molestation, because clearly these are all heinous acts which we would all be the better for seeing the less of. However, nothing to do with human behaviour is ever simple. Nobody wakes up one morning, having been a perfectly well adjusted person the day before, and thinks, "Today, for no reason, i'll become a murderer/rapist/child molester. That sounds like a laugh!" There may well be a genetic predisposition to these behaviours, however, by and large, terrible behaviours spring out of terrible environments.
The reason for this is simple: empathy. If our environment is safe, we engage with its other inhabitants emotionally and whilst occaisional destructive thoughts/feelings may enter our heads (and who doesn't get frustrated to the point of fantasy violence occaisionally), the reason we don't act on them is not because it's against the law (otherwise murder would be as common as illegal drug taking), but rather because we have some intimation of how terrible it would feel for the victim/s or surviving loved ones.
If our environment is unsafe, the opposite is true: we do not empathise with anyone, we become all about self, therefore the same level of inhibition is not present. This is surely part of our survival instinct. The answer is not to attempt to stigmatise 'deviants' and change them, but rather change the environment. After all, as CP rightly points out, who knows when these traits might be very necessary. The planet has undergone radical change before and, no doubt, will again. This is quite apart from any hostile environments we may end up colonising off Earth.
This is without considering the fallability of criminal justice systems, malicious prosecution for personal gain or simple governmental oppression.
"I believe that two versions of these programs should be available to the public. One version should be available to the general population and the other to prisoners."Personally, i'm hoping we'll have come up with something better than prisons. I don't know what, because i certainly wouldn't advocate any kind of memory edit, but some kind of supervised re-integration with society, maybe. Possibly even with temporary restrictions on access to some parts of society. After all, rights are a privilege with which come responsibilities. I see nothing wrong with their temporary suspension, until such times as a person has been taught the ability to respond to their environment, rather than react to their feelings about it.
~ FISH OUT OF WATER
The trouble with prison is that it does not do this, but rather abrogates rights almost totally, which actually further increases a convict's alienation from society, thus making it that much less likely that they will ever be integrated.
"the pain and such will remain in the victims if they aren't assured the criminal is punished. It's a natural thing." ~ CPIt may well be natural to seek revenge however, i'd suggest that it is equally as dysfunctional as committing crime. It is a pandering to a feeling of outrage. In a Judeo-Christian moral framework, we may well identify with that feeling more readily than we do with the feelings that led upto a crime, however this does not change the fact that it is simply a feeling, the strength of which may have outlived its original purpose, which was surely also survival related.
The victims of this unhelpfull feeling could also be helped to re-integrate, without the necessity of a further moral outrage being perpetrated (in the mistaken belief that this would somehow assuage it). That seems to be one of the functions of law, to temper outrage, because if people were to go around seeking revenge biblical stylee, it'd be an eye for an eye until we were all blind.
"Vile deeds like poison weeds bloom well in prison air, it is only what is good in man, that wastes and withers there."The discussion went on for a bit before:
~ Oscar Wilde
The Ballad of Reading Gaol
Irish dramatist, novelist, & poet (1854 - 1900)
"I was merely stating a possibility for future punishment of certain kinds of crime--complete personality and body alteration. Functionally this is the same thing as capital punishment; the old person is killed.Good man yourself! I'd ask you to consider this though:
And yes, I am fully aware of the possibility for abuse of this potential.
Obviously governments can use these technologies, as they emerge, to silence dissidents, political prisoners, revolutionaries and so on. The situation could rapidly degenerate to a point were we have the perfect police state where people's brains have been rendered physically incapable of thinking subversive thoughts.
I assure you I'd hate to see such a society come into being. I quite agree there are unjust laws and unjust societies and we should all work to change them."
~ Mr. Farlops
Quite apart from the morality of capital punishment, given your experience of human nature and knowledge of history, which do you think we would likely be at more risk from, if such technology were available while government per se exists;
that in a safe environment with universal provision of high quality education, health care, food, sanitation and shelter, crime would be a significant problem or;
our rulers would seek to maintain a position somehow demonstrably better off than us 'ordinary people', possibly even going as far as reserving for themselves and cronies the right to remain unedited, and use said to stifle dissent?
There was more until:
"Punishment discourages a repeat of the same aggressive behavior by individuals."No, it does not. Behaviour in individuals which is aggressive enough to constitute a crime is a result of an inability to respond to feelings rationally or the result of a pathological problem which precludes them in the first place. A person who has this inability can no more control their reaction than a person who has the ability can control their empathic response. This is why it takes intensive training, including elements of controlled brutalisation, to make average young persons into soldiers and why, despite that training, many are still emotionally crippled by the experience of killing their fellow human beings.
~ CP
This is also why many of us who are like that become drug addicts and/or alcoholics. We must self-medicate, because otherwise we would go mental, conflicted between intolerable feelings and our limited sense of empathy. However even after self medication, the unresolved feelings are still simmering away under the surface. The next time something occurs which threatens to release them, maybe we'll be ok by taking still stronger drugs or more, maybe we'll freak right out and mess somebody up really badly.
In a subject with a personality disorder of this kind, the fear of potential punishment may actually make us worse, by adding that much more stress to an already explosive potential. In somebody who is really far gone, totally divorced from empathy, it may lead to the murder of a witness/police officer.
At best, punishment deters those who are rational enough to appreciate the full consequences of their actions. It's telling that you use the word "discourage", CP, because, even in a controlled environment such as a boxing ring, doing violence to another whilst in full possession of one's faculties takes considerable courage: more than your average person comes equipped with, unless they are subject to tremendous emotional stress, or have been brutalised in some way prior, which tends to remove the inhibition. One gets used to it. But the truth is that if a person is concerned about punishment enough to deter them from aggression, they more than likely haven't the nuts to do anything anyway. How many times have you heard,
"Oh whatever... You're just not worth it!"When you know full well that what the person actually meant was,
"I daren't face the potential consequences of continuing this argument because i'm afraid I'll get hurt or punished if you attack me and what's more, I daren't attack you for the same reasons."I have to tell you, i was a hardcore lunatic but the first time i went to deliberately inflict serious injury on somebody, i puked my guts up afterwards, despite being off my head on drugs and i never got used to being shot at. The fear of the consequences of not doing it though outweighed the fear of getting hurt. Getting caught never entered into it at all.
"Or, if the next time I'm in your neck of the woods I might drop by, clobber you repeatedly with a baseball bat, take whatever of value you have and rape any females there. It would be wrong to do anything in return, right?"In fairness mate, i wouldn't if i were you: i'm a reformed character but i'm as liable to severe emotional triggers as the next person, but i'm also experienced. This succinctly makes the point though, because you almost certainly wouldn't. Not because of anything i might do to you, nor because it's illegal, because you know it's wrong.
~ CP
Why is it wrong? Because you know you wouldn't like it if i did it to you and yours first and you have enough connection with reality and your feelings to take that twinge of fear at the thought that somebody could (which immediately grows, becoming a complex mix of emotions, as the realisation sinks in) and transfer it onto me. Having instantaneously realised that i would have a similar but worse experience should you proceed, you don't. You may even feel shame for thinking it.
But why, if it's wrong to do it, to deliberately cause suffering, is it not wrong to deliberately cause suffering to the perpetrator? You know it is. Put yourself in that person's shoes for a second, how would you feel if you flipped your lid and thus did terrible things, but had now calmed down, were once more as rational as you get, remorseful even, and then somebody comes along and fucks you over good stylee? If it happened at the time, it would be all part of the same experience, it would seem right. After the fact, with the callous brutality of the law, being made to suffer for something you did whilst you were out of control would do nothing but engender resentment in you.
This is why it's just not on to have mass gun ownership in a civilised society. Because with a gun, you don't have to be completely mental or brave or even under that much stress to kill somebody. All you have to be is unable, or temporarily unwilling, to empathise with your victim's loved ones and pull the trigger. You don't necessarily even have to watch.
However, that is not to say that that person is any less sick. Nor that should somebody do what you have suggested that my reaction to it would be any less sick. Because, lets have it right, fucked in the head is fucked in the head, whichever way you look at it. The trauma would have made me mentally ill. However, whose responsibility is it? Without trying to assign culpability, who is able to respond to the fact that we clearly have some sick people, on both sides of the altercation, when this kind of outrage goes on in our community? Who isn't? Only those who are so sick themselves that they cannot, or will not, empathise with those involved. The only question that remains is what to do about it.
Now, according to John Bradshaw a leading behavioural therapist and researcher, in the US %85 of people are emotionally dysfunctional to a degree which he considers impacts negatively on their lives. He says that in Europe and elsewhere it may be as high as %90, because of an increased social stigma attached to seeking therapy. If you've read him, you'll know he's got a powerful argument, if you haven't, his CV stands as proof that he's not an idiot who would wildly speculate without solid evidence.
Emotional dysfunctionality leads to a sense of isolation, because to some degree dysfunctional interactions with others are dishonest, to protect ourselves from a feared assault on our self esteem. Dishonesty takes effort and breeds shame. Lazyness and shame make us withdraw from the situation; actually, emotionally or both. Isolation is painful because we are naturally social beings. We don't like pain. If something hurts but we are unable to properly examine our own part in the situation for fear of damaging our self esteem (and if we feel ashamed, this is more likely), we look for other causes. The most ready to hand, as it were, is the person/s who we associated with the pain of isolation from in the first place. This becomes a resentment. Resentments inhibit our communication further and we're into a vicious circle which deepens and multiplies them. Our ability to empathise has been curtailed, because we are now all about protecting our very survival from despair by focussing on that which we hate and long for at the same time. Others. If we are focussed entirely outside ourselves, we do not acknowledge or internalise the feelings associated with potential harm to another so there is no transference to them. We never imagine what they feel like with any attendant emotional depth. We are now able to contemplate harm without empathy, we are in fact 'cold hearted'.
Now surely we are not surprised then when our societies are filled with hate, callous disregard, self congratulatory ostentation (the sign of hollow victory), arrogance (the poor man's defence), needless aggression, greed, unhappiness and despair. Yes, in fairness there's a lot of sickness about and actually, unless we start trying to heal some of it, will anyone be left who is able to respond to the tragedies of life?
There'll be those who read this who think yeah, yeah, that's right, yeah... er... hang on a minute! I'm not having that. If you do wrong, you should be punished! Fair do's, tell me where my argumant falls down and let's get into it.
And then:
So you're saying that responding with force to illegal violence doesn't deter the latter but if someone did that to you you'd respond with violence and that would deter someone from trying it again.No, CP. I'm saying that responding to illegal aggression with force is perfectly understandable, however that it is still the result of one's equilibrium being disrupted by the original act and is unhelpful in terms of resolving the situation, except where it immediately prevents further harm.
I see. ~ CP
As i stated, it would only deter a person from similar acts who was able to fully appreciate the consequences of their actions and that person would be highly unlikely to have the courage to do violence anyway, except in circumstances where they were emotionally traumatised, like defending themselves/loved ones.
Nor am i saying that we should do nothing about it, before anybody embarks on the 'if it's not black, it must be white' train of thought. Rather, i'm saying that in a civilised society, the humane response to sickness is an attempt at healing. Once both parties' problems have been unravelled to the point where they have a grasp of what those problems are and how they can proceed without being unhinged by them, some form of restitution by the offender to the victim is very likely to be a useful part of a final resolution.
Technorati Tags: crime violence dysfunctional empathy punishment prison jail morality morals mental illness
posted by edjog at 14:12
Links to this post
.gif)
