I'm not sure where to start with this: the fact that a philosopher has failed in the use of the most fundamental tenet of philosophy (reason), that said philosopher is granted awards from allegedly prestigious institutions or that anyone even listens to her. Fail, fail, fail. Big heap fail. Collectively, humans have leaped from the roof of the house of dignity and justice, obliterated the folding table of logic and reason and now are screaming in pain in the backyard wrestling arena of the universe.
Firstly, we have been using punishment as a method to discipline the non-conforming aspects of society for thousands of years. Clearly it has failed to bring about any positive changes in the punishee because recidivism (in the US) is approximately 50%. If this were an exam we would have failed it. So why do we continue to enact the reciprocating idiocy of Einstein's definition of insanity? Perhaps it's because the people in charge of the "justice" system make way too much money off of exploiting an inbuilt psychological construct from childhood: the notion of punishment by authority ("this hurts me more than it hurts you" "It's for your own good" etc.). Maybe it's because anyone who is in a position to do anything about it is likely a psychopathic megalomaniac who derives pleasure from the suffering of others - a wetigo (and here) in the words of the Ojibwa.
Maybe it's because humans are psychotic barking reptiles (psychologically speaking) who are apparently incapable of thinking. Thinking being the application of reason to a situation via conscious abstraction on the part of the thinker and not merely the act of engaging your inner dialogue. Studies wherein a method of subconscious 'priming' were used to asses the plasticity of the human decision making process show us that humans are not well equipped when it comes time to actually think. Hence reflexive R-brain mediated decision process, hence stupid barking reptiles dressed in human suits.
Man as master of his own destiny is apparently a crock, your environmental stimulus seems to do the "thinking" for you. Weird, yet much like in 'They Live' - "it figures it would be something like this".
Next we run into some heavyweight philosophical issues: who has the authority (right) to punish another at all? I would argue that the injured party does. When I say injured party I am not talking about the state nor am I speaking of non-tangible injuries. For example: if one doesn't wear a seatbelt, which is generally a legal infraction, who is damaged by this act? As such who has any right to claim against the alleged 'offender'?
Example two: thought crimes: if one were to publish a racist pamphlet, who is tangibly injured? No one is forced to read it and further, no one is forced to agree with it. If someone were to act against another based on racist ideas garnered from said pamphlet the fault for the crime still lies with the offender, not the writer, as the offender was not forced or coerced to conform to the ideas of another. Still, we have hilarious yet savagely hypocritical 'hate speech' provisions in "law".
In the excellent albeit very long documentary film 'Evidence of Revision', J. Edgar Hoover lays it out very simply. When asked about justice, he sidesteps the question and explains that "law and order" were his primary concerns as director of the FBI. Justice and law are two uniquely different concepts, one is the aspiration of a free and responsible people and the other is the mandate of tyranny.
Why is this not patently obvious to all? Because: reptiles, barking reptiles.
 |
| It's for your own good Johnny. |
Perhaps the primary cause for punishment being so socially counterproductive is denial. When a psychological stressor is placed upon someone, say an abusive superior at work, humans generally respond with a denial mechanism to deal with the stressor. Denial works in one of two ways: the subject identifies with the stressor and accepts it as logical (wrongly) and thus posing no threat to personal integrity, or the subject rejects the stressor as being inherently flawed and completely dismisses the validity of the stressor; in essence completely denying it. In abusive human relationships these behaviours show up in such classic cliches as the beaten wife explaining to herself that "he does it because he loves me" which is her trying to identify with the abuser, or the cliche of the rebellious teenager who thinks "don't trust anyone over thirty" and rejects the veiws of his abuser (parent, teachers, etc.) out of hand.
Denial is so very prevalent today that apparently even the 'intellectuals' of our world are not only vulnerable, but downright happy to engage in these ridiculous mind games. The worst part is that because they are credentialed, other people believe their game is valid and abdicate their free will to another who is apparently acting out a delusion. The upside is that now you know what it is you may have some chance at making better, more informed decisions in your life. Or perhaps you'll engage in a denial pattern to avoid the stressor of having to admit your huge perceptual weaknesses.
So what happens when we allow the 'the state' to punish 'offenders'? We encourage denial patterns on both sides of the law enforcement fence, leading to what is ultimately a more psychologically sick collective.
Despite all of the incredible psychological weaknesses humans suffer from, we do still have the ability to reason and make sound decisions if we apply ourselves. Further all of the people who have propagated these thought viruses are dying off and being replaced with new people, we are them, let's not make the same mistakes.
