The Point of Prison
Jun. 24th, 2021 05:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysabetwordsmithI came across this article about the point of prison, and the ethics of rehabilitation.
Changing a brain to save a life: how far should rehabilitation go?
If the person to be changed wishes to change, then it is up to them how far to go and what risks to take. They should have access to care which is prompt, safe, effective, and affordable. This is sometimes displeasing to others, who may wish them to go more or less far than they choose. The decision should be made by the person who has to live in that mind/body, because everyone else has the option of walking away from it while you are always stuck with yourself.
If the person to be changed does not wish it, then apply the principle of appropriate force: use the minimum needed to achieve the goal, and no more than that. This is justifiable in preventing one person from harming others. It is much less justifiable -- and more common -- in preventing them from annoying others, say by espousing unpopular opinions or refusing to work for someone else's benefit.
And then ask the critical ethical question: what if everyone did that? Or in this case, what if everyone was subjected to that? If you wouldn't want to be treated that way, then you probably shouldn't be doing it to anyone else.
What's the difference between brainwashing and rehabilitation?
In one sense, it depends on who you ask: the people in power will call things rehabilitation that the victims call brainwashing. Case in point, China's abuse of political prisoners, up to and including organlegging.
In another sense, we can look at motives and outcomes. Brainwashing is done to people, against their will, to force them to stop pursuing their own goals and instead force them to be more pleasing or useful to those in power. This can have severe consequences not just for the victims, but for society as a whole, because it's unstable and damages things that people need to function. Rehabilitation is done for people, with their consent, because they want to fix problems in their life but can't do so alone. Done right, this can improve individual and collective health.
Consider the spectrum of influence, persuasion, manipulation, and coercion. Part of this deals with the motive for trying to change people. Part deals with how much pressure is exerted. Part deals with the outcomes. So it tends to be better at the near end of influence, and worse at the far end of coercion. Compare with the manipulation and mental tricks routinely used in advertising and propaganda. There are ways to resist advertising and fight propaganda. Brainwashing uses many of the same techniques. Know how to break brainwashing too. These things overlap because they attack known weaknesses in the human psyche such as distorted thought patterns and exploit the structure of the mind/brain. At extreme levels, this becomes mindrape, which is generally considered evil ... at least when done by an official villain. People tend to overlook how often the same actions are performed by the authorities.
Four new human rights have been proposed to defend against such assaults.
There are a variety of ways, from hormonal treatment to surgical lobotomies, to force a person to be more law abiding, calm, or moral.
No. There ways to make someone seem to be those things. It is very rarely a true change. Forget that at your peril.
Force only works as long as you can keep applying it. People you have forced and violated tend to hate you. Never, ever mistake oppression for loyalty. Those you have violated are always watching for opportunities to escape or fight back, and they will kill you if they can. This is why white slave owners feared rebellion so much -- and the tactics they used, of separating people, controlling their travel, suppressing their speech, spreading disinformation, etc. are exactly the tactics used in brainwashing and political oppression. It does a lot of damage. But it doesn't keep the oppressors safe. History is littered with the ruins of tyrannies.
Is a world with less free will but also with less suffering one in which we would want to live?
I certainly don't. But I am usually a minority opinion. I have plenty of examples, from farmemory to history, of why this is a terrible idea that never ends well. Although few people have farmemory, anyone can study history. Traits of facism is a good place to start in recognizing assaults on free will.
Most people don't like to think too much, and are easily swayed by false promises of safety. But those who trade freedom for security consistently wind up with neither. The noose always tightens, and sooner or later everyone becomes uncomfortable with that. The problem is, the longer it goes on, the harder it is to fix and the higher the butcher's bill tends to get. So it is better to defend freedom early and often to avoid that.
Alex is a criminal. A violent and sadistic criminal.
What is the difference, if any, between Alex and those tasked with changing him?
Alex likes to hurt people; he is a free-ranging criminal who selects his own victims.
His torturers are state-sponsored violent sadists who are presented with helpless victims. They are afforded protection against prosecution, so long as they confine their appetites to approved victims.
In this situation, the difference between Alex and his torturers is simply that they are smarter, luckier, or belong to approved groups of society such that they have found protected outlets for their desire to harm others. It isn't that violence and sadism are wrong -- it is merely that unsanctioned violence and sadism are wrong.
Clever psychopaths find jobs that support their interests. This is why America's police system attracts violent, antisocial personalities -- with predictably bad results.
So, we decide to do something about it. We're going to "rehabilitate" him. Using a new and exciting "Ludovico" technique, we'll change his brain chemistry to make him an upstanding, moral citizen.
If you break into someone's mind to change it against his will, that is mindrape.
If you succeed in destroying the person who was displeasing, and replace them in their body with a totally different personality which is more pleasing to you, then you have murdered the original person.
Alex will be forced to watch violent movies as his body is pumped with nausea-inducing drugs.
This is torture. It is not only harmful to the victim, but also to the torturer and to society in general. The end does not justify the means; the means determine the end.
After a while, he'll come to associate violence with this horrible sickness. And, after a course of Ludovico, Alex can happily return to society, never again doing an immoral or illegal act. He'll no longer be a danger to himself or anyone else.
Quite the opposite, as even a cursory look at torture survivors and prison inmates will show.
Torture survivors are not typically calm, fuctional, productive members of society. They often become disabled due to psychological and/or physical injuries.
Prison inmates typically become more antisocial, not less, and thus less able to function in society. Prison increases crime in various ways.
What Alex learns, if he is coherent enough to learn anything at all, is that might makes right. If you have power, you can torture people as you please. He is therefore likely to go out in search of enough power to torture with impunity. Perhaps he'll become a state-sanctioned torturer. Society might like that. Perhaps he'll stage a coup instead. They probably won't like that at all. These things have happened. Many of the worst tyrants, like Caligula, came from a background of torture and abuse. That doesn't excuse what they did, but it does suggest that if you don't want to create batshit tyrants, you probably shouldn't torture and abuse people.
This might seem like unbelievable science fiction, but it might be truer — and nearer — than we think. In 2010, Dr. Molly Crockett did a series of experiments on moral decision-making and serotonin levels. Her results showed that people with more serotonin were less aggressive or confrontational and much more easy-going and forgiving. When we're full of serotonin, we let insults pass, are more empathetic, and are less willing to do harm.
This is fine insofar as it relates to a peaceful and wholesome society. But we don't have that. We have a society where people routinely take advantage of each other. If nobody resists, those crimes escalate. So you have to think about whether an offense is significant enough to respond, and if so, whether it's a rock problem or a clay problem. Too much emphasis on tolerance and distress endurance can lead to treating clay problems as rock problems, and thus not solving them. So then they get worse.
A healthy human has a balance, not getting upset over trivial issues, but not putting up with abuse of self or others. Anger is a natural and necessary emotion. Suppressing is bad for everyone. After all, a nation of sheep will soon be eaten.
The idea that biology affects moral decisions is obvious. Most of us are more likely to be short-tempered and spiteful if we're tired or hungry, for instance. Conversely, we have the patience of a saint if we just have received some good news, had half a bottle of wine, or had sex. If our decision-making can be manipulated or determined by our biology, should we not try various interventions to prevent the criminally inclined from harming others?
Like say, making sure everyone's survival needs are met so they aren't tempted to rob or murder others in order to meet those needs? Like providing everyone with a thorough education and life opportunities to support good decision-making skills?
Funny how people don't want to take that approach to reducing crime and other antisocial behavior. But it works.
What is the point of prison? This is itself no easy question, and it's one with a rich philosophical debate. Surely one of the biggest reasons is to protect society by preventing criminals from reoffending.
Reasons include, but are not necessarily limited to:
* forcibly preventing the offender from committing more crime by caging him
* using terrorism to frighten the offender away from committing more crime
* educating the offender to reduce his desire to commit more crime
* giving the offender time to reflect on and repent of his crimes
* punishing or torturing the offender to get revenge
* forcing the prisoner to "pay a debt to society" in cash, labor, or pain
* so prison owners or others can profit from forced labor
* procuring a source of something else from prisoners, like vital organs
* putting social irritants out of sight, out of mind, so they don't annoy people who matter
* suppressing unwanted ideas or populations
* a fairly safe way for people in power to express racism or other prejudices through unjust legal practices
You will note that few of these reasons are ethical, and many of them are downright evil. The application of unjust or evil principles greatly outweighs the ethical ones, which unsurprisingly results in high recidivism rates. Because if people profit from others' crimes, they will find ways to make more crimes happen.
If the purpose of the penal system is to rehabilitate, then why not "edit" these parts of the brain in some way?
Because that's not the purpose of most penal systems.
For those that are designed to rehabilitate, there are more ethical and effective methods, such as education and the offer of mental care if desired. Forced treatment is abuse and makes matters worse. Bear in mind that the history of mental care is appalling.
If we could easily "treat" those with aggressive or anti-social behavior, then why not?
There are treatments that could be offered for many complaints. They are rarely applied because they cost money, but mentally ill people tend to be poor while providers aren't in it for charity, but for a profit. This a key reason why so much mental illness is untreated.
See above regarding ethical and practical reasons why destroying someone's mind is not okay.
There's no obvious reason why we should value free will above morality or the right to life.
Well, yes there is: because morality can't exist without both the capacity to understand right and wrong, and the free will to choose between them.
Consider the story of Adam and Eve in Eden. They were created without understanding. They had no more ability to distinguish right from wrong than a blind person could see a "Do Not Enter" sign. Therefore, they had no ability to obey or disobey. Only after they ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil could they perceive the difference.
Similarly, we don't expect children to understand rules or obedience at all until they start talking as toddlers, and we don't expect much consistency until 7 or 8 when moral awareness starts to develop, and we don't expect reliable decision-making until adulthood (currently around 18-21 in many societies). As the brain develops, so does the mind, and there is no point expecting a baby to understand that we'd prefer he not shit on the floor.
We can program a computer to protect people, or to kill people, and it will follow that program pretty reliably; but it has no understanding, no morality. The moral weight is on the programmer (or buyer).
An action can have good or bad outcomes, but it is the choice -- the free will -- and understanding that give it moral weight.
Do you think the Ludovico technique from A Clockwork Orange is a great idea?
That story is a cautionary tale for a reason.
Should we turn people into moral citizens and shape their brains to choose only what is good?
If they are forced, it is not a choice; or at least, it is not their choice, but rather the choice of someone else. As mentioned before, the ends do not justify the means; the means determine the ends.
Or is free choice more important than all the evil in the world?
Free choice is what lets us create good or evil, and if we don't like the results of either, make a different choice next time in hope of better outcomes. Hence the cycle of history: people do stupid shit for selfish reasons, and eventually other people tear them down and try to build something better. Civilization has, over time, discovered some new and better ways of doing things and discarded older ones that were less effective or more problematic. There is no learning without making mistakes.
So what do we do about people who refuse to stop hurting others?
It is entirely possible to contain people without also torturing them. They can be provided with decent housing, a healthy diet, an outdoor garden to exercise in, education and mental care if they want those things. Entertainment such as books, games, music, movies, etc. provides mental stimulation.
The biggest challenge is that solitary confinement destroys minds. It's hardly fair to ask people to interact with violent prisoners when practical needs could be delivered remotely, and that includes a need to protect prisoners from each other. But primates go crazy and die without touch. Social interaction through email, phone, video meetings, etc. should slow the rate of decline by helping them connect with friends, family, counselors, volunteers, and so on. Fuzzy things to cuddle can help, such as blankets or stuffed animals. Some prison programs have gotten great results from animal therapy. In a less-violent population, healthy touch programs work; but for less-violent offenders, there are much better and less dangerous methods than imprisonment and police force. Ideally a program should help violent offenders become less violent so they can interact with others safely.
It is much better to prevent crime than to punish it after the fact. Reducing inequality reduces crime. So does planting trees. Placemaking simultaneously increases eyes on the street, encourages socialization, and discourages crime. Teach ethics, decision-making, problem-solving, relationship skills, coping skills, and other life skills to give people better options to address challenges. Also, if you don't want riots, you should respond when other people point out problems in rational ways.
These methods appeal to people less than torture does, which suggests that most "rehabilitators" don't have any moral high ground to stand on.
Changing a brain to save a life: how far should rehabilitation go?
If the person to be changed wishes to change, then it is up to them how far to go and what risks to take. They should have access to care which is prompt, safe, effective, and affordable. This is sometimes displeasing to others, who may wish them to go more or less far than they choose. The decision should be made by the person who has to live in that mind/body, because everyone else has the option of walking away from it while you are always stuck with yourself.
If the person to be changed does not wish it, then apply the principle of appropriate force: use the minimum needed to achieve the goal, and no more than that. This is justifiable in preventing one person from harming others. It is much less justifiable -- and more common -- in preventing them from annoying others, say by espousing unpopular opinions or refusing to work for someone else's benefit.
And then ask the critical ethical question: what if everyone did that? Or in this case, what if everyone was subjected to that? If you wouldn't want to be treated that way, then you probably shouldn't be doing it to anyone else.
What's the difference between brainwashing and rehabilitation?
In one sense, it depends on who you ask: the people in power will call things rehabilitation that the victims call brainwashing. Case in point, China's abuse of political prisoners, up to and including organlegging.
In another sense, we can look at motives and outcomes. Brainwashing is done to people, against their will, to force them to stop pursuing their own goals and instead force them to be more pleasing or useful to those in power. This can have severe consequences not just for the victims, but for society as a whole, because it's unstable and damages things that people need to function. Rehabilitation is done for people, with their consent, because they want to fix problems in their life but can't do so alone. Done right, this can improve individual and collective health.
Consider the spectrum of influence, persuasion, manipulation, and coercion. Part of this deals with the motive for trying to change people. Part deals with how much pressure is exerted. Part deals with the outcomes. So it tends to be better at the near end of influence, and worse at the far end of coercion. Compare with the manipulation and mental tricks routinely used in advertising and propaganda. There are ways to resist advertising and fight propaganda. Brainwashing uses many of the same techniques. Know how to break brainwashing too. These things overlap because they attack known weaknesses in the human psyche such as distorted thought patterns and exploit the structure of the mind/brain. At extreme levels, this becomes mindrape, which is generally considered evil ... at least when done by an official villain. People tend to overlook how often the same actions are performed by the authorities.
Four new human rights have been proposed to defend against such assaults.
There are a variety of ways, from hormonal treatment to surgical lobotomies, to force a person to be more law abiding, calm, or moral.
No. There ways to make someone seem to be those things. It is very rarely a true change. Forget that at your peril.
Force only works as long as you can keep applying it. People you have forced and violated tend to hate you. Never, ever mistake oppression for loyalty. Those you have violated are always watching for opportunities to escape or fight back, and they will kill you if they can. This is why white slave owners feared rebellion so much -- and the tactics they used, of separating people, controlling their travel, suppressing their speech, spreading disinformation, etc. are exactly the tactics used in brainwashing and political oppression. It does a lot of damage. But it doesn't keep the oppressors safe. History is littered with the ruins of tyrannies.
Is a world with less free will but also with less suffering one in which we would want to live?
I certainly don't. But I am usually a minority opinion. I have plenty of examples, from farmemory to history, of why this is a terrible idea that never ends well. Although few people have farmemory, anyone can study history. Traits of facism is a good place to start in recognizing assaults on free will.
Most people don't like to think too much, and are easily swayed by false promises of safety. But those who trade freedom for security consistently wind up with neither. The noose always tightens, and sooner or later everyone becomes uncomfortable with that. The problem is, the longer it goes on, the harder it is to fix and the higher the butcher's bill tends to get. So it is better to defend freedom early and often to avoid that.
Alex is a criminal. A violent and sadistic criminal.
What is the difference, if any, between Alex and those tasked with changing him?
Alex likes to hurt people; he is a free-ranging criminal who selects his own victims.
His torturers are state-sponsored violent sadists who are presented with helpless victims. They are afforded protection against prosecution, so long as they confine their appetites to approved victims.
In this situation, the difference between Alex and his torturers is simply that they are smarter, luckier, or belong to approved groups of society such that they have found protected outlets for their desire to harm others. It isn't that violence and sadism are wrong -- it is merely that unsanctioned violence and sadism are wrong.
Clever psychopaths find jobs that support their interests. This is why America's police system attracts violent, antisocial personalities -- with predictably bad results.
So, we decide to do something about it. We're going to "rehabilitate" him. Using a new and exciting "Ludovico" technique, we'll change his brain chemistry to make him an upstanding, moral citizen.
If you break into someone's mind to change it against his will, that is mindrape.
If you succeed in destroying the person who was displeasing, and replace them in their body with a totally different personality which is more pleasing to you, then you have murdered the original person.
Alex will be forced to watch violent movies as his body is pumped with nausea-inducing drugs.
This is torture. It is not only harmful to the victim, but also to the torturer and to society in general. The end does not justify the means; the means determine the end.
After a while, he'll come to associate violence with this horrible sickness. And, after a course of Ludovico, Alex can happily return to society, never again doing an immoral or illegal act. He'll no longer be a danger to himself or anyone else.
Quite the opposite, as even a cursory look at torture survivors and prison inmates will show.
Torture survivors are not typically calm, fuctional, productive members of society. They often become disabled due to psychological and/or physical injuries.
Prison inmates typically become more antisocial, not less, and thus less able to function in society. Prison increases crime in various ways.
What Alex learns, if he is coherent enough to learn anything at all, is that might makes right. If you have power, you can torture people as you please. He is therefore likely to go out in search of enough power to torture with impunity. Perhaps he'll become a state-sanctioned torturer. Society might like that. Perhaps he'll stage a coup instead. They probably won't like that at all. These things have happened. Many of the worst tyrants, like Caligula, came from a background of torture and abuse. That doesn't excuse what they did, but it does suggest that if you don't want to create batshit tyrants, you probably shouldn't torture and abuse people.
This might seem like unbelievable science fiction, but it might be truer — and nearer — than we think. In 2010, Dr. Molly Crockett did a series of experiments on moral decision-making and serotonin levels. Her results showed that people with more serotonin were less aggressive or confrontational and much more easy-going and forgiving. When we're full of serotonin, we let insults pass, are more empathetic, and are less willing to do harm.
This is fine insofar as it relates to a peaceful and wholesome society. But we don't have that. We have a society where people routinely take advantage of each other. If nobody resists, those crimes escalate. So you have to think about whether an offense is significant enough to respond, and if so, whether it's a rock problem or a clay problem. Too much emphasis on tolerance and distress endurance can lead to treating clay problems as rock problems, and thus not solving them. So then they get worse.
A healthy human has a balance, not getting upset over trivial issues, but not putting up with abuse of self or others. Anger is a natural and necessary emotion. Suppressing is bad for everyone. After all, a nation of sheep will soon be eaten.
The idea that biology affects moral decisions is obvious. Most of us are more likely to be short-tempered and spiteful if we're tired or hungry, for instance. Conversely, we have the patience of a saint if we just have received some good news, had half a bottle of wine, or had sex. If our decision-making can be manipulated or determined by our biology, should we not try various interventions to prevent the criminally inclined from harming others?
Like say, making sure everyone's survival needs are met so they aren't tempted to rob or murder others in order to meet those needs? Like providing everyone with a thorough education and life opportunities to support good decision-making skills?
Funny how people don't want to take that approach to reducing crime and other antisocial behavior. But it works.
What is the point of prison? This is itself no easy question, and it's one with a rich philosophical debate. Surely one of the biggest reasons is to protect society by preventing criminals from reoffending.
Reasons include, but are not necessarily limited to:
* forcibly preventing the offender from committing more crime by caging him
* using terrorism to frighten the offender away from committing more crime
* educating the offender to reduce his desire to commit more crime
* giving the offender time to reflect on and repent of his crimes
* punishing or torturing the offender to get revenge
* forcing the prisoner to "pay a debt to society" in cash, labor, or pain
* so prison owners or others can profit from forced labor
* procuring a source of something else from prisoners, like vital organs
* putting social irritants out of sight, out of mind, so they don't annoy people who matter
* suppressing unwanted ideas or populations
* a fairly safe way for people in power to express racism or other prejudices through unjust legal practices
You will note that few of these reasons are ethical, and many of them are downright evil. The application of unjust or evil principles greatly outweighs the ethical ones, which unsurprisingly results in high recidivism rates. Because if people profit from others' crimes, they will find ways to make more crimes happen.
If the purpose of the penal system is to rehabilitate, then why not "edit" these parts of the brain in some way?
Because that's not the purpose of most penal systems.
For those that are designed to rehabilitate, there are more ethical and effective methods, such as education and the offer of mental care if desired. Forced treatment is abuse and makes matters worse. Bear in mind that the history of mental care is appalling.
If we could easily "treat" those with aggressive or anti-social behavior, then why not?
There are treatments that could be offered for many complaints. They are rarely applied because they cost money, but mentally ill people tend to be poor while providers aren't in it for charity, but for a profit. This a key reason why so much mental illness is untreated.
See above regarding ethical and practical reasons why destroying someone's mind is not okay.
There's no obvious reason why we should value free will above morality or the right to life.
Well, yes there is: because morality can't exist without both the capacity to understand right and wrong, and the free will to choose between them.
Consider the story of Adam and Eve in Eden. They were created without understanding. They had no more ability to distinguish right from wrong than a blind person could see a "Do Not Enter" sign. Therefore, they had no ability to obey or disobey. Only after they ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil could they perceive the difference.
Similarly, we don't expect children to understand rules or obedience at all until they start talking as toddlers, and we don't expect much consistency until 7 or 8 when moral awareness starts to develop, and we don't expect reliable decision-making until adulthood (currently around 18-21 in many societies). As the brain develops, so does the mind, and there is no point expecting a baby to understand that we'd prefer he not shit on the floor.
We can program a computer to protect people, or to kill people, and it will follow that program pretty reliably; but it has no understanding, no morality. The moral weight is on the programmer (or buyer).
An action can have good or bad outcomes, but it is the choice -- the free will -- and understanding that give it moral weight.
Do you think the Ludovico technique from A Clockwork Orange is a great idea?
That story is a cautionary tale for a reason.
Should we turn people into moral citizens and shape their brains to choose only what is good?
If they are forced, it is not a choice; or at least, it is not their choice, but rather the choice of someone else. As mentioned before, the ends do not justify the means; the means determine the ends.
Or is free choice more important than all the evil in the world?
Free choice is what lets us create good or evil, and if we don't like the results of either, make a different choice next time in hope of better outcomes. Hence the cycle of history: people do stupid shit for selfish reasons, and eventually other people tear them down and try to build something better. Civilization has, over time, discovered some new and better ways of doing things and discarded older ones that were less effective or more problematic. There is no learning without making mistakes.
So what do we do about people who refuse to stop hurting others?
It is entirely possible to contain people without also torturing them. They can be provided with decent housing, a healthy diet, an outdoor garden to exercise in, education and mental care if they want those things. Entertainment such as books, games, music, movies, etc. provides mental stimulation.
The biggest challenge is that solitary confinement destroys minds. It's hardly fair to ask people to interact with violent prisoners when practical needs could be delivered remotely, and that includes a need to protect prisoners from each other. But primates go crazy and die without touch. Social interaction through email, phone, video meetings, etc. should slow the rate of decline by helping them connect with friends, family, counselors, volunteers, and so on. Fuzzy things to cuddle can help, such as blankets or stuffed animals. Some prison programs have gotten great results from animal therapy. In a less-violent population, healthy touch programs work; but for less-violent offenders, there are much better and less dangerous methods than imprisonment and police force. Ideally a program should help violent offenders become less violent so they can interact with others safely.
It is much better to prevent crime than to punish it after the fact. Reducing inequality reduces crime. So does planting trees. Placemaking simultaneously increases eyes on the street, encourages socialization, and discourages crime. Teach ethics, decision-making, problem-solving, relationship skills, coping skills, and other life skills to give people better options to address challenges. Also, if you don't want riots, you should respond when other people point out problems in rational ways.
These methods appeal to people less than torture does, which suggests that most "rehabilitators" don't have any moral high ground to stand on.
(no subject)
Date: 2021-06-25 10:38 am (UTC)And yeah, no, using these techniques on criminals is not ok. We don't know near enough about the human brain to even guarantee that this wpuld be safe and not harmful - it's not like antidepressants for ex, however common they are, havent caused some people harm and take AGES to find the right one. And that's w free will and choice of doctors and a doctor that has theoretically the patients best interest in mind.
If people want to meddle w brains so much, they can pour more money into helping mental illnesses. Heavens know we are not that great at it.
And if they want to stop violent crime? Why not start w banning guns, defunding the police, making anger management popular and taught in schools, etc.
(no subject)
Date: 2021-06-25 02:16 pm (UTC)At one point it was considered a mental illness...for a slave to flee from their masters, and the treatment for that was whipping.
Similar attitudes have variously applied to queerfolk, pro-democracy advocates, protesters, anti-capitalists, and women dissatisfied with being housewives.
>>What the hades makes anyone think that if such a technique is legitimized on criminals, even violent ones, that in 20 yes it won't be used by the gov on it's opponents? <<
Morality. If your moral framework is such that good begets good and bad begents bad, then /making/ someone be good is, well, good. And nothing bad comes from doing good...
Variously seen in some pro-conversion religious groups, mansplaining and the whole White Savior complex. Blegh.
Of course, there's some people who just want to be in charge, hurt people, whatever...and they'll go along as long as they can get what they want out of the deal.
Thoughts
Date: 2021-06-26 04:53 am (UTC)Well, that's what China does, when it's not cutting them up for spare parts.
>> What the hades makes anyone think that if such a technique is legitimized on criminals, even violent ones, that in 20 yes it won't be used by the gov on it's opponents? Or if conservatives get power, on, say, doctors who perform abortions? This needs to Never get a foot in the door. <<
Exactly.
>> And yeah, no, using these techniques on criminals is not ok. We don't know near enough about the human brain to even guarantee that this wpuld be safe and not harmful - it's not like antidepressants for ex, however common they are, havent caused some people harm and take AGES to find the right one.<<
Antidepressants are infamous for increasing suicidal ideation. I personally don't think a medication should be approved if it worsens the problem it's supposed to treat, but nobody asked me.
>> And that's w free will and choice of doctors and a doctor that has theoretically the patients best interest in mind. <<
Sometimes. Quite often, people are pressured or forced to take medication they don't want. Think about the vicious attacks against people who are "off their meds" -- without considering it is each person's right to choose what is or is not worthwhile for their body.
Meanwhile, other people are denied care that they do want.
It's not about health or safety. It's not about drugs. Most fights are about who is in charge.
>> If people want to meddle w brains so much, they can pour more money into helping mental illnesses. Heavens know we are not that great at it.<<
Yyyyeah.
>> And if they want to stop violent crime? Why not start w banning guns, <<
Banning guns won't stop crime. It just shifts the method to something else. Like say, acid, which several countries have a huge problem with. Or cars, which would be unfeasible to ban and are much more dangerous than guns. Or pipe bombs, which are easy to make with a wide range of materials, also unfeasible to ban, and popular in several other countries.
The problem is dangerous people. They will always find tools to hurt others.
You need to create an environment that does not readily generate people who think violence is a good solution to problems. Then it doesn't matter what tools are around; they won't use those on each other. People used to carry guns all the time for protection against wild animals, but shootings were rare. Except when they were murdering people to steal their land, but that's a different issue and nobody else counts that in America's history of gun massacres.
>> defunding the police, making anger management popular and taught in schools, etc. <<
Excellent ideas, but opposed to current society.
The problem is that teaching people to think and solve problems makes them look at the government and disapprove, then meddle. The government doesn't want that. It wants to control people. And it's getting away with that, so it will do more. What usually happens when you put a sealed pot on a hot stove? :/
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-06-26 11:53 am (UTC)Another important thing is teaching the average person is to recognize sociopathic/manipulative behavior and how to respond to it. You can't prevent everyone from hooking up with the "bad boy" or "needy woman" who emotionally manipulates and abuses them, but you can give people the tools to recognize that kind of behavior and hopefully avoid it or get out. More resources for getting away from those situations are important too.
The true sociopaths are already learning by observation how to fake empathy and adjust their behavior to get what they want from others.
>> People used to carry guns all the time for protection against wild animals, but shootings were rare.
My father remembers students having gun racks in their cars/trucks at school when he was growing up. No one thought anything of it because it was a small farming community and lots of students hunted during deer season and the like. No one threatened to shoot up the school.
>> The problem is dangerous people. They will always find tools to hurt others.<<
Side comment and curiosity, has anyone tracked and looked at the size of the schools with student shootings and done comparisons?
The reason I ask is because of the anonymity that can occur within large groups. I've read several theories about the serial killer boom in the 70s that discussed the social mobility of the time and lack of communal awareness in knowing your neighbors. Not saying those kinds of personalities didn't exist in the past (because they obviously did) but it's often harder to get away with murdering multiple people when the surrounding community notices when someone is gone.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-06-27 08:53 am (UTC)All good ideas, but society generally frowns on them.
>> The true sociopaths are already learning by observation how to fake empathy and adjust their behavior to get what they want from others.<<
Yeah, that's a problem.
>>My father remembers students having gun racks in their cars/trucks at school when he was growing up. No one thought anything of it because it was a small farming community and lots of students hunted during deer season and the like. No one threatened to shoot up the school.<<
Schools used to have shooting clubs too. They taught responsible gun use.
>> Side comment and curiosity, has anyone tracked and looked at the size of the schools with student shootings and done comparisons? <<
They may or may not have. From what I've seen, it tends to happen in medium to large schools.
>> The reason I ask is because of the anonymity that can occur within large groups. <<
It's not just anonymity. It's critical mass and proximity.
Troublemakers are around 1 in 10, and more bothersome ones 1 in 20. When classes were around 20 kids, you'd have a couple of troublemakers, but you could put them in opposite corners and minimize the hassle. With 30 or 40 kids per class, there are more troublemakers and it's harder to keep them apart. If a school only has 100 students, there are 10 troublemakers, enough to form one small gang ... except that they are different ages, which really tends to break up the cohesion. If a school has 1000 students, there are 100 troublemakers, which is enough for multiple gangs and enough in each age bracket to pose a significant threat.
Smaller schools tend to have more adults in proportion to students, and a smaller space to move around in. So it's hard for troublemakers to get far enough away from adults, long enough, to cause serious problems. If the adults also know many of the students, as you mentioned, that also makes it harder.
So the bigger the school, the more problems it tends to have, just from the mass effect. That's before you add in the fact that troubled schools tend to have fewer adults watching the students, whereas better schools have more adults.
>> I've read several theories about the serial killer boom in the 70s that discussed the social mobility of the time and lack of communal awareness in knowing your neighbors. Not saying those kinds of personalities didn't exist in the past (because they obviously did) but it's often harder to get away with murdering multiple people when the surrounding community notices when someone is gone.<<
Yep.
Regarding schools: moving a child from one school to another costs them their social standing, permanently. They have to fit in wherever they can in the new school, and it's rarely as high up. Moving makes it harder to maintain close friendships. So the students are less able to moderate each other's behavior, and less motivated to moderate their own.