Why do we punish?

[Thunder]

Why do we punish anyone?
With psychopathical criminals, I could see the death sentence or life imprisonment being there to keep them from society. But in other cases, why punish? I'm not only talking about criminal activities.
If person X called person Y a peice of shit and then Y punched X, that would be punishment. But what is the "why" in the punishment?

[commyrebel]

Instinct of course, its a reflects

[Decolonize The Left]

Nietzsche dedicates numerous passages of his book On the Geneology of Morals to this very question. I will reproduce them now (apologies for the length of the quotations, I feel as though they are important):


For the most extensive period of human history, punishment was certainly not meted out because people held the instigator of evil responsible for his actions, and thus it was not assumed that only the guilty party should be punished:—it was much more as it still is now when parents punish their children out of anger over some harm they have suffered, anger vented on the perpetrator—but anger restrained and modified through the idea that every injury has some equivalent and that compensation for it could, in fact, be paid out, even if that is through the pain of the perpetrator.


Let us clarify for ourselves the logic of this whole method of compensation—it is weird enough. The equivalency is given in this way: instead of an advantage making up directly for the harm (hence, instead of compensation in gold, land, possessions of some sort or another), the creditor is given a kind of pleasure as repayment and compensation—the pleasure of being allowed to discharge his power on a powerless person without having to think about it, the delight in “de fair le mal pour le plaisir de le faire” [doing wrong for the pleasure of doing it], the enjoyment of violation. This enjoyment is more highly prized the lower and baser the creditor stands in the social order, and it can easily seem to him a delicious mouthful, in fact, a foretaste of a higher rank. By means of the “punishment” of the debtor, the creditor participates in a right belonging to the masters. Finally he also for once comes to the lofty feeling of despising a being as someone “beneath him,” as someone he is entitled to mistreat—or at least, in the event that the real force of punishment, of executing punishment, has already been transferred to the “authorities,” the feeling of seeing the debtor despised and mistreated. The compensation thus consists of an order for and a right to cruelty.


Always measured by the standard of prehistory (a prehistory which, by the way, is present at all times or is capable of returning), the community also stands in relation to its members in that important basic relationship of the creditor to his debtor. People live in a community. They enjoy the advantages of a community (and what advantages they are! Nowadays we sometimes underestimate them); they live protected, cared for, in peace and trust, without worries concerning certain injuries and enmities from which the man outside the community, the “man without peace,” is excluded—a German understands what “misery” [Elend] or êlend [other country] originally means—and how people pledged themselves to and entered into obligations with the community bearing in mind precisely these injuries and enmities. What will happen with an exception to this case? The community, the defrauded creditor, will see that it gets paid as well as it can—on that people can rely. The issue here is least of all the immediate damage which the offender has caused. Setting this to one side, the lawbreaker [Verbrecher] is above all a “breaker” [Brecher], a breaker of contracts and a breaker of his word against the totality, with respect to all the good features and advantages of the communal life in which, up to that point, he has had a share. The lawbreaker is a debtor who does not merely not pay back the benefits and advances given to him, but who even attacks his creditor. So from this point on not only does he forfeit, as is reasonable, all these good things and benefits—but he is also now reminded what these good things are all about. The anger of the injured creditor, the community, gives him back again to the wild outlawed condition, from which he was earlier protected. It pushes him away from itself—and now every form of hostility can vent itself on him. At this stage of cultural behaviour “punishment” is simply the copy, the mimus, of the normal conduct towards the hated, disarmed enemy who has been thrown down, who has forfeited not only all legal rights and protection but also all mercy; hence it is a case of the rights of war and the victory celebration of vae victis [woe to the conquered] in all its ruthlessness and cruelty:—which accounts for the fact that war itself (including the warlike cult of sacrifice) has given us all the forms in which punishment has appeared in history.

- August

[rosa-rl]

I see the question of punishment as a question of line. That is that the person calling for punishment is really looking for revenge and a revolution cant be made by revenge and be the type of society that I am fighting for.

[Il Medico]

Punishment enforce societal standard for behavior. It helps and hurts at the same time. When punishment is based on bigotry then it is bad and will slowly fade as human society progresses. While other punishment, like the social stigma associated with saying the 'N' word or criminal punishment for things like rape help repress the less pleasant part of human nature, our Id. People don't rape and kill because they will be punished, despite the fact that both lust and anger are part of human nature. This is a good argument to use when confronted with the capitalist assertion that communism is against "human nature". If our society punished uncontrolled greed in the same way we punish uncontrolled lust then capitalist arguments are completely invalid. Reason and punishment by the society as a whole is what represses human nature which is animalistic and allows us to move forward as a whole.

[nightazday]

the whole point of punishment is to discourage a certain behavior in certain individuals results vary on the people you are punishing sometimes it works wonders, other times it just makes things worse

[rouchambeau]

What's punishment?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

There is no justification for punishment I feel. I think it is morally questionable to punish someone. That is, because punishment does not serve to help the perpetrator overcome what they have done, neither will it help th victim. Also, how can we measure accurately what each punishment for each crime consists of, this is completely subjective. This is why punishment is morally questionable as we are neither helping the person by punishing nor can we measure how their punishment should be carried out, even if we came to a conclusion on this, punishment is ineffective in helping the perpetrator.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There is no justification for punishment I feel. I think it is morally questionable to punish someone. That is, because punishment does not serve to help the perpetrator overcome what they have done, neither will it help th victim.

Surely that depends on the punishment, and what the punishment is supposed to achieve.


Also, how can we measure accurately what each punishment for each crime consists of, this is completely subjective.That's only a problem if the punishment in question is meant to be retributive - not all of them are. They may be preventative, corrective, or be based on something else entirely, such as social disapproval.


This is why punishment is morally questionable as we are neither helping the person by punishing nor can we measure how their punishment should be carried out, even if we came to a conclusion on this, punishment is ineffective in helping the perpetrator.What would your alternative be?

[WhitemageofDOOM]

the whole point of punishment is to discourage a certain behavior in certain individuals results vary on the people you are punishing sometimes it works wonders, other times it just makes things worse

The problem is punishment does NOT discourage. Ergo it cannot be about discouraging. Humans aren't stupid, we just rationalize away things we don't like to admit.

It's about two things.
1) Our obsession with "Earned", but that is a useless concept.
2) Our desire to make the criminal suffer.

Nothing more, nothing less.
Punishment does nothing but satisfy those hurt, but it does so by hurting others and thus we perpetuate the cycle of violence and revenge.

[EqualityandFreedom]

In my ideal justice system murderers would spend little or no time in jail as murder (ordinary murderers not serial killers) has a low recidivism rate. Other than having an immediate feel good effect retribution for the victims and society in general is vacuous, focus should be entirely on prevention, rehabilitation and helping victims (eg. counselling or compensation). Retribution is irrational because -

a. Punishing the perpetrator is not going to undo the crime
b. From a consistent materialist/physicalist perspective free will and abstractions such as selfhood/personhood do not exist, albeit whether this has practical relevance I am unsure.

That said if someone committed a crime against me I have to admit I probably want revenge despite realising it is entirely irrational. This is not an easy issue.

[Verix]

we punish for reasons
A: To teach, A mother punishes a child for stealing a toy
B: Revenge, the death penialty
I think excuting people 99.9% of the time has nothing to do with keeping the public safe its for justice and justice by definition = revenge

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

B: Revenge, the death penialty
I think excuting people 99.9% of the time has nothing to do with keeping the public safe its for justice and justice by definition = revenge

Really? So a penalty which has a re-offending rate of precisely 0% has nothing to do with ensuring public safety?

[Verix]

it does ensure public safety, but i think thats not the main reason it is practiced putting someone in a maxium prison for 300 years will ensure public safety too, however i think the main reason they are excuted is as a way of revenge for the crimes against socity

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

it does ensure public safety, but i think thats not the main reason it is practiced putting someone in a maxium prison for 300 years will ensure public safety too,

Not if they escape or have friends/contacts outside the prison allowing them to commit crimes by proxy.


however i think the main reason they are excuted is as a way of revenge for the crimes against socity

So caging people like animals and brutalising them for years on end isn't a vengeful act?

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Not if they escape or have friends/contacts outside the prison allowing them to commit crimes by proxy.

So caging people like animals and brutalising them for years on end isn't a vengeful act?

Prison is the most disgusting, barbaric punishment humanity has ever created.
"Let's torture someone for years on end, just so we can feel good." Makes me want to throw up. Then we let them out, desperate and fucked up from years of hell, with nothing to turn to but crime.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Prison is the most disgusting, barbaric punishment humanity has ever created.
"Let's torture someone for years on end, just so we can feel good." Makes me want to throw up. Then we let them out, desperate and fucked up from years of hell, with nothing to turn to but crime.

What I find truly disturbing is the seemingly common notion that experiencing prison rape is an acceptable part of imprisonment.

[Radical]

Instinct of course, its a reflects
I agree


And because its the most practical solution to what we think will stop acts of "crime" in the future

[Nils T.]

Because we don't. I don't. The state does.

Prison is not the most barbaric punishment humanity invented. There's scaphism, for example - the convict is enclosed in a hollow device coming in two parts, in such a way that his head, hands and feet are out. The two parts are sewed or attached more or less hermatically. Then the convict is generously feed, and forced to if necessary, and he is given to drink a mixture of honey and milk which gives him diarrhea. The same mixture is poured on his face, hands and feet so that flies comes to feed and lay their eggs. After several days, his bag start to be filled with feces and urine, while worms and maggots proliferate and go on to eat the man alive. That's barbarism.
Prison is just the type of punishment that is most convenient to the modern states. Napoleon is supposed to have said that religion was the only thing keeping the poor from killing the rich - but he was unconvinced enough to launch the development of a penal system designed to make religion unnecessary for this task. Emprisonment was, and is still the central element of this system. The old regime's punishments were mostly physical torture, and sometimes executions, that also usually included a part of torture. They were public, and the crowd was invited to cheer and see first hand the reality of the royal authority. It was the punishment primary task : show that the state had the power and the will to literally destroy parts or totality of the individuals that challenged its rule. The system was not really meant as a comprehensive response to crime as a threat to society. Every criminal commits two crimes : one against his victims, one against the law. And this was for this second crime that the criminals were tortured or executed.
In the new penal systems, on the contrary, the main concern were the victims - the rich. Prisons were instituted as a systemic response to crime because, as opposed to the corporal punishements commited in public, they instituted a separation between the people and the criminals.
The humanists of the period, for whom punishment was to be a way to redeem and reeducate criminals, pointed rapidly the inefficiency of emprisonment on these aspects. The convicts were poorer when they got out, and more ready and able to new offenses, as they learned and made new "associates" behind bars.
But for the new dominant class and the rulers it produced, prisons were clearly beneficial in two aspects - first, they permitted to reach a rate of sentences per crime commited far superior to the old one, without risking to much from the populations concerned, since this sort of punishment is less visible and less visibly violent. Secondly, the geographical separation of the criminals and the rest of the people created a symbolic separation, a new social category, shunned and despised universally by the logic of its exclusion : "it's not from here, means it's ought to stay out". The crime became the resort of another population, which was primarily determine by the physical boundaries of the prisons - the poor started to be reluctant to kill the rich, not because it was a sin, but because they wouldn't associate with the others, the criminals. There is this revolutionnary song dating from the Commune, entitled La Canaille in french, meaning "the rabble", in which the first verse says more or less "it's not the criminals, it's the honest poor" and the chorus says "it's the rabble, i'm part of it". The separation between the lumpen and the proletariat was originally a physical one : the walls of the prisons; then it became a symbolic and political separation, and though they still lived often in the same neighbourhoods and ghettos, their ideals excluded a solidarity that was normal and expected fifty years earlier, as a major threat on the bourgeois society.

That's why, though prisons are infamous for promoting crime more than preventing it, they are still useful for capitalist societies. They even showed particularily efficient to create and uphold others segregations in more recent times - for exemple the black ghettos in the US after the 60s.

I agree with Nietzsche. And with Foucault.

[MarxSchmarx]

Do comrades see a place for punishment, qua punishment, in a post-capitalist society? If so, why? If not, why?

[Black Dagger]

Really? So a penalty which has a re-offending rate of precisely 0% has nothing to do with ensuring public safety?

Are you advocating the death penalty here? :confused:

[ckaihatsu]

Punishment enforce societal standard for behavior. It helps and hurts at the same time. When punishment is based on bigotry then it is bad and will slowly fade as human society progresses. While other punishment, like the social stigma associated with saying the 'N' word or criminal punishment for things like rape help repress the less pleasant part of human nature, our Id. People don't rape and kill because they will be punished, despite the fact that both lust and anger are part of human nature. This is a good argument to use when confronted with the capitalist assertion that communism is against "human nature". If our society punished uncontrolled greed in the same way we punish uncontrolled lust then capitalist arguments are completely invalid. Reason and punishment by the society as a whole is what represses human nature which is animalistic and allows us to move forward as a whole.


I wince and hesitate to accept the 'animalistic human nature', or individual-psychological basis for explaining human behavior. This approach really shortchanges our intelligence and emotional sympathetic abilities for understanding the well-being of others.

Really we're falling into the right-wing, dualistic sandtrap of an argument if we adopt the id-ego-superego, Western-individualistic argument that we're all just fevered egos running around in relentless pursuit of unbounded self-gratification. Sure, the capitalist system institutionalizes this framework and encourages it through its predominating, bourgeois culture, but anyone who's spent even a minute in any sort of social setting should really know better.

Civilized life -- even beneath the umbrella of profit-mongering, empire-building international conflicts -- still contains a large degree of collectivism and combined effort, even in the private sector.

And, individually, I think we quickly and early-on come to a certain amount of sympathetic compassion that allows us to see others as biologically and life-path-equivalently similar to ourselves. Civilization is *not* the automatic curtailing of "natural", individualistic, self-gratifying motivations -- it is just more complexity, with greater stakes for more people, and also with more rewards for more people -- yes, and also with more punishments, too, since that is part of the nature of economic and political exchanges.

Until we can provide a larger general framework of improved orderliness for the human population of the world, through a worldwide workers' revolution, there will simply continue to be too much individualized risk and unnecessary hazards and punishments incurred due to the still-chaotic and uncollectivized structure of the capitalist system of economics and government.


Chris





--




--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[ckaihatsu]

Really? So a penalty which has a re-offending rate of precisely 0% has nothing to do with ensuring public safety?

Are you advocating the death penalty here? :confused:


I was wondering the same. I'd tend to say that he *isn't*, based on this subsequent statement:





Not if they escape or have friends/contacts outside the prison allowing them to commit crimes by proxy.


*I* interpret this to mean that NoXion realizes that the system of private-wealth-based rewards and punishments will continue to grind on, no matter *what* the individual punishments are. A network of organized crime is just a black-market analogue of white-collar crime, both existing in compliance of some sort to the dominant-power bourgeois state.


---





Do comrades see a place for punishment, qua punishment, in a post-capitalist society? If so, why? If not, why?


Let's just say that until there's *really*, objectively no need for it -- as there's currently no need to punish someone who drinks too much water -- there *will* be punishments, even in a post-capitalist society.


Chris





--




--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Are you advocating the death penalty here? :confused:

Not really, I was just pointing out one of its advantages. But I do think it should be an option available to whatever criminal courts or somesuch exist after capitalism. For precisely that reason.


*I* interpret this to mean that NoXion realizes that the system of private-wealth-based rewards and punishments will continue to grind on, no matter *what* the individual punishments are. A network of organized crime is just a black-market analogue of white-collar crime, both existing in compliance of some sort to the dominant-power bourgeois state.

Actually, I was making a half-assed attempt at showing that just because you lock someone up doesn't mean they're no longer a threat to others. A prison is just as much a part of society as a street is.

[Stel]

If someone curses you ( as you said) and you punch him , will he curse you again? So punishment is not used by hatred but by insight.

[Black Dagger]

If someone curses you ( as you said) and you punch him , will he curse you again? So punishment is not used by hatred but by insight.

Are you suggesting that physical punishment is an effective deterrent/behaviour altering strategy? Somebody hasn't watched the Super Nanny ;)

Ever get beat by parents? Did it stop you from acting up? Punishment may not be used by hatred, but what you're suggesting is control through fear, that shows a lack of insight IMO.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

If someone curses you ( as you said) and you punch him , will he curse you again? So punishment is not used by hatred but by insight.

Judging by most of my friends, yes they will...

As far as children are concerned there have been numerous studies linking corporal punishment and depression, agression, suicidal thoughts for children who are more frequent recipents. Whereas for those who are more harshly punished, it's shown to induce anti-social behaviour and poorer school performance. With the escalation of the aforementioned, it puts the child at greater risk of legally determined child abuse, and more likely to engage in spousal abuse as an adult.

But we're slightly going off on a tangent here

[WhitemageofDOOM]

we're all just fevered egos running around in relentless pursuit of unbounded self-gratification.

I'm a fevered ego running around in relentless pursuit of unbounded self-gratification.
BUT
I don't like seeing other humans suffer.
I realize working with others is so much more efficient than warring with them.
Equal distribution benefits me far more than unequal distribution currently is.


still contains a large degree of collectivism and combined effort, even in the private sector.Well humans are social animals, we like helping and cooperating with people we sympathize with.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm a fevered ego running around in relentless pursuit of unbounded self-gratification.
BUT
I don't like seeing other humans suffer.


Well, it's that last part of what you said that makes you left-wing -- if you just said "fuck it" and turned yourself over to the service of property- and profit-accumulation you'd be a lot more successful (money-wise) than you are now....





I realize working with others is so much more efficient than warring with them.
Equal distribution benefits me far more than unequal distribution currently is.


Again you're showing your left-wing credentials -- a *real* fevered ego (and you'll run into plenty of them) would find that warring with people means there's a chance of beating them and taking their stuff.





Well humans are social animals, we like helping and cooperating with people we sympathize with.


This is *one* (probably the *only*) generalization about human nature that I *can* agree with, since it's biologically-anthropologically-societally true.... As conditions get more crowded, though, *all* creatures tend to become more irritable and combative (*not* a Malthusian argument)....

[Outinleftfield]

I think Nietzchke got it right. As much as people might pretend that punishment is to discourage people or curb negative aspects of human behavior an understanding of the history of punishment shows this is flawed. People punish in order to hurt someone without feeling bad about it. It's just like how the ruling elite in any country doesn't think they are exploiting or oppressing anyone because they always come up with some kind of justification not just to fool other people but to fool themselves.

Many people are afraid that without punishment there would be chaos. However, a lack of punishment does not mean a lack of self-defense. It would be stupid not to defend yourself or another person from an armed mugger just because you don't want to punish him. The difference is that the motivation is to save yourself or save the other person not to hurt the mugger.

Compensation is also different. If someone takes something from you then you are missing something unjustly and to correct this injustice it must come from somewhere. If it is possible to get it in some form from the person responsible that is best. In fact I think it is legitimate to require someone who wacks off a body part from you if the body part dies to be forced to donate their own body part to replace it(and seeing that faces and arms can now be transplanted this is feasible) and not only that but pay for any immunosuppressant drugs you might need. Though this would hurt the perpetrator greatly the purpose is to compensate the victim not hurt the perpetrator. I think this should be the case even if it was an accident as long as it wasn't a complete accident and there was some negligence involved since it is still the perpetrator's fault and so it follows that to help the victim regain what was lost they should have to sacrifice.

Shunning is also different. You are exercising your right to freedom of association. If you don't want to interact with a person nobody should force you to. So say someone commits a violent crime, this is found out, and news spreads everywhere. Soon nobody wants to trade, sell, or buy with this person. The person will need to redeem themselves before the community trusts them to interact with them again. Also people know they are violent so they are on guard. This news could even go worldwide leaving them without a safe haven. This would be far more deterring than being sent to prison where you are guaranteed food, social interaction, and even tv.

[ckaihatsu]

I think Nietzchke got it right. As much as people might pretend that punishment is to discourage people or curb negative aspects of human behavior an understanding of the history of punishment shows this is flawed.


This is a *ridiculous* conception of punishment because it is *idealistic*, meaning that it is taking up the topic in a vacuum -- you're only addressing the subject as an *abstraction* and you're *not* really placing it into any kind of *historical* context. (Merely including the phrase 'history of punishment' doesn't mean that you're using any historical contexts or examples as part of your analysis.)

Of *course* punishment is based in *behaviorism* -- and it *works*, inasmuch as one has a near-certain chance of running into the same unwanted / feared punishment for the same transgression.

But this statement of mine contains three variables, [1] the chance of a transgression being noticed, [2] that the punishment is sufficiently unwanted, and [3] that the same punishment *will* certainly be administered for the same transgression. In the real world these variables *do not necessarily* all line up.





People punish in order to hurt someone without feeling bad about it.


This is an incredibly broad over-generalization that does *not* fit into *any* kind of structural, societal, or historical context -- it's *idealistic*. (And, incidentally, this is why the discipline of *psychology*, taken by itself, is as arbitrary and cultural as any religion.)





It's just like how the ruling elite in any country doesn't think they are exploiting or oppressing anyone because they always come up with some kind of justification not just to fool other people but to fool themselves.

Many people are afraid that without punishment there would be chaos.




However, a lack of punishment does not mean a lack of self-defense. It would be stupid not to defend yourself or another person from an armed mugger just because you don't want to punish him. The difference is that the motivation is to save yourself or save the other person not to hurt the mugger.


This example presupposes two things -- [1] that the risk of resisting the forced request for money, etc., would be worth the risk, and [2] that the person under attack would be *capable* of resisting the attack. Not *everyone* -- (consider the elderly) -- has the *physical ability* to resist an attack. This is why it's better to have *some kind* of "democratic" state structure (government) that can (possibly) enforce an overall system of laws, including incentives and punishments, for various types of behavior, especially in regards to the well-being of the individual.

Your formulation is downright libertarian in its construction.





Compensation is also different. If someone takes something from you then you are missing something unjustly and to correct this injustice it must come from somewhere. If it is possible to get it in some form from the person responsible that is best. In fact I think it is legitimate to require someone who wacks off a body part from you if the body part dies to be forced to donate their own body part to replace it(and seeing that faces and arms can now be transplanted this is feasible) and not only that but pay for any immunosuppressant drugs you might need. Though this would hurt the perpetrator greatly the purpose is to compensate the victim not hurt the perpetrator. I think this should be the case even if it was an accident as long as it wasn't a complete accident and there was some negligence involved since it is still the perpetrator's fault and so it follows that to help the victim regain what was lost they should have to sacrifice.


And how would you quantify and compensate for the loss of life, as with the thousands of people killed in Afghanistan and Pakistan (and Iraq) by U.S. forces?





Shunning is also different. You are exercising your right to freedom of association. If you don't want to interact with a person nobody should force you to. So say someone commits a violent crime, this is found out, and news spreads everywhere. Soon nobody wants to trade, sell, or buy with this person. The person will need to redeem themselves before the community trusts them to interact with them again. Also people know they are violent so they are on guard. This news could even go worldwide leaving them without a safe haven. This would be far more deterring than being sent to prison where you are guaranteed food, social interaction, and even tv.


This is *another* *incredible* formulation, one that presupposes that *everyone in the world* could effectively participate in a system of equally individuated global information exchange and worthwhile justice enforcement. Again, all I have to do is point to the current crimes of imperialism to disabuse *anyone* of this kind of idealism.

You're a libertarian because your foremost concern is with future commerce and ownership -- "...trade, sell, and buy...".

[yuon]

As an anarchist (and not having read most of the rest of the thread), I find the concept of "punishment" abhorrent. It is true, that due, at least in part, to my upbringing, and the society and culture I live in, I sometimes think that someone should be "punished" or that revenge might be good.

But, rationally, I know that it doesn't do any good for anyone. Obviously it doesn't help the person being punished, but, it also doesn't help the victim (the "crime" still happened), nor others.

I reject the notion of punishment. (I'm had more to say, but forgot it due to other threads. Whoops.)

[TC]

We punish to control peoples behavior, to impose the punishers will. Anything else is just ideological window dressing.

[ckaihatsu]

But, rationally, I know that [punishment] doesn't do any good for anyone. Obviously it doesn't help the person being punished, but, it also doesn't help the victim (the "crime" still happened), nor others.





All authority is quite degrading. It degrades those who exercise it, and degrades those over whom it is exercised.

http://recollectionbooks.com/anow/ppl/wri/wilde/quote.html


While I respect this enlightened attitude, I think that, until our society / civilization reaches the point at which official social conditioning -- preferably that from a post-capitalist, worldwide revolutionary workers' government -- becomes *unnecessary*, it *will* be necessary to have some kind of system of laws and rewards and punishments, if only so that there is a general understanding of how things get done.

The process of increasing collectivization of society is aggravatingly slow, and should really have been completed a long time ago. Unfortunately we are still in the midst of capitalism, which is only the collectivization of private wealth into the form of corporations.

Until we have the *full* collectivization of *humanity's* wealth, for everyone to use, we will continue to be punished, in official and unofficial ways, because of the existence of property rights.

[yuon]

We punish to control peoples behavior, to impose the punishers will. Anything else is just ideological window dressing.
Heh, that's part of why I reject punishment. I don't think anyone should be imposing anyone's will on anyone. Umm...


While I respect this enlightened attitude, I think that, until our society / civilization reaches the point at which official social conditioning -- preferably that from a post-capitalist, worldwide revolutionary workers' government -- becomes *unnecessary*, it *will* be necessary to have some kind of system of laws and rewards and punishments, if only so that there is a general understanding of how things get done.
Funny thing, I disagree to a certain extent with your assessment. I believe that even when capitalism hasn't gone away 100%, or even if were are still transitioning (in a "collectivist" phase perhaps), we don't need to have the system of punishment that exists now.

I think that to punish is un-anarchistic, and we should be using anarchistic methods to bring about our future anarchist society. (To do otherwise runs the risk of not bringing about an anarchist society at all. Means and ends and all that.)

Rather than punishment as it is understood today, we can use tools that are compatible with our principles. Rather than jailing someone, we can ask them to leave as their behaviour is not consistent with the community (for example, in an extreme case).

[ckaihatsu]

Funny thing, I disagree to a certain extent with your assessment. I believe that even when capitalism hasn't gone away 100%, or even if were are still transitioning (in a "collectivist" phase perhaps), we don't need to have the system of punishment that exists now.


I absolutely understand your point, and I fully respect it. I *want* to agree with you, and I *hope* that a future worldwide workers' revolution could be as smooth and bloodless a transition as possible. That said, I think we all know what the capitalists are capable of, and they certainly wouldn't allow "their" factories to be collectivized without resorting to physical force and mass murder.

Let me put it starkly: Would you support *the workers* if *they* decided to use some punishments of their own while resisting the capitalists' punishments? (We don't even have to wait for revolutionary conditions to come about -- it's happening already!)





Mob beats Chinese steel factory executive to death


Thousands of workers had gathered in northeastern rust belt city of Tonghua to protest the takeover of their company and threatened layoffs.

July 27, 2009

Chinese state media confirmed Monday that a steel factory executive was beaten to death after thousands of workers gathered to protest the takeover of their company.

Chen Guojun, an executive at Jianlong Steel Holding Co., died Friday after an angry mob in the northeastern rust belt city of Tonghua beat him and then blocked ambulances from reaching him, according to the China Daily.

The protesters worked at the state-owned Tonghua Iron and Steel Group, which was going to be sold to Chen's privately owned Jianlong Steel. Chen sparked the riot by announcing 30,000 workers would be laid off, the newspaper said.

They dispersed later only after they were assured by authorities the sale would not go through.

-- David Pierson

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-china-mob27-2009jul27,0,3235364.story







I think that to punish is un-anarchistic, and we should be using anarchistic methods to bring about our future anarchist society. (To do otherwise runs the risk of not bringing about an anarchist society at all. Means and ends and all that.)

Rather than punishment as it is understood today, we can use tools that are compatible with our principles. Rather than jailing someone, we can ask them to leave as their behaviour is not consistent with the community (for example, in an extreme case).


I could easily, and justifiably, characterize this as political romanticism....

[ckaihatsu]

Protesting Chinese steel workers kill manager

By John Chan
28 July 2009


> Workers were also incensed by the fact that Chen was paid three million yuan ($US 440,000) a year—about 300 times their average wage—while workers retired from the plant received as little as 200 yuan ($29) a month.

> The magazine also noted that in the first two months of 2009, more than 500 private businessmen and senior executives were murdered, as a result of not paying, or cutting, wages or because of the intensifying exploitation of workers. The latest protest by Tonghua workers indicates that class relations in China are reaching boiling point.


http://wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/chin-j28.shtml

[Outinleftfield]

This example presupposes two things -- [1] that the risk of resisting the forced request for money, etc., would be worth the risk, and [2] that the person under attack would be *capable* of resisting the attack. Not *everyone* -- (consider the elderly) -- has the *physical ability* to resist an attack. This is why it's better to have *some kind* of "democratic" state structure (government) that can (possibly) enforce an overall system of laws, including incentives and punishments, for various types of behavior, especially in regards to the well-being of the individual.

In a post-revolutionary society with full freedom of movement there is nothing to stop organizations from forming that follow violent criminals around ready to defend people from their aggression at a moments notice. They would not be able to get away with anything. If you try to do that now you get in trouble for stalking and harrassment. However I believe if someone commits violent acts they've brought in on themselves. This is not punishment though since it exerts no force or violence against the person (unless they try to commit a violent act but this would be true even if the person had not been found to be a violent criminal before and people happened to come across them trying to commit their first crime) and allows them full freedom to do what they want except commit violent crime but then that's true for everybody, its just that people chose to follow this person around to make sure because that person has a past that suggests they may commit more violent acts.

However I accept that this concept is a bit too radical and will have to be accepted gradually. Libertarian socialism will start with punishment, sometimes even the death penalty in some communities. Communities will have to evolve and enlighten on their own.


And how would you quantify and compensate for the loss of life, as with the thousands of people killed in Afghanistan and Pakistan (and Iraq) by U.S. forces?

Not everything can be compensated for, though there could be compensation for hardship for people hurt by these people's death.


This is *another* *incredible* formulation, one that presupposes that *everyone in the world* could effectively participate in a system of equally individuated global information exchange and worthwhile justice enforcement. Again, all I have to do is point to the current crimes of imperialism to disabuse *anyone* of this kind of idealism.

Governments are able to keep information hidden under the guise of "national security". Passing around information on violent crime in some kind of worldwide registry(kind of like the sex offender registries in America) could work. Although most likely others would register the information for the criminal rather than having the criminal do it themselves.


You're a libertarian because your foremost concern is with future commerce and ownership -- "...trade, sell, and buy...".

I dont even believe the ideal social structure should involve money, but rather a voluntary network of decentralized groups that elect recallable delegates who negotiate a plan for production and distribution. Although I think people should be free to use money as long as there is no employer-employee exploitation.

[ckaihatsu]

In a post-revolutionary society with full freedom of movement there is nothing to stop organizations from forming that follow violent criminals around ready to defend people from their aggression at a moments notice. They would not be able to get away with anything. If you try to do that now you get in trouble for stalking and harrassment. However I believe if someone commits violent acts they've brought in on themselves. This is not punishment though since it exerts no force or violence against the person (unless they try to commit a violent act but this would be true even if the person had not been found to be a violent criminal before and people happened to come across them trying to commit their first crime) and allows them full freedom to do what they want except commit violent crime but then that's true for everybody, its just that people chose to follow this person around to make sure because that person has a past that suggests they may commit more violent acts.

However I accept that this concept is a bit too radical and will have to be accepted gradually. Libertarian socialism will start with punishment, sometimes even the death penalty in some communities. Communities will have to evolve and enlighten on their own.


I'm sorry if -- and I'm guessing here -- you have had a *personal* experience that wasn't so pleasant. I'd like to just note that I'm in this discussion on a solely *political* basis.

That said, I think a post-revolutionary society would either tend to have work life, *and* social / family life centered around a factory or other large-ish workplace environment. Just as today's society -- and everyone's lives in it -- are colored by the relations we have through the money medium, a post-revolutionary society would be collectively concerned with the free flow of material goods to the surrounding area, and with everyone's participation towards that end.

I find it difficult to imagine many anti-social or a-social acts taking place in a society in which people would basically be *channeled* into cooperative relationships for their livelihood in the world. These days certain people can become successful and even above-the-law based on their anti-social behavior -- note the $100 million banker from Citigroup as an example:

Citigroup’s $100 million banker
http://wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/pers-j29.shtml

Much of the petty crime we see today -- including the more violent types -- are often the result of desperate acts by alienated individuals who are attempting to assert *some* kind of power while feeling overwhelmingly powerless in the larger structure of society.

Violence is rarely carried out for its own sake, though this kind of psychotic mentality is played up in pop culture for its dramatic value and to avoid the banal reality underlying most everyday-type crimes, as I described.

I'm sure that workers' collectives could be the social basis for an official civil society, if that was needed -- most particularly while some remnants of capitalism continued to exist while the revolution was in progress. Hopefully more of a social-services attitude would prevail, so that anti-social behavior would not be *criminalized* as much as it would be *dealt with*, at the individual level, through long-term counseling and material support from the larger society.





Not everything can be compensated for, though there could be compensation for hardship for people hurt by these people's death.


As a libertarian, or left-nationalist, do you at least support the ending of all war operations, by all nations, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq? (That would *prevent* further deaths.)





Governments are able to keep information hidden under the guise of "national security". Passing around information on violent crime in some kind of worldwide registry(kind of like the sex offender registries in America) could work. Although most likely others would register the information for the criminal rather than having the criminal do it themselves.


All social justice issues run into the larger issue of *authority* -- just what institution, exactly, do you think would be the proper one for delegating the powers of custodianship, and even the use of physical punishments?

You are acknowledging that *some* kind of government, or mass administrative apparatus, would be required for these kinds of civil matters. I would tend to agree with you, *except* that, as a revolutionary, I *cannot* condone the practice of civil justice as it's currently administered by bourgeois governments -- we *know* it to be thoroughly racist, brutal, inhumane, unjust, and corrupt.





I dont even believe the ideal social structure should involve money, but rather a voluntary network of decentralized groups that elect recallable delegates who negotiate a plan for production and distribution. Although I think people should be free to use money as long as there is no employer-employee exploitation.


My follow-up question to this would be to ask what the material basis of these "decentralized groups" is -- on what grounds are they constituted?

[seventhparadise]

Why do we punish anyone?
With psychopathical criminals, I could see the death sentence or life imprisonment being there to keep them from society. But in other cases, why punish? I'm not only talking about criminal activities.
If person X called person Y a peice of shit and then Y punched X, that would be punishment. But what is the "why" in the punishment?

there is no punishment. there is just 'rehabilitation' ;)

[StalinFanboy]

This is a *ridiculous* conception of punishment because it is *idealistic*, meaning that it is taking up the topic in a vacuum -- you're only addressing the subject as an *abstraction* and you're *not* really placing it into any kind of *historical* context. (Merely including the phrase 'history of punishment' doesn't mean that you're using any historical contexts or examples as part of your analysis.)

Of *course* punishment is based in *behaviorism* -- and it *works*, inasmuch as one has a near-certain chance of running into the same unwanted / feared punishment for the same transgression.

But this statement of mine contains three variables, [1] the chance of a transgression being noticed, [2] that the punishment is sufficiently unwanted, and [3] that the same punishment *will* certainly be administered for the same transgression. In the real world these variables *do not necessarily* all line up.





This is an incredibly broad over-generalization that does *not* fit into *any* kind of structural, societal, or historical context -- it's *idealistic*. (And, incidentally, this is why the discipline of *psychology*, taken by itself, is as arbitrary and cultural as any religion.)







This example presupposes two things -- [1] that the risk of resisting the forced request for money, etc., would be worth the risk, and [2] that the person under attack would be *capable* of resisting the attack. Not *everyone* -- (consider the elderly) -- has the *physical ability* to resist an attack. This is why it's better to have *some kind* of "democratic" state structure (government) that can (possibly) enforce an overall system of laws, including incentives and punishments, for various types of behavior, especially in regards to the well-being of the individual.

Your formulation is downright libertarian in its construction.





And how would you quantify and compensate for the loss of life, as with the thousands of people killed in Afghanistan and Pakistan (and Iraq) by U.S. forces?





This is *another* *incredible* formulation, one that presupposes that *everyone in the world* could effectively participate in a system of equally individuated global information exchange and worthwhile justice enforcement. Again, all I have to do is point to the current crimes of imperialism to disabuse *anyone* of this kind of idealism.

You're a libertarian because your foremost concern is with future commerce and ownership -- "...trade, sell, and buy...".

Please stop using asterisks to emphasize words. It makes me cry inside. :(

[ckaihatsu]

Please stop using asterisks to emphasize words. It makes me cry inside. :(


Annoying, huh...? I like to think that my writing justifies it -- hopefully there's *something* there that's worth including the emphasis....

[Outinleftfield]

I'm sorry if -- and I'm guessing here -- you have had a *personal* experience that wasn't so pleasant. I'd like to just note that I'm in this discussion on a solely *political* basis.

Um no or at least doesnt have anything to do with what I was talking about.


That said, I think a post-revolutionary society would either tend to have work life, *and* social / family life centered around a factory or other large-ish workplace environment. Just as today's society -- and everyone's lives in it -- are colored by the relations we have through the money medium, a post-revolutionary society would be collectively concerned with the free flow of material goods to the surrounding area, and with everyone's participation towards that end.

I find it difficult to imagine many anti-social or a-social acts taking place in a society in which people would basically be *channeled* into cooperative relationships for their livelihood in the world. These days certain people can become successful and even above-the-law based on their anti-social behavior -- note the $100 million banker from Citigroup as an example:

Citigroup’s $100 million banker
http://wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/pers-j29.shtml

Much of the petty crime we see today -- including the more violent types -- are often the result of desperate acts by alienated individuals who are attempting to assert *some* kind of power while feeling overwhelmingly powerless in the larger structure of society.

True. But I was pointing out that this will not eliminate violence.


Violence is rarely carried out for its own sake, though this kind of psychotic

At the risk of sounding politically correct the word you are looking for is psychopathic, not psychotic. Psychotic people hear voices. Psychopathic people have no empathy, even then unless they are also sadists they're not going to engage in violence for its own sake. Unfortunately it is those people who run our society. Even then considering these people often have a knack for charm I don't think its entirely genetic. The society we live in makes it very easy for someone with that kind of persuasive power to be corrupted by their own abilities and to adopt a mentality where all that matters is using their charm to get their way.


As a libertarian, or left-nationalist, do you at least support the ending of all war operations, by all nations, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq? (That would *prevent* further deaths.)

I'm against nations. What gave you the idea I was a left-nationalist? Yes I agree we should end war.


All social justice issues run into the larger issue of *authority* -- just what institution, exactly, do you think would be the proper one for delegating the powers of custodianship, and even the use of physical punishments?

I support polycentric law based on internal democracy(the institutions are run democratically by their participants). This is the most honest system. The laws of any society depend on how those with access to force choose to use it, it's just that most people choose to defer to a certain institution (state) even when it goes against their interests and the interests of enough people so that if they all worked together they could ignore it. In my ideal social system these institutions would negotiate the law with each other and renogiate as necessary when the capacity to use force has changed. This might lead to some odd borders, borders not for who is in charge but for specific policies because some organizations might have power in one area but not another. Each organization would be run by its workers. Negotiations would also help clear up what courts get jurisdiction when there is a dispute over that.

[ckaihatsu]

Much of the petty crime we see today -- including the more violent types -- are often the result of desperate acts by alienated individuals who are attempting to assert *some* kind of power while feeling overwhelmingly powerless in the larger structure of society.





True. But I was pointing out that this will not eliminate violence.


Okay, do tell -- what types of violence do you think would persist regardless of the mode of production?





At the risk of sounding politically correct the word you are looking for is psychopathic, not psychotic.


People on the left don't use the term 'politically correct' -- it was a smear invented by the right to portray leftists as being dogmatic and hypersensitive on social issues (like this one that I'm describing now). We could say 'sensitive' (inter-subjective) or 'politically appropriate' (cognizant of objective factors), depending on the situation.





Psychotic people hear voices. Psychopathic people have no empathy, even then unless they are also sadists they're not going to engage in violence for its own sake.


Duly noted. Also please note that harassment technologies exist which have been documented to mimic this effect:





AUDIBLE sound transmitted directly into a target's skull, through a target's wall, of course, can drive the through-the-wall target crazy, and if the target complains, the target will be immediately diagnosed as mentally ill. The perfect crime.





Unfortunately it is those people who run our society. Even then considering these people often have a knack for charm I don't think its entirely genetic. The society we live in makes it very easy for someone with that kind of persuasive power to be corrupted by their own abilities and to adopt a mentality where all that matters is using their charm to get their way.


Well this is hardly a *political* analysis -- in the real world what matters is *results* -- sometimes charm is called for, but at other times the country puts Richard Nixon in the White House...(!) 8 p





I'm against nations. What gave you the idea I was a left-nationalist? Yes I agree we should end war.


Good, good. I think even left-nationalists (libertarians) at least have a solid anti-war position to their credit.





I support polycentric law based on internal democracy(the institutions are run democratically by their participants). This is the most honest system. The laws of any society depend on how those with access to force choose to use it, it's just that most people choose to defer to a certain institution (state) even when it goes against their interests and the interests of enough people so that if they all worked together they could ignore it. In my ideal social system these institutions would negotiate the law with each other and renogiate as necessary when the capacity to use force has changed. This might lead to some odd borders, borders not for who is in charge but for specific policies because some organizations might have power in one area but not another. Each organization would be run by its workers. Negotiations would also help clear up what courts get jurisdiction when there is a dispute over that.


You're talking about a post-capitalist context, right? I'd be interested to hear some examples here -- any "case studies" to share?

[Outinleftfield]

Okay, do tell -- what types of violence do you think would persist regardless of the mode of production?

Human beings are not robots or automatons. We have free will. We can minimize violence by changing the society we live in but we can not eliminate it. Inevitably a few, maybe very few, but a few will choose to be violent.


People on the left don't use the term 'politically correct' -- it was a smear invented by the right to portray leftists as being dogmatic and hypersensitive on social issues (like this one that I'm describing now). We could say 'sensitive' (inter-subjective) or 'politically appropriate' (cognizant of objective factors), depending on the situation.

I've also used the term politically correct to refer to the right as Fox News peddles its own political correctness, especially during Bush.


Well this is hardly a *political* analysis -- in the real world what matters is *results* -- sometimes charm is called for, but at other times the country puts Richard Nixon in the White House...(!) 8 p

Nothing is absolute. Just because charm can make a person powerful and power corrupts doesn't mean that uncharming people will never get ahead.


You're talking about a post-capitalist context, right? I'd be interested to hear some examples here -- any "case studies" to share?

Post-capitalist of course. I can't think of any case studies right now.

[ZeroNowhere]

Human beings are not robots or automatons. We have free will. We can minimize violence by changing the society we live in but we can not eliminate it. Inevitably a few, maybe very few, but a few will choose to be violent.
I do not see how your conclusions follow from your premises. Nor how it is 'inevitable' (how do you know?). As for having 'free will', what does that mean?


People on the left don't use the term 'politically correct'I believe that somebody on the left just did. You know, in the post you quoted. Perhaps you could have said, "I don't think people on the left should use the term 'politically correct'", but that wouldn't sound quite as authoritative.

[ckaihatsu]

I believe that somebody on the left just did. You know, in the post you quoted. Perhaps you could have said, "I don't think people on the left should use the term 'politically correct'", but that wouldn't sound quite as authoritative.


How about this -- I'll rephrase to: "The term 'politically correct' does not have its origins in the left."

[Mo212]

Why do we punish anyone?
With psychopathical criminals, I could see the death sentence or life imprisonment being there to keep them from society. But in other cases, why punish? I'm not only talking about criminal activities.
If person X called person Y a peice of shit and then Y punched X, that would be punishment. But what is the "why" in the punishment?

Because name calling is just another form of violent intent, when you make fun of someone and tease them you are essentially attacking them physically in a psychological way (i.e. it produces physical pain), so of course someone is going to strike back.

Think of all the poor ugly or fat kids that get mercilessly picked on in schools, this has driven kids to suicide before. I don't think you really understand the animal psyche of mankind.

[Outinleftfield]

I do not see how your conclusions follow from your premises. Nor how it is 'inevitable' (how do you know?). As for having 'free will', what does that mean?

Free will means we choose our actions out of what is physically possible for us to do. We don't choose our actions in a vaccuum. There are influences, but by the sheer number of people there are the mere physical possibility of a person committing a violent act even in a society with all the right conditions to go against that tendancy there will once in a long time be someone who commits an act of violence. Human behavior can be predicted to an extent for collective behavior or for how most individual will behave under certain circumstances but even those predictions don't always turn out to be true so we can't expect to ever be able to predict a social arrangement that will stop violent behavior in every single person. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get as close as possible to that just that absolute perfection is not possible.

[Outinleftfield]

Because name calling is just another form of violent intent, when you make fun of someone and tease them you are essentially attacking them physically in a psychological way (i.e. it produces physical pain), so of course someone is going to strike back.

Think of all the poor ugly or fat kids that get mercilessly picked on in schools, this has driven kids to suicide before. I don't think you really understand the animal psyche of mankind.

Making fun of people isn't nice unless they know you're just kidding but your argument here seems to imply human helplessness as though these kids getting picked on were forced to feel bad or even forced to commit suicide. But that's not the case.

If someone punches me I have no choice at all about that hurting me. I can't just decide to ignore the punch's impact. If someone hurls names at me and its a person I don't care about, someone I think is a complete idiot it doesn't affect me at all.

The thing about psychological pain is that it can be avoided if you just don't care. Its not easy but it can be done. On the other too much "not caring" isn't good for you. Some personality disorders like schizotypical personality disorder might actually be caused by dissociating from other people too much and may be a defense mechanism to insults(you stop caring about what other people are saying or doing to the point that in some cases you will walk without any regard for the physical presence of others even just walking right into people if they are in your way). To be psychologically healthy you need to know what to reject as an insult and what to take as constructive criticism and realize that sometimes they're combined in the same sentence and then take the parts that are useful and leave the rest.

Another limit to not caring is that if you don't care at all everyone can take advantage of you and you can even find out about it and you just keep letting it go on. So the challenge is to find a balance.

[ckaihatsu]

[W]e can't expect to ever be able to predict a social arrangement that will stop violent behavior in every single person. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get as close as possible to that just that absolute perfection is not possible.


I'm going to *not-hedge* here, and go *all the way* in saying that *all* spiteful, petty, vindictive actions are the result of conditions of *material scarcity*.

If you'll permit a very *basic*, simplistic scenario, I'd like to point out that you *never* hear about people fighting or even making an issue over *water* when water is well-provided-for and easy to get to. No one can get *envious* of someone else's common household access to tap water for the very reason that it's *common* and readily available...(!)

Granted, this is a pretty boring example, but I think it's a valid one. We could also reasonably look at radios, or TVs, or other now-commonly-available consumer items that are so plentiful that they're not even worth much in monetary value and so *can't* be the objects of envy, either.

However, I think there will *always* be a segment of societal *fashion* at play, no matter what the society, in terms of consumer technology items, or clothing, or shoes, or whatever, but perhaps the *key* is how *commonly available* these items are. For someone who is into some kind of fashionable, cutting-edge culture, envy may just inevitably come with the territory, but we can definitively say that capitalism only makes this dynamic *worse* by restricting supply to the population that has the money with which to *purchase* these commodities, *excluding* / *not enabling* the *much larger* population that actually *wants* these items.

If material scarcity is the underlying issue of someone's aberrant, even violent, behavior, then we as a society need to do what we can to *provide* those things that people feel are *necessary* and *desirable* in their lives -- this can be *critical* to a person's feelings of control over their own life and chosen social identity, not to mention their own self-empowerment.

To put it starkly, imagine how a renowned race car driver might feel after getting into a horrible accident and suffering permanent physical damage -- injuries bad enough to prevent them from getting back behind the wheel again. Is the person at fault for taking a strong liking to race car driving in the first place? Of course not. Do they *deserve* life-limiting injuries in the course of racing? No, although they certainly knew it was a risk.

Would that racer feel *envy*, hostility, and bitterness towards those who could continue to race while they couldn't? Certainly, and the shock of sustaining sudden life-changing injuries could be enough to cause one or more violent outbursts as well. In this kind of situation *society* should do whatever it could to *mend* the situation and *enable* the driver to *get back to* their chosen passion and social identity in life -- to *not* assist this person would reflect back on *what kind of society* it is, one which obviously directs its attention to other, less important things.

This example can be customized and repeated for *every single person* on earth -- a society that *enables* self-chosen, positive, forward-directed lives for everyone is one that would *not suffer* the repercussions of *preventable* personal frustrations and consequences of ill will.

[The Red Next Door]

So people will not do the same thing over again