[Zyx]

On Unlearning Cruelties

[Indent ]I was blessed with a dream last night. Within it, allies became enemies and successes became failures, and though I did have the right mind to record it, my body, weak before the morning, argued my mind to not record it. Still, whereas the details were interesting, the interpretations thereafter are what most warrants a discussion, and so after I give a broad outline of the dream, I intend to propose the questions to which I invite a discussion over.

[Indent ]The dream went as follows. A real life brutal bloke whom I dispelled from my suite competed with me in subduing a considered annoying suitemate in a setting similar to my real house. The brutal fellow and I were discreet with our attempts at subduction, so we would walk out with the annoying suitemate one at a time and away from a critic's eyes to strike the child hard in order to have him quieted. Regardless of how hard we struck at him, though, he morphed into a recovered state or seemed unaffected, still yapping away annoyingly, so the brute and I kept whopping away one at a time competing to see who would finally shut him up. This dream lasted a long while, but finally, and naturally, I win the contest striking the child into a very warped state. I was triumphant and happy, beginning to reason with the kid, who I actually don't mind in real life, on how he ought to listen to me heretofore. When he agreed, success was again mine. However, shortly after, the kid disappeared and my happiness ended. This alone made it a nightmare, and I woke up, essentially, immediately after. I am not sure if I reasoned as much at the time, but after torturing someone and having them slip away, one's life can only be fearful, no?

[Indent ]The above begs the question: can one unlearn cruelties? Mayhap, learning over cruelties is the more probable solution, but can one unlearn them? Suppose that the social constructivist argument is true; that is, suppose that people are not genetically predisposed to committing violence and instead some order of interactions compels them towards violent actions be the interactions personal or social: can they unlearn these cruelties, though unpracticed on them? What about if they become imprisoned and defined as a cruel person (recall that definitions can often times inspire people towards living how they are defined), will they ever live it over or are they unimpressionably cruel thereafter? Is not this then grounds for execution, ignoring that 'cruel' is highly subjective, as opposed to rehabilitation? What sayeth thou?

[Zyx]

you are freaking weird

Oh come, pink indentations are not all that weird. Now, to stay on topic, it's best not to 'ad hominem;' instead, stay on topic and address the claims, statements and arguments. Dave, without dwelling much into "ad hominems" myself, you ought to learn some tact. In a debate forum, commenting on how people dress* is a waste of commenting.

*By the way, I know that you are saying the content is weird as opposed to the pink indentation, but, for one thing, I rarely dream or have nightmares, and, for another, this is what surrealism can relate and a dream is not indicative of a person's moral or ethical standards. In relation to the last reminder, your comment of weird is merely your comment that I ought not to share dreams as a means for discussion, yet you do not present any reasons and thus your comment truly reflects on your level of maturity with handling things that you consider to be taboo. In a sense, I am saying that you should 'grow up' although you are older than me.

P.S. Oh yeah, I call adults kids. Mostly because 'kid' comes out more easily than 'adult.' The kid that I am whooping is like 18.

[PBVBROOK]

The above begs the question: can one unlearn cruelties? Mayhap, learning over cruelties is the more probable solution, but can one unlearn them? Suppose that the social constructivist argument is true; that is, suppose that people are not genetically predisposed to committing violence and instead some order of interactions compels them towards violent actions be the interactions personal or social: can they unlearn these cruelties, though unpracticed on them?

One can unlearn violence. Here being really old does matter. As life goes on one can either become sickened by violence or dulled by it. People who have seen a lot of violence and even participated in it (soldiers, police ect) often come to dispise violence.

As I have gotten older I have come to hate seeing anyone hurt. Perhaps it was a militrary career that started it, journalism seeing the victims, or just age inflicting lifes various pains on my person. I do not like to see others hurt. I do not hurt others if I can. I do not watch violent programing as a rule.

No person of compassion can enjoy the pain of others. Dispising unnecessary violence is a sign of maturity. Dispising all violence is naive but commendable. Physically harming another person changes one forever. It should never be something of which one is proud. I know very few solders who were happy to harm anther human being. Some say they are but that is mere bravado. Looking into the eyes of someone you have hurt is like looking into a mirror. You see yourself there. It is a nightmare.

Read this. Warning. It is disturbing. http://avietnamvetsstory.blogspot.com/2008/03/vietnam-dead-gooks-revenge.html

[Zyx]

Thank you for that, PBVBROOK. Your testimony convinces me that you believe that active rehabilitation can influence a person into a change mind. I have a problem though, the article that you linked suggests that one can not unlearn their past. That, instead, past histories can haunt them and affect them unrelentingly. This is disappointing. What is your assessment? Suppose that one is a rapacious pedophile, can they be rehabilitated through repeated exposure to visuals that would convince normal people against that particular crime, or are they locked into their mindset approximately infinitely? I got from your post that time was a cure-all, but it seems that with the Vietnam veteran, time is of no consequence. What sayeth thou?

[PBVBROOK]

One of the things about getting older is that time seems compressed. Vietnam does not seem like 40 years ago to me. It seems like a few. The more traumatic the memory the more it haunts. Those who say time heals all wounds are somethimes wrong. Time dulls the pain but the memories are still there.

War is a peak experience. It is horror for sure. But it is also a time when we are young, vital, strong and engaged in something really huge. So there are good memories too.

We can forget our hatred of the bully who beat us up or the stuff we stole from an employer. Even worse stuff. Killing someone is different though. It is a defining moment. It puts on in the subgroup of people who are killers versus those who are not. It is not a fun club to belong to. Nor is it heroic or grand. It is at best necessary. I have known soldiers who have killed accidently in war. Their fate is pathetic. All of the rationalization in the world will not get them a good nights sleep when those thoughts intrude. Their are accidents in war. But that is no help to them.

As to your second question. I do not believe there are people beyond redemption. My faith informs me of that but I also think the evidence does too. I am getting tired of the concept of throw-away people. Society decides that three felonies in California buys someone life in prison. That is absurd. I believe that the concept of prison without attempting rehabilitation is frankly stupid.

You seem to always return to criminal sexual scenarios as if they represent the very worst in human behavior. They do not. All people fail their own morality and most of us fail if we let others do the accusing. So I think your predator can be treated and changed. As to the method I sure don't know about visuals as a method of rehabilitation but I believe in therapy.

The mindset of the criminal is something, in the final analysis, that only the criminal will know. The goal of rehabilitation is to get the criminal to act in a appropriate way even when confronting inapprooriate thoughts or idiation. I think the defination of a reformed criminal is one that does not comit more crimes even if they spend a good part of the day thinking about it.

Our past always haunts us. Every one of us. We all have regrets, missed opportunities, time we failed ourselves and that we failed others. The best we can do is understand these memories for what they are. They are a snapshot of how we once were for a brief period of time. They should always be viewed in the light of who we have become. It is as though two people are looking at the same event. One in the moment and one, as they say, in the fullness of time.

So consider this. If you ask me the question a different way. Are there people who have done awful things who many years later are not awful people? Yes. Are there people who have done things for which they should have been condemned but now have worked through and become upright citizens. Many. Many of us stand condmened by our actions even though we were not caught and punished. ALL of us stand condemned by our thoughts.

The article is not about unlearning behavior. That soldier does not continue to kill and even if he did in a military setting it would change nothing. That article is about guilt. That soldier is not personally condemned by mankind. He is condemned by himself. He is not accused but he is guilty. He is sorry for the person much like him who had to die. He is apalled that he was the instrument of another person's death. In the end he is probably a far kinder and more understanding person for the experience. And if two such people were talking they would both be sad that they had to learn these lessons at so great a price. This soldier's guilt does not flow from a concern or inner debate about whether the war and the killing were necessary or justified. If flows from compassion for all of the people who were diminished by this poor souls death.

We could discuss how to get beyond some personal moral failing if you want. Or we could discuss just how profoundly most people change as they get older. One thing is for sure. The notion that old people were always as they were or that young people will always be as the are is almost always wrong. We all change every day. Some days a little, some days a lot. And not always for the better.

[Zyx]

Excellent wisdom, PBVBROOK. Sorry to bring up a sexual situation, I merely took what came to mind early. I see what you mean on how a haunting memory is not a guidance counselor, so, beside from trusting old, changed enemies, I, for the time being, am convinced that rehabilitation is a proper course action for even the worst of criminals.

Actually, I have another question, though. Is not punishment 'right' sometimes? I came across a program about a dentist who made women marry men for life insurance and then had them killed in order to collect that money with either his own act of murder or his hire of an assassin. In order to catch them, his old friends had to 'snitch' on him and they did so given that a lighter sentence would come to them. For instance, one friend gained immunity for all crimes that he conspired in. My mother, watching the show with me, was disturbed that the man's friend, who collected monies and gained no penalties, could get away scott-free, yet this doesn't seem to be bad in your story given that this friend probably did not go out to continue doing crimes. So, I wonder, am I interpreting you rightly? If someone does many wrongs but through legalistic negotiations evades all punishment and doesn't do a crime thereafter, is this good?

[PBVBROOK]

"Punishment" is just a part of the rehabilitation process. For example. Look at Russian Guy's thread about being fined for stealing a ride on public transportation. The fine here is the punishment and it leads us to hope that Russian guy will do one of two things. Either he will realize that stealing a ride has consequences for people other than himself. The fact that he deprives the transportation system of revenue reduces its ability to help others, limit global warming or improve the service for those who use it an pay. If he refuses to see this as adequate reason to pay (in other words fails to see how he made the unethical decision and failed his own standards) then we can fall pack on the hope that he will not do it again to avoid a stiff fine that makes the crime not worth the risk.

As to those given lighter punishment because they helped the state prosecute a worse offender; I have real problems with this. It is much like the issue of torture. People who understand torture know that although you might get at the truth you will very often get the answer you are looking for. The police say to someone, "we know you know who killed cock Robin". We have you dead to rights for car theft. If you tell us who did it we will drop the car theft or reduce it to a misdemeanor in exchange for your fingering the murderer or worse testifying against him. If a trial is a search for truth the entire process is currupted at this point. The police are in effect bribing a witness. The are more interested in the conviction than in the truth. My opinion is that this should not be allowed at all.

The second part of this issue is that the person who stole the car was never punished. If the experience sufficiently frightens him into no longer stealing cars then the person is rehabilitated. But this is probably not usually the case.

I understand the idea that a greater good is served by putting the heat to the car theif and that the result is that a far greater criminal is taken off the street when the murderer goes down based upon the thief's testimony. The real deal is that this is torture. It is no different than waterboarding. The arguments against the US using torture to fight terrorism is the exact same argument. That is that we put extreme mental or physical pressure on someone in the hopes that a greater good will be served. It is the notion that one wrong makes a right.

I do not like plea bargains in any case. The downside is too great. Faced with the fear that the government can successfully prosecute a weak case against them the accused might well admit to a crime they did not commit. Or the equally bad alternative, that a person guilty of a much worse offense is essentially let off because the government is too lazy to build a good case. Yes, I know that some punishment is considered better than none and that the weak case may result in an acquittal but I would rather have the guilty set free than to have the the justice system perverted.