Punishment, Crime and Culture - Part 1: Punishment

I have a heart of stone.

I think I should just put that out there, here and now, no duplicity, no beating about the bush. It's part of that whole "amoral" aspect of my being... well... me. And besides, it's going to show through in this blog - a lot - so I may as well "own it" now as opposed to have you assign it to me later.

After all, this is a sticky subject. There really isn't any such thing as a "neutral party" for the topics of "punishment" and "crime". Directly or indirectly - and of course, of much more personal impact when it's directly - everyone is effected, everyone is impacted, everyone is damaged.

Except for me, of course, because I have a heart of stone.

And not to give away too much too soon, but maybe I should have instead titled this series "Order, Chaos and You" because, once all the rationalizations and excuses are stripped away, I think you'll see that the real problem is not a competition of people, but a competition of destinies.

Or maybe you won't...

After all, virtually no one sees farther ahead than revenge no matter what their other options are. Are you so different? I suppose we'll see. Let's begin...

So why, in the title, is "Punishment" first? Isn't the standard vernacular usually "Crime and Punishment"? (As made famous by some other author, um... a while ago.) Well, it's because as far as I can tell, crime and punishment do not actually come in that order, but rather the reverse. (But more on that in a minute...)

The primary reason that "punishment" is first is because... I do not believe in it - as in: at all, as in: ever.

The fact of the matter, dear friends, is that punishment doesn't exist, not in this life and not in the next.

Am I already stretching your suspension of disbelief? Good. Perhaps it will help you pay attention as we go. Because, as hollow and dismissive as what I just said must ring to people who know for a fact that that they have been "punished" - possibly severely, probably by people they loved - I still must insist that it is true, and not just "semantically so" either.

Punishment - what we're taught to think of as "punishment" - is in fact nothing at all like "paying your debt to society" or even "natural consequences".

Punishment is simply another word for revenge.

So, gentle readers, understand right now that each and every time you were "punished" by... your parents, your teachers, your friends, your bosses, your churches, your girlfriends (boyfriends don't punish), your dentist, your sports team, your stranger-who-failed-to-smile or your name-any-other-relationship-you-care-to-mention, that it was done NOT in any sort of effort to "teach you a life lesson" or "for your betterment" or "to make you tougher", etc, etc.

It was done for revenge, for offenses real or imaginary, committed by you or, indeed, even by somebody else and you merely the proxy.

Now let that thought percolate for a moment or two. It is rather an important one, and I find that most people don't get it on the first try. So take your time and understand the deep, nasty implications, the systematic and horrifying injustices that exists under the false name of "punishment".

And unfortunately, it gets worse...

All the emotional pain you've ever experienced - we're talking about you, your pain - has been a direct result of you "punishing" someone else.

Not true? You really do think: "It's not me, it's them"? Do you really think you're not just as much to blame as anyone for your own unhappy situation? I think you'd better save your denials and rationalizations for someone whose heart isn't made of stone. Frankly, I know better.

Let me state this categorically:

Punishment is a concept of pure evil which has no merit and no place in an enlightened society. Punishment has - and can have - no other objective than revenge.

And before you start, don't think that I haven't read the counter-material. Don't think that I'm unaware of the "studies". I know how dogs are trained and I know what it takes to keep them obedient. I'm not here to train dogs.

I'm telling you, there a difference between giving a child a smack on the butt at the very moment when he's pulling his sister's hair and making him wait-til-his-father-gets-home to get his "punishment". One is useful attention-focusing strategy and the other is revenge-tinged abuse. (Psychological abuse as well as physical, I should add...)

But therein lies the problem: specificity and intent. Little children actually need quite a bit of physical intervention just to keep them safe. It is nowhere near good enough just to tell them: "Don't touch that". In fact, it isn't even good enough to specifically tell them: "Don't touch that because it's hot and it will burn you and it will really hurt."

You don't seem to understand: they see you touching it.

Can you comprehend what I'm saying? I mean really: How many adults are going to actively consider themselves to be "hypocrites" for carefully handling a hot frying pan and spatula? Rebel against this idea if you must, but that is how the unreasoning mind of a child sees it:

If it really was "hot", if it really was "going to burn me", then adults would be afraid of it too. Ergo: It's "safe" to play with.

Life is a funny, perverse thing, is it not?

So, what is reasonable? What is a "good strategy" when it comes to teaching children about the realities of "hot" things?

Ideally... tell them about it, yes, but then arrange for them to "find" something less hot and burn themselves on that. That way they fully receive the true educational experience of a real-world process without having to bear a life-long scar for the exercise.

BTW: If you can successfully pull of this type of parenting, then you are a god.

Less ideally? Notice them reaching for the "hot" thing and spank their little ass - hard - and tell them: "No!"

At least then you'll have invoked the dog-training dynamic of negative reinforcement, which works because of attention focusing and idea-association with pain. (Technically, this is not punishment but "conditioning".)

Least ideally? Not being there/not paying attention when they do burn the shit out of themselves and later, when they're crying, say: "I told you so..." (You are no parent.)

And straight-up unforgivable? Never tell them anything at all about this "hot" thing and let them figure it out on their own the "hard way". (Now you're not even human...)

Am I being a bit too abstract for you? This is, after all, supposed to be a blog about punishment and crime, right? Well, let me tie it in for you then:

In order to gain proper perspective on civil justice, you have to become very clear on your goals. For an array of historic and religious reasons, most people seem to hold the belief that "punishment" is one of those goals. I'm here to tell you: it's not.

None of the teaching scenarios I described above involved punishment - none whatsoever - not even the one that involved spanking. The natural consequence of playing with hot things is NOT wait-til-your-father-gets-home and then be "punished".

The real consequence is getting burned, sometimes severely, sometimes beyond what any plastic surgeon can repair, sometimes... to death.

Your job as a teacher is to show "children" how to avoid natural consequences. I said "avoid", as in never have to suffer them. If you subvert that by attempting to overshadow or replace them with contrived "punishments", then not only are you not a teacher, but you're actually a dis-informer, a double-agent, a saboteur, a villain.

Do you like my flare for the dramatic? Me too!

But don't misunderstand me, people, I do NOT take the subject of punishment lightly - and NOT because of some pseudo-cultural taboo either.

I take the concept of punishment seriously because it has come to be used as a cultural scapegoat from reality - and sometimes, even as a form of currency. The false perception that it is any sort of tool for "correction" or "improvement" - or that it can be used as "payment" for misdeeds - has led to disasters of every sort on every level, emotionally and physically, socially and economically, environmentally and evolutionary.

But most importantly, it has led to cruelty, and tried to counter cruelty with cruelty.

The philosophy of punishment must end.

Unless of course, your goal is revenge. No, no. Think about it carefully and you may just come to understand how often you really do seek revenge.

Road rage? Revenge. Working slower than you need to? Revenge. "Forgetting" items at the grocery store? Revenge. And we haven't even started talking about the biggies yet.

You need to understand that the entire Cycle of Bullying is 100% about revenge; pay-it-forward revenge, true, but revenge nonetheless. You - yes: you - punish the innocent all the time in a multiplicity of ways because someone, somewhere, sometime did the same to you. It's all revenge.

But, hell, maybe you're totally good with that. Maybe your goal really is revenge - and you know it - and that really is how you intend to prosecute your life. If that is the case, then I would just say:

You seriously need to adjust your goals!

Because what you want is not only impossible, but the act of pursuing it will positively identify you as part of the problem and thus make you subject to the policies I'm about to lay out in coming installments of this series. Trust me when I say that current policies and attitudes toward "punishment" and "crime" are much more "caring" than what I'm about to propose. You do not want to find yourself on the "wrong" side of a truly goal-oriented system of Law and Order.

But that'll have to wait until next week (or so). Until then, watch your life and notice the "punishment" going on, notice what "good" it does and how it "enhances" your goals. In fact, notice if you have goals at all.

Until "Crime" time.

Sincerely,

--Geo