RE: Punishment Retribution Rehabilitation

RE: Punishment Retribution Rehabilitation (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

meatcleaver -> RE: Punishment Retribution Rehabilitation (12/18/2012 5:04:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad The difference between a resistance group and a military is that the former are defenders, while the latter are trained to be attackers and defenders both (mostly attackers in some areas). When your back is to the wall and there are people shooting those you care about, it's a lot easier to go kill, because it's perceived as self defense. When you're not in a perceived self defense situation, it's a lot harder to go out to kill people, which is why militaries around the world train to enable regular people to do so, even though few are wired to. All quite irrelevant to this discussion, people don't need desensitizing or training to kill. quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad You can write it off as rubbish as much as you like. For someone claiming to have rational beliefs, you're remarkably disinterested in the evidence. I looked up the evidence before I answered you. You said and I quote *"there been less violence all in all"* The statistics show violent crime climbed towards the end of the 70s and started to decline during the 90s and up to 2005, still declining slightly but is not as low as the mid 70s or the 60s and 50s and experts are expecting the violent crime rate to increase and might be increasing now.

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Punishment Retribution Rehabilitation (12/18/2012 5:19:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad You ask the three oracles. Or, you wait until people have actually committed a crime before you go after them, since the alternative is to be the one initiating an attack and thus the concept of a crime becomes rather nonsensical. We can't protect people from life itself, and it would be worse than killing to do so, anyway. No, I actually advocate proper child rearing, and not fiddling with behavioral genetics, ever. IWYW, — Aswad. I agree with both these statements. Although I think in the future DNA will be able to provide us with many answers as to why people are the way they are, to 'fiddle' with genetics is to play god is ways that we already know are extremely unpredictable. In the US here we are, this huge war mongering nation that spends billions on war as opposed to much needed social services like education and health care and mental health care, and then wonders why our children go to war against other children. This country glorifies war, glorifies guns, and glorifies the cowboy attitude that violence is the answer to most problems. That's what needs to change. If we glorified war less, perhaps we'd spend less on it.

Aswad -> RE: Punishment Retribution Rehabilitation (12/18/2012 6:33:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver All quite irrelevant to this discussion, people don't need desensitizing or training to kill. Still on about this? quote: I looked up the evidence before I answered you. You said and I quote *"there been less violence all in all"* "Violence all in all" is not the same as "violent crime". And you're comparing on a short timescale, to boot. The 2000's have been less violent than the 1900's. IWYW, — Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Punishment Retribution Rehabilitation (12/18/2012 6:59:38 AM)
A shift would certainly be beneficial, ChatteParfait. That said, we glorify war and violence in Norway, too, and renormalizing military spending by GDP, PPP or even just per capita pins us as the most militarized country in Scandinavia, along with having some of the highest gun ownership, yet we have less crime, less violent crime, less homicide and less gun related homicide than those comparable countries. We're doing worse on health care, mental health care and both geriatric and palliative care than Sweden, at least, and I assume Denmark also does better than us on those points. Except for Oslo, whence came most our serial killers, spree killers and domestic terrorists (including ones averted), and where the levels of violence are higher than the rest of the country by a wide margin, we tend to take some perverse pride in being descended from some of the "baddest mofos in God's cruel kingdom", to mangle the phrase from a popular movie around these parts, made around your parts (the country, I mean, not the, anyway, yeah). It takes a reason, not just glorification. But, yes, the priorities in the US are skewed, and changing them will improve things, one way or the other. IWYW, — Aswad.

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Punishment Retribution Rehabilitation (12/18/2012 7:06:55 AM)
quote: All quite irrelevant to this discussion, people don't need desensitizing or training to kill. You could not be more wrong. The history of war in the US in this century goes like this: During WWII, the question of how effective infantrymen were -- in other words did they shoot and aim to kill when they were called on to do so, was asked. Surveys by S.L.A. Marshall during the war showed that only about 15% of men used their weapons. They aimed high, or away, or didn't shoot at all. It seems men DO need trained in how to kill during times of war. The Vietnam Era was the first time men were trained to be desensitized to using their weaponry, and to use their weapons reflexively. Recommended book: “On Killing” by Lt. Col. David Grossman I'd love to take full credit for this post, but I cannot. The documentation is straight from Himself (it took him less than 30 seconds) who is an expert in the history of war. By expert I mean, people ask him to write articles and such.

Rule -> RE: Punishment Retribution Rehabilitation (12/18/2012 7:25:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I have heard a suggestion about genetic testing at birth for genetically transferred diseases, you suggest we do it for this problem? No, I actually advocate proper child rearing, and not fiddling with behavioral genetics, ever. I also am opposed to testing for genetically transferred diseases. In most non-circumcising Christian populations the frequency of people born with inherited diseases is low anyway. As is, I have reason to suspect, the frequency of people who are born as (or with a predisposition of being) animals/barbarians/criminals.

IgorsHand -> RE: Punishment Retribution Rehabilitation (12/18/2012 7:39:35 AM)
Huh? I know that story, training made soldiers more efficient in killing, even though killing fucked their heads up and the military couldn't put them back together again. Training was about desensitising soldiers but it wasn't very successful because it fucked their heads up so were they really desensitized?

Aswad -> RE: Punishment Retribution Rehabilitation (12/18/2012 8:31:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IgorsHand Huh? I know that story, training made soldiers more efficient in killing, even though killing fucked their heads up and the military couldn't put them back together again. Training was about desensitising soldiers but it wasn't very successful because it fucked their heads up so were they really desensitized? First, not everyone gets fucked up in the head, more like a third of them. Second, the biggest problems are with transitioning to civilian life, not transitioning to peace. That's why Norwegian doctrine is to do a so called middle landing, where they're rotated off combat duty into a military camp back home, then return to civilian life after a few months. Third, killing isn't a major problem in itself. That, you get used to, and being used to it isn't a problem in a context where you have no reason to kill, unless society pushes the idea that you're somehow fucked up in the head by virtue of having killed. Humans have killed since the dawn of our species, just like apes killed before us, and just like most mammals kill. But, sure, if you aren't rotated off combat duty well in advance of returning to civilian life, you won't have time to adapt to peacetime in a context conducive to processing everything. For instance, in Afghanistan, if you see a flash, it's probably a muzzle flash, and you have to duck for cover; back home, it's probably fireworks, and ducking for cover is likely to piss people off. Similarly, when you've got shrapnel in you, but still have to carry your buddy out of the combat zone, that's what you do if you're able, and you try not to waste energy on complaining about it; back home, people complain about indigestion, and you disconnect a bit. People worry about whether a vaccine is going to mess their kid up, while you're used to the idea that sometimes people get blown up by an IED and you can't let little things like that get you worried. It takes time to get used to the difference. Unless you get saddled with PTSD and the like, though, it doesn't fuck your head up. And the PTSD is more a question about living a life where you're always either (a) fine, or (b) hypervigilant, or (c) under attack, trying to save the lives of your squadmates, ideally without getting killed in the process. Do that for too long, and you end up becoming way, way, way too responsive to things that were early warning signs in combat, but which are just background noise in civilian life. Most people are able to dial it back down when they come home, but some need to do so more slowly than others, and a few can't go back to idle (which, let's face it, is an accurate description of most modern living in the West: idling). Some mental scars aren't the same as being fucked up in the head. Let's hope you don't learn the difference. IWYW, — Aswad.

meatcleaver -> RE: Punishment Retribution Rehabilitation (12/18/2012 8:55:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt During WWII, the question of how effective infantrymen were -- in other words did they shoot and aim to kill when they were called on to do so, was asked. Surveys by S.L.A. Marshall during the war showed that only about 15% of men used their weapons. They aimed high, or away, or didn't shoot at all. It seems men DO need trained in how to kill during times of war. I did see it and it wasn't entirely successful. Successful in getting people to kill but unsuccessful at desensitizing them. Meanwhile, Germans killed millions through approval and permission to kill. Most terrorists don't have military training, they have ideology and peer permission to kill. Resistance groups proved successful at recruiting people to kill, again through permission and approval of peers. I'm sure context plays a big role in the psychology of killing but there are enough examples of people killing without military training and not finding it a problem. Though as for desensitizing, I would not rule it out as a cause, in fact I am sure it is an important factor but not the whole reason. When you consider how violence is glamourised in western society and the US imparticular and macho muscule brains are mythologized and put on a pedestal and violence is advocated as a solution to violence, young alienated men whose minds are still developing are probably having their fantasies sanctioned and aren't only getting desensitized, they are subliminaly getting permission to kill too.

meatcleaver -> RE: Punishment Retribution Rehabilitation (12/18/2012 9:15:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: IgorsHand Huh? I know that story, training made soldiers more efficient in killing, even though killing fucked their heads up and the military couldn't put them back together again. Training was about desensitising soldiers but it wasn't very successful because it fucked their heads up so were they really desensitized? First, not everyone gets fucked up in the head, more like a third of them. A third is a huge figure when you consider the symptoms and the self destructive nature of PTSD, not just on the soldier but the implications for his family too. There have been enough studies of past wars to point to violence fucking soldier's heads up, probably more so than other types of fighters because other types of fighters are self chosen and want to kill while most soldiers in past wars were conscripts. In fact the estimated % of violent psychopaths in a typical western society is 1%, that's an awful lot of psychopaths, more than enough people for terrorists to recruit. With so many violent psychopaths in society, it really does beg the question about freely available guns.

PowerXXXchange -> RE: Punishment Retribution Rehabilitation (12/18/2012 9:42:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt Although I think in the future DNA will be able to provide us with many answers as to why people are the way they are, to 'fiddle' with genetics is to play god is ways that we already know are extremely unpredictable. Agreed, and the good news is that genetic fiddling may be unnecessary. While basic research or clinical diagnosis can be guided by genetic studies, drugs may be the preferred treatment. As an example, there MAY be genetic causes for low low levels of seritonin, that are aleviated with an SSRI. (And I shudder to think of the gainsaying THAT statement will induce) Similarly, there is hope that the higher levels of interuterine testosterone implicated in ASD, if proven to be causal in humans, could possibly be targets of drug therapy. This would be something like the use of finasteride to reduce DHT in prostate cancer treatment. Always better to "first do no harm", right? PxC Rodent Models for Autism: A critical review, Drug Discovery Today: Disease Models Vol. 2, No. 2 2005

PowerXXXchange -> RE: Punishment Retribution Rehabilitation (12/18/2012 11:26:20 AM)
from CP #144 quote: only about 15% of men used their weapons ChateParfaitt's Himself makes some excellent points. Too fully understand them (what about the Pelloponesian wars; didn't they kill too?) I found Hope on the Battlefield By Lt. Col. Dave Grossman to be very illuminating. PxC

Aswad -> RE: Punishment Retribution Rehabilitation (12/18/2012 3:33:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver A third is a huge figure when you consider the symptoms and the self destructive nature of PTSD, not just on the soldier but the implications for his family too. Yes. And the figure drops to one in ten when you rotate them off combat duty a few months before returning them to civilian life. Given the extreme nature of war, that's pretty damn low. quote: There have been enough studies of past wars to point to violence fucking soldier's heads up, probably more so than other types of fighters because other types of fighters are self chosen and want to kill while most soldiers in past wars were conscripts. Well, yes, when you force people into a life threatening situation, and essentially force them to kill, you'll see some damage. That's why Norway uses voluntary career military from solid middle class backgrounds for force projection, people that have a real choice and have a real future without staying in the military. quote: In fact the estimated % of violent psychopaths in a typical western society is 1%, that's an awful lot of psychopaths, more than enough people for terrorists to recruit. With so many violent psychopaths in society, it really does beg the question about freely available guns. I think you mean "raises the question", but anyway, it seems a low estimate. So, do you have a source for the estimate, and does the source give the variation between nations? IWYW, — Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Punishment Retribution Rehabilitation (12/18/2012 3:40:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PowerXXXchange As an example, there MAY be genetic causes for low low levels of seritonin, that are aleviated with an SSRI. (And I shudder to think of the gainsaying THAT statement will induce) The brain is not a soup, and neurotransmitters are not spices. Furthermore, SSRIs are essentially ineffective at treating depression, though they are moderately effective at chemical castration. quote: Similarly, there is hope that the higher levels of interuterine testosterone implicated in ASD, if proven to be causal in humans, could possibly be targets of drug therapy. Actually, more recent research into the epigenetics of sexual orientation suggests that it's unlikely that elevated intrauterine testosterone is causally related to ASD. The same research does, however, seem to indicate that in utero* intervention against homosexuality is possible, which might illustrate just how much of a can of worms we open if we approve interventions for anything at all. Anyway, a rodent model of ASD is reaching, on the best of days, and postpartum drug therapies wouldn't reverse the anomaly. IWYW, — Aswad.

meatcleaver -> RE: Punishment Retribution Rehabilitation (12/18/2012 3:47:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad I think you mean "raises the question", but anyway, it seems a low estimate. So, do you have a source for the estimate, and does the source give the variation between nations? The documentary ChateParfaitt cited earlier had a figure of 1-2% psychopaths, while this FBI link cites 1%. Though some agencies cite as much as 4%. However, the difficulty with saying who is and who isn't a psychopath is that we all have psychopathic tendenies because those tendencies are neccesary for planning and scheming which we all do so what we are talking about is extreme psychopathy and what is extreme to one assessment is not that extreme to another so differences in assessing percentages will inevitably vary. It will also vary because there is no hard and fast definition of psychopathy, definitions being more a professional consensus.

Aswad -> RE: Punishment Retribution Rehabilitation (12/18/2012 5:06:03 PM)
So, the consensus in the US covers about one percent of the population. A quick check seems to indicate about twice as high figures in Norway in the general population as in the US. Conversely, among the high function psychopaths, we seem to have about 4% psychopaths in positions of power, while the US has about 8% psychopaths in positions of power. In other words, some regional differences, whether in the consensus or the population. If it's the population that differs, you should probably see a higher prevalence in areas with many Norwegian-Americans, and a lower prevalence in areas with fewer. Any idea about the state to state distribution of the trait? IWYW, — Aswad.

vincentML -> RE: Punishment Retribution Rehabilitation (12/22/2012 5:50:21 AM)
~FR~ I resurrected this thread in order to share this article. Perhaps after reading it some will understand why capital punishment may not be appropriate for these spree killers (if they do not commit suicide.) Did Nancy Lanza live in fear? Why many mothers of the mentally ill do. Psychiatrists, social workers, nurses and other health-care professionals have explained to my family why mental illness poses such challenges. When very sick, a person suffering from schizophrenia, bipolar and schizoaffective disorders, or other illnesses can have scrambled thinking, feelings of grandiosity, paranoia, delusions, irritation and rage. We don’t know whether Lanza had a mental problem, but other major symptoms of serious illnesses include a lack of self-awareness, a loss of empathy and the emergence of dissociation, or the cutting off of emotions — three characteristics that friends and neighbors have used to describe Lanza.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Punishment Retribution Rehabilitation (12/22/2012 9:54:42 AM)
Those 'surveys' turned out to be not so reliable. No doubt the phenomenon occurs, but there is nothing to support the numbers given. http://www.theppsc.org/Grossman/SLA_Marshall/Bad-Firing-Data.htm http://hnn.us/articles/1356.html quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt quote: All quite irrelevant to this discussion, people don't need desensitizing or training to kill. You could not be more wrong. The history of war in the US in this century goes like this: During WWII, the question of how effective infantrymen were -- in other words did they shoot and aim to kill when they were called on to do so, was asked. Surveys by S.L.A. Marshall during the war showed that only about 15% of men used their weapons. They aimed high, or away, or didn't shoot at all. It seems men DO need trained in how to kill during times of war. The Vietnam Era was the first time men were trained to be desensitized to using their weaponry, and to use their weapons reflexively. Recommended book: “On Killing” by Lt. Col. David Grossman I'd love to take full credit for this post, but I cannot. The documentation is straight from Himself (it took him less than 30 seconds) who is an expert in the history of war. By expert I mean, people ask him to write articles and such.

vincentML -> RE: Punishment Retribution Rehabilitation (12/22/2012 10:17:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Those 'surveys' turned out to be not so reliable. No doubt the phenomenon occurs, but there is nothing to support the numbers given. http://www.theppsc.org/Grossman/SLA_Marshall/Bad-Firing-Data.htm http://hnn.us/articles/1356.html quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt quote: All quite irrelevant to this discussion, people don't need desensitizing or training to kill. You could not be more wrong. The history of war in the US in this century goes like this: During WWII, the question of how effective infantrymen were -- in other words did they shoot and aim to kill when they were called on to do so, was asked. Surveys by S.L.A. Marshall during the war showed that only about 15% of men used their weapons. They aimed high, or away, or didn't shoot at all. It seems men DO need trained in how to kill during times of war. The Vietnam Era was the first time men were trained to be desensitized to using their weaponry, and to use their weapons reflexively. Recommended book: “On Killing” by Lt. Col. David Grossman I'd love to take full credit for this post, but I cannot. The documentation is straight from Himself (it took him less than 30 seconds) who is an expert in the history of war. By expert I mean, people ask him to write articles and such. The issue of "desensitizing" to kill seems bogus when it comes to these spree killers who are FUCKING CRAZY!! I use that term to emphasize, not to mock or make light of their mental derangement. The reference group who need desensitizing are an unrelated cohort. FFS!!

meatcleaver -> RE: Punishment Retribution Rehabilitation (12/23/2012 2:34:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad In other words, some regional differences, whether in the consensus or the population. If it's the population that differs, you should probably see a higher prevalence in areas with many Norwegian-Americans, and a lower prevalence in areas with fewer. Any idea about the state to state distribution of the trait? IWYW, — Aswad. Actually, the fluctuation in statistics could be down to interpretation of what is psychopatic and what isn't. Since all humans have psychopathic tendencies (they are necessary for us to plan), psychopathy is about the extremes of a spectrum and how far towards the exctremes dangerous levels of psychopathy begin. So psychopathy could be equally distributed amongst populations while statistics vary. It's an illustration of how little we understand and can interpret mental health issues.

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 7 [8]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875