From time to time, people suggest to me that, in my line of work, I must see a fair few evil people. Not common or garden variety nasty, or plain crooked, but actively evil. The human equivalent of Old Nick, the sort who - if they went up in smoke - would leave a whiff of brimstone behind.
As a general rule, they’re surprised when I say, no, not many. The people who grace the nation’s docks are seldom evil in the absolute sense. Of course, I get the benefit of hearing counsels’ submissions on sentence. This takes place after conviction, whether by jury or by way of a plea. That’s when you hear the line beloved of courtroom dramas and John Mortimer novels: do you have anything to say as to why sentence should not be passed upon you according to law? The technical term for this is the allocutus, and any judge who - through inadvertence or otherwise - fails to administer it will find his decision heading for appeal.
Sentencing submissions are always structured in such a way as to give a rounded portrait of the offender, to allow him to both speak and be spoken for. If the offence is out of character - when there is no criminal record, a steady job, a stable home-life - defence counsel has a much easier time of it. A barrister can hand up glowing job references, evidence of community involvement, trade certifications and so on. When, however, the Crown hands up several A4 sheets of (recent) criminal history, and the offender is jobless and itinerant; then he’s in trouble, and his barrister has a much harder road to hoe. Even in the very worst cases, however, a good barrister will find something in the prisoner’s background on which to base his submissions.
Funnily enough, murderers seldom have such a string of prior convictions, unless the killing came about as part of a more general involvement in organised crime. Typically, they’re clean-skins, or have a few unpaid fines or a Magistrates’ Court record for what is still quaintly called a ‘utensil’. They, too, are seldom evil. Often the trial turns on evidence of provocation, self-defence or intoxication (note that intoxication is not a defence in Australia; it merely vitiates intent), and the line can be a difficult one to draw. Jurors will swing one way or another, and - so long as they’ve not been contaminated by the media, as happened in the Chamberlain case - the system works well.
Sometimes, though, the careful lawyer in me detects the whiff of brimstone. It’s rare - far rarer than you’d believe - but I don’t doubt that there are people out there who are simply evil. Bad eggs. Hairbags. Rotten apples. One was a 16 year old boy who pleaded guilty to murder, (thankfully) sparing us a trial. He’d walked into his sleeping father’s bedroom, loaded a .22 and - forensic evidence revealed - shot his father in the forehead at a range of roughly three centimetres. There was no motive, no reason, no evidence of mental illness or deracinated background. It was like the famous Richard Pryor question of a killer on death row. Q: why did you kill the whole family? A: They was home. Unfortunately, he had to give evidence in another matter, one which covered many of the events surrounding the killing. A prenaturally calm and reasoned young man, both clever and articulate, he was without remorse or pity. Psychiatrists often use the phrase ‘flat affect‘ to describe this lack of feeling. This is what it means, I thought.
Evil is a convenient label, invested with religious symbology and almost mythic power. It is a word to be used with great care. Lawyering has sharpened my sense of what it is not, and made me alert to those who bandy it about too readily. It’s also made me aware that some evil never finishes up in a courtroom, not because perpetrators of evil deeds go unpunished, but because evil can be far more subtle and pervasive. This insight comes via American psychiatrist M Scott Peck, one of three investigators appointed by the US Surgeon-General to investigate the My Lai massacre. I find Peck’s writing frustrating but also rewarding, in that he is trying to scrabble his way towards an understanding of human beings that does not amount to reductionist psychobabble: society did it, arrest society!
I first encountered Peck when I was living in the UK, teaching in a school in London’s poorest and most multicultural borough, Brent. One of the students I taught was murdered a couple of streets away, and I remember walking up from Willesden Junction and seeing the place in the street where he’d lain. There was blood there, and as the days passed, bunches of flowers. Relatives - everyone in the area knew him - would stand lyming on street corners and putting up posters recalling his death (and life). They’d point out that he died as a result of gang violence. It is fair to say that he was not a nice boy, in and out of various pupil referral units (a place for the expelled - the Brits call it ‘exclusion’) in between returning to a normal high school (he always seemed to wind up in my PE class) until tossed out yet again. His death was one of many gang-related murders that year, a phenomenon that attracted little attention until the case of Damilola Taylor later in the same year. Damilola - the little boy in the graphic - was only ten, the son of a family of aspirational Nigerian immigrants with dreams of becoming a doctor. The building behind him is typical of council estates in London - one of the reasons why I chose it. It may even be the estate where he lived.
Most of the gang deaths were among poor ‘Afro-Caribbean’ kids, or asylum seekers plonked into council housing with no thought as to background or ethnicity. One tower estate near me was stuffed with Serb and Kosovar asylum seekers. Every week someone would be knifed or pushed out of an upper-story window. The place was almost unimaginably squalid. I often went there with a social worker in an attempt to extract pupils where parents had failed to send them to school. Each visit, the lift would have a fresh turd in the back, and there were always old black men with rheumy eyes peeing in the stairwells. Once, one fellow tried to scurry away as we approached, sending himself down several flights of stairs. I went to help him, and was told by my hard-nosed colleague not to bother.
That incident came back to haunt me as more details about the Taylor killing emerged over time. The whole investigation was botched almost beyond recognition, with two of the killers only being gaoled last year - for a crime that took place in 2000. However, one crucial fact remained constant throughout the case. Damilola had crawled a hundred yards - with a severed femoral artery - from where he was attacked. He left a trail of blood. It took him about thirty minutes to die. Passers-by saw him. No-one rendered aid.
I scooped a copy of Peck’s People of the Lie off my housemate’s bookshelf and read it shortly afterwards, I’m not sure why. Peck is religious - and I’m not - but he wears his religion lightly. I became convinced as I read it that I should try to find out what happened to the man who fell down the stairs, that - albeit belatedly - I should render aid. Peck writes of evil in religous terms, but even I could see that the best opportunity nasties of all kinds have to flourish is when people look the other way.
The answer came readily enough, when once again I was paired with the same social worker for a visit to the same tower block. Once again the lifts had broken down, and once again we started the long slow climb up multiple flights of stairs. We met him about six flights up. He was outside his apartment, chewing and spitting and red-eyed. The local authority must have seen fit to replace the busted flourescent lights along the corridor, and we could see his face very clearly.
He was in a wheelchair. A new, shiny wheelchair.
The Damilola Taylor trust is here. Among other things, it raises money to send bright but disadvantaged young people to medical school.
124 Comments
Evil triumphs when good people are too fearful to do something.
South London is experiencing a spike in teenage gang deaths by gun at the moment, primarily drug related. Thus far the punks have been killing each other, but it won’t be long before a bystander is shot down by some 16 year old hoodie protecting his territory and demanding unearnt respect.
One of the reasons people are less willing to assist in emergency situations is fear for their own safety. Kids who get stabbed or shot in bad areas may be carrying weapons themselves and in their distress react irrationally to assistance, or the assailants may be nearby and not take to kindly to someone attempting to undo their handiwork.
So, an unarmed populace is less likely to enter into violent (or potentially violent) situations to offer assistance because the criminals have a monopoly on weapons. Britain is an unarmed society, where business travellers have their multi-tools and pocket knives confiscated. Even the police are unarmed, so what chance does a good samaritan have in defending themself?
So not only does a prohibition on otherwise law abiding citizens from carrying defensive weapons mean that they are defenceless against criminals, it also means they are less likely to act charitably to strangers in distress.
I can’t fault you SL for not approaching the pensioner, your safety is paramount in any situation. But if you were carrying heat, any safety fears you may have had may have been overcome by your own empowerment and your natural desire to be a good neighbour may have prevailed.
An armed society is a civil society, and not just through fear of escalation of violence, but by empowerment of the individual to defend themselves and thus act selflessly to assist others.
A very good post, SL. Maybe you should get sick more often?
I’m not sure I agree.
In all the scenarios you presented I would be not one bit more likely to stick my neck out even if I were carrying a gun, and I don’t think most other people would either.
The hoodie gangs main advantage isn’t their monopoly on weapons. It is their monopoly on recklessness, disregard for human life and lack of respect for the consequences of their actions.
I am not going to treat lightly the taking of a human life…even if said life is the lowlife scum that parades around London demanding “respect”. On the other hand the same dipshits won’t think twice about shooting me if I get in the way of their fun. I would suspect that most of the population feels the same as I do. Most people are not blood-thirsty criminals. Most people just want to get on with their lives in peace.
So me having a gun just means that when I get in the way of a gang I’ll be shot as a matter of precaution because I might want to do something to stop them. If I get out my gun first and shoot one of the little bastards I’ll be the one doing time for manslaughter. That sort of world I don’t want to live in thank you very much.
Now, having unarmed cops. THAT is something to be worried about.
oh…and by the way. Good post SL!
An interesting post. Is someone who shows ‘flat effect’ evil or do you have to have some feelings?
I often get the impression that a lot of crims are just not very bright - that’s part of the ‘flat effect’ idea, they cannot put themselves in someone else’s shoes - rather than evil.
People who show ‘flat effect’ and kill as a result of that are sociopaths. They are very rare in the population. I think hc is half-right. Most criminals are basically low IQ and have poor impulse control and high discount rates rather than being ‘evil’.
As a general rule I don’t think ‘flat affect’ is a giveaway for ‘evil’ in M Scott Peck’s sense of the word. It may be (in combination with a lot of other factors), but more often than not it is evidence of inability to empathise and high discount rates, as Jason says. The boy I saw in court - and I had the benefit of hearing a great deal of background from his counsel - was clearly highly intelligent, which made him far more frightening.
Where does Bill Clinton come down on this scale.
Serial tormentor of women he’d porked. Relentless liar. Executed that retarded kids out of triangulation. Accepted money from the Chinese and returned that and presumably other favours in exchange for selling them untold technological military secrets.
And a rapist.
Can we keep Bubba out of this thread? He’s running free everywhere else.
Graeme, please don’t turn this thread into a Billary thread. Pretty please with sugar on the top. Go down to the thread below and stoush with Mr Barnes if you must, but not here
When I lived in England one of my flatmates killed himself. I felt quite stupid because the day before he asked me if I believed in God and I took it to be a far more abstract question than he did. His view was that god exists but that God doesn’t care.
It left me feeling that the English are on aggregate a screwed up lot. Not necessarily a rational conclusion but it seemed to be the only way for me to make sence of it at the time.
Yeah you’re right Terje. Not a rational conclusion. How did you manage to segue from one suicide you know (a sample of one) to a commentary about English mental health which as far as I can see is no way related to the gang problem they have? The US doesn’t have a gang problem?
This will come as no surprise to Jason (and I’m not winding him up this time) but I think Brendan Halfweeg has got it exactly right. An armed society is a civil society.
The hoodies are able to get away with their crimes and nobody will stand up to them because they are the only ones armed.
Even if the cops were armed, they can only have an impact when they are present.
Pingu’s attitude is a symptom of the “learned helplessness” mentality of the nanny state ie it’s not up to me, it’s up to the government.
In some areas of the US ordinary people can get permits to carry a firearm for protection. Obviously it is optional and usually requires completion of a safety course first. However, enough take up the option to substantially reduce this kind of criminal activity. Tourists are told that most downtown areas in Texas, for example, are quite safe because “every second person is carrying a gun”.
Nobody would claim it’s the complete answer, but it sure beats everything else that’s been tried.
I don’t know where you live David but I don’t want every moron and nutcase in my vicinity packing heat. If the only people they were in danger of shooting were themselves, I’d be happy for them to load up on as many weapons as they want. But I don’t want to be forced to carry a gun as a result of others carrying one too. I’m not screaming to own a gun myself and dont see the need for it. If the only people that could be harmed as a result of more people packing heat were those carrying the guns, then blow yourselves away. But that’s not how it is.
If you live far away on a farm and want to carry guns that’s not a problem. If you store your gun safely and go target shooting I don’t have a problem with that either. But no I don’t want a situation where conceal and carry escalates the number of concealed handguns in existence in a dense city. I don’t have much faith in humans. Most of them are not evil but they are stupid and impulsive.
Your thinking on this is flawed Jason.
I don’t want to be forced to carry a gun as a result of others carrying one too
The criminals already carry them whenever they like. The discussion is about law abiding people carrying them as well. Why would that “force” you to do it too?
I don’t want every moron and nutcase in my vicinity packing heat.
And who said they would? The permit system filters out the nutters, so they can’t carry a gun legally. Some already do so illegally, of course.
I’ve never been robbed or mugged.
But plenty have Jason. Are you imposing your values on them?
I don’t want a situation where conceal and carry escalates the number of concealed handguns in existence
There are two categories of guns “in existence” - those the government knows about, and those it does not. The former are never used in crime (refer to AIC data), the latter are frequently used in crime.
We are talking about an increase in the former.
We’re never going to see eye to eye on this David so I see no point in arguing it further.
Relative to the Australian population I’d say I have a pretty liberal attitude to guns. Sporting shooters should be allowed to practice their sport unhindered subject to background checks, etc. As should farmers who need their guns.
But I do draw the line at ‘conceal and carry’ laws. I’m never going to change my mind on this and have already stated my objections elsewhere, end of story.
I’m never going to change my mind on this and have already stated my objections elsewhere, end of story.
Never is a long time Jason. Is there anything else you are never going to change your mind about as well?
I’ve been robbed. And a victim of attempted muggings. I thank the confluence of events that has led to Australia not having many guns that my attackers did not have guns - it would have gone much worse for me if they had.
Skepticlawyer, this was your best post yet.
Thanks ff. It’s interesting to see where it’s taken people, too - from discussions on crime prevention to the nature of ‘flat affect’ to gun control.
I deliberately didn’t draw any conclusions - in part because I felt uncomfortable with my own actions at the time. This was made worse, of course, by reading M Scott Peck’s book straight afterwards, and with the Damilola Taylor case working its way through the media in all sorts of convoluted ways.
Some things are just complicated.
Violent crime rates have been falling since the 1970s before tightening of gun laws in the 1980s and their current continuation.
The general evidence overwhelms your solipsistic deductive empiricism, ff.
FF — if there was a chance you were carrying a gun, perhaps you wouldn’t have been robbed. And I really think it’s a strawman argument to oppose the ‘everybody-having-a-gun’ situation. That’s doesn’t happen in normal US suburbs and it would be less likely in Australia. It’s like opposing gay marriage because you think 80% of Australians will suddenly turn gay.
But that’s not what I wanted to comment on. I just wanted to say that this was a great post SL. Very readable.
I thank the confluence of events that has led to Australia not having many guns that my attackers did not have guns
That’s simply luck. Whether or not attackers use guns has nothing to do with the law. If they obeyed the law they wouldn’t be attacking you.
This discussion is about what you, as a law-abiding person, are permitted to do about it. Both in the UK and here, if you can’t fight them off with your hands and feet you are stuffed. In some parts of the US there is an additional option.
Mark, never said anything about crime rates. I was just thanking my stars they didn’t have guns. Don’t be so stuffy.
DL: “Whether or not attackers use guns has nothing to do with the law.”
Wrong. My attackers might not have had guns because
a) they couldn’t afford them
b) the risk of carrying them was too great
Both a and b are directly related to the legal status of guns.
Interesting. And thanks, John H. Wonder if anyone has any input on the nature of human evil - even whether it exists, or is simply ‘a category mistake’, to use a Hayekian phrase (which he deployed in another context).
It exists alright. But it can sometimes be split up into institutional-systemic on the one hand and individual evil on the other. Or weightings between the two.
The DDT ban involves both. Tasering someone elses Grandma without malice involves primarily the individual sort of evil.
They should go and Taser their OWN Grandma.
From a naturalistic perspective I’m not sure the concept of evil makes any sense. Evil presupposes morality and morality is ultimately a set of norms that evolved out of human interaction. Some of these norms are there for a good reason of course - in that sense they are ‘objectively’ good but only ultimately from a consequentialist perspective. In that sense, morality is an evolutionarily stable strategy from a society’s perspective.
Most people abide by this ESS because this ESS of course has evolved from ‘averaged out’ preferences (including risk-preferences) and cognitive processes - e.g. most people don’t think that having the freedom to murder (and consequently be murdered) is worth the potential payoff of being the one who gets to dominate everyone else. Most people also have a ‘fellow feeling’ identified by Adam Smith in his Theory of Moral Sentiments and are therefore queasy about inflicting pain on others for its own sake. This leads to certain aversions found in most of the population.
No one is exactly at these averages but the vast majority of people are close to it. However there are a very small minority who are very far away from these averages. In other times and places their attributes may have marked them off as conquerors when society broke down for whatever reason. These people may have been the ones Nietzsche identiifed as those with the most ‘will to power’, the ‘ubermenschen’. In today’s society they may well be the ones marked as sociopaths.
PS none of what I’m saying is original of course - it just derives straight from Nietzsche and evolution. None of which means I share Nietzsche’s normative prescriptions but I think he is basically spot on about how to think about moraity. I for one am quite comfortable living in this comfortable peaceloving morality but I just don’t believe there’s any ‘objective’ basis as such to good and evil. In non-human societies in galaxies far away assuming they exist, people would be expected to have radically different moral norms and still have a concept of good and evil. Ours are dictated by the average physiology and hence the average cognitive/neurological tendencies and the preferences arising from those.
“Evil presupposes morality and morality is ultimately a set of norms that evolved out of human interaction.”
No thats wrong.
Morality about survival of concious beings on earth who are able to value things.
Morality goes beyond any sort of current norms.
A few more points
1) fundamentally what I’m saying is that morality is a form of herd mentality which we all share.
2) of course labelling it a herd mentality doesn’t mean it’s good or bad. It just is. The utility for want of a better word of the norms that make up this herd mentality can be assessed on their own merits.
3) Herd mentalities can change over time. Hence the dilution of xenophobia which may have been locally adaptive. The biggest change was from seeing a stranger as an enemy to a potential friend or at least one with whom a mutually beneficial trade can be made (catallaxy) ie. the spread of liberal civilisation.
4) Herd mentalities can also regress from more mutually beneficial norms to less mutually beneficial norms e.g. the Holocaust
5) One can speak of A killing B with an axe and B may not want that, but it follows that ‘good’ and ‘evil’ as such is in our heads, a social construction like money.
SL
I have always thought that evil was primarily a noun and not an adjective. Thus people do evil, they are not necessarily evil. Perhaps the old Christian exhortation is correct here: hate the sin not the sinner.
That’s the way I understood it, too, RL - the line you’ve quoted is from St Augustine, and I think it’s a vital part of living in any civilised society, viz, you did a bad thing, not you are a bad person. The whole idea of rehabilitation depends on this, which is one of the reasons why people who want gaols to be places of utter squalor don’t realise the extent to which they’re shooting society in the foot.
That said, there are times when I waver on Augustine’s principle. Not often - I’ve had dealings with more prima facie evil people than most, going back over many years - but sometimes.
I think Jason’s point (if I understand him correctly) is that what we conveniently label ‘evil’ tends to be destructive in an evolutionary sense. Peck mounts a similar argument, and notes a few instances where people he treated who - in his terms - turned out to be evil did everything they could to avoid reproducing, often without knowing why.
I don’t think it would imply that such people wouldn’t reproduce SL. That’s taking it too far and I don’t see what logic of selection would drive that. But it is basically a biological anomaly.
I think most criminals are stupid and psychologically myopic rather than evil. And those we call ‘evil’ are really brain damaged in some way or in effect like the ‘aliens’ in my analogy (most criminals are probably brain damaged too, but in a different way). And there is proof of this, at least for antisocial personality disorder (i.e. criminal sociopaths).
If you wish to markedly increase the chances of someone behaving in an evil fashion then damage their orbitofrontal cortex in early childhood, prior to 3-4 years of age. This region of the brain, lying just behind the eyes, appears to play a very important role in our sense of right and wrong. Sociopaths often demonstrate a lack of activity in this area.
As a fascinating aside, I once read a study wherein they established that in older humans the working memory capacity was inversely proportional to the orbitofrontal activity. “Working memory” is considered to be the most important component of intelligence, and sociopaths do demonstrate remarkably high intelligence.
Evil is not just confined to sociopaths though, given the right environment most of us can be driven to behave in evil ways. A traumatic childhood can also pave the way to anti-social behavior, the research on this is fairly solid. I have long held that the problems of social order in many third world countries are basically passed down the generations through ongoing lack of attention to providing stable secure environments for children. I’m not a lone ranger here, many people have argued this. Thus I was pleased to note in New Scientist, February 2007, p43, this statement from the psychiatrist Bruce Perry:
“If you have an ill-educated and half-starved population, the chances are they will rear children who suffer some kind of trauma. …. I believe that if you understand how the brain works, how people function under stress and the way this carries across generations, then you will realise that some of the attempts of the west to bring peace to the Middle East are neurologically doomed to fail.”
Perry is spot on in this regard. Sadly there are few Jason Soon’s in the world, people who are prepared to dig deeply enough to appreciate these issues.
Guns:
Jason, a recent research report stated that in the US the homocide rate is directly proportional to the level of gun ownership. Another study I read years ago demonstrated that suicide rates in teenagers are higher in families which own guns. In the US though there is something strange about their fascination with weapons, other countries that have high gun ownership would not necessarily reflect these statistics.
I do not advocate gun control because in my view the problem lies with the culture, not the guns.
Evil is a social construction. After all, the yanks can torture people then complain about the evils of others. Then the fools wonder why the world looks at them in astonishment at their hypocrisy. But in their eyes this evil is justified, a perspective arising out of tribalism.
Saw this quip concerning Cheney’s shooting stupidity: A tradegy has occurred, one of the few people who likes the vice president has been shot.
I think calling someone evil is still using the noun.
Evil can only be done by humans, so when we say a person is evil we mean that they are evil (the thing) personified, not that they are being described as evil (the adjective).
This keeps it in its black-and-white sense (where it firmly belongs) rather than leaving the gate open for such silliness as degrees of “being” evil, or what have you.
Shorter me - we are all capable of doing evil, but someone who does nothing but, or fails to recognise their evil deeds as such, is evil.
I agree with you. It was just something Peck noticed when he was compiling his case studies.
I’ll now read DS’s meaty comment and try to digest it properly!
Dead Soul you are condemning all ADD people as evil.
Being uninhibited and being evil ought not be confused.
Certainly bein uninhibited gives one a greater potential for evil but it also gives one a greater potential to resist evil.
To resist peer pressure in all its forms. To resist group-think. To resist it for good or for evil.
Such uninhibited people in youth may be more susceptible to violent crime or criminal behaviour.
But systemically when things go wrong they will probably be less likely to be Good Germans.
I think you are correct about the older people having more brain power without the inhibiting effect you describe.
But then I’m biased.
SL, really nice piece of writing! You should publish it where many more people will read it.
Graeme,
The studies on ADD indicate much higher rates of criminality. There is also the suggestion that mild ADD can enhance creativity. The tradegy of our justice system is that many people in gaol have experienced the sorts of traumas the research suggests can lead to anti-social behavior. No, I’m not excusing their behavior, just pointing out the obvious. Skepticlawyer may have some personal experience of this relationship between between bad environments and criminality.
It worth keeping in mind that while individuals with bad backgrounds figure prominently in crime statistics, the majority of people from those backgrounds are just like you and me.
This is very thought-provoking indeed, and gives credence to some of Jason’s sociobiological ideas.
Thanks Sacha - although Catallaxy has a fair few thoughtful readers. I could probably get it run in Quadrant, although to be fair their readership is probably about the same size as Catallaxy’s. Too chewy for a MSM newspaper, alas.
Right.
Well yours and my view of the situation are in accordance.
I just wanted to slightly differentiate the two intersecting sets of:
1. Lack of inhibition.
2. Actual evil.
Many people are saved from wickedness by pure lack of moxie.
But then thats not a bad thing at all.
Good point Graeme,
Lack of inhibition is not in itself evil, if it were teenagers would all be evil. Cerebral maturation in humans is very slow, final maturation processes in the frontal lobe may not occur until the early 30’s. ADD is typically perceived as a loss of frontal lobe function, hence dopamine agonists are used to increase this activity(nonetheless I have great concerns about medicating children, what the general public does not know is that Ritalin stunts growth hormone production, can cause fatal heart attacks in susceptible children, and there is a hint of liver damage). To my knowledge there is no known relationship between orbitofrontal function and ADD. However, the orbitofrontal cortex plays a very important role in inhibiting the stress response. One famous example I recall was of a neurosurgeon who had orbitofrontal damage. Ferocious temper … . Contrary to the genetic determinists though, frontal lobe maturation is very much dependent on early childhood experiences. Thus referring to my earlier comment re SL, her experience in court may suggest that a considerable percentage of criminals were denied a good stable early childhood.
Incidentally, with age frontal lobe function can decline, hence we can become grumpy old men!
What about the story of that fellow in the 19th century who got a rail iron through his frontal lobes.
He found it hard to hold down a job after that.
And was found to be saying things lacking in tact to women.
Graeme,
The famous Phineas Cage, that rail spike did tremendous damage. Yes, frontal lobe damage can completely alter a person’s personality. (So much for the Ghost in the Machine!). In traumatic brain injury one of the more significant psychosocial problems is that the person changes so much the friends and loved ones find it very difficult to relate to this new person.
Here’s a neurologic puzzle though. Frontal lobotomy was remarkably successful in treating those with what was then called agitated depression(at a guess, today it would depression with psychotic features), but virtually useless for helping those with schizophrenia. So create this big disconnect with the frontal lobes and the people are much better. Frontal lobotomy has been subject to all sorts of nonsense, if you want a good balanced view on it, read “The Lobotomist” by Jack El Hai. Excellent work. This procedure is rarely done these days because there are better therapeutic options.
This is very commonly raised as a plea in mitigation of sentence. Depending on the severity of the offence (and remembering that justice must both protect and punish), it can be (partially) successful.
And that SL, is a big problem for the law because people will often resort to this defence in the absence of substantive evidence. In any event, as I stated earlier, a bad childhood does not condemn one to criminality, so in my view it is a precarious argument. Additionally, irrespective of the causes of one’s behavior, we must protect. The sad truth is that criminality, once embedded in a person, can be extremely difficult to eliminate.
Determinism whether genetic or environmental does not imply a case for mitigation of sentencing since the purpose of sentencing is to send the right ‘price signal’ to deter average potential future offenders. This signalling only falls down when the average potential future offender would be unable to ‘process’ the price signal (of jail time) in the right way - hence that is why something like clinical insanity (e.e. someone who kills someone elese because thinks the latter is the devil) *is* a mitigating factor. Obviously sane potential future offenders would not be less deterred by a mitigating factor being applied to someone who actually is clinically insane.
But the mere fact of background or even brain damage alone to the extent that it doesn’t affect one’s perceptual equipment needn’t be a mitigating factor at all - if anything if the signals might even have to be made clearer if the level of psychological myopia is too low to deter at a ‘normal’ setting.
The argument is often made that much needed intervention will be made during custody, and experts are called to give credence to the argument that appropriate intervention will have the effect of reducing the risk of further offences. It is a very delicate balancing act, however.
sorry that should say ‘if the level of psychological myopia is too high’.
Ah, sl, you’ve become a grownup. Grownups understand that “tout comprendre, c’est tout pardonner”. Children - eg the gun nuts on this thread who flatly ignore the obvious fact that armed societies everywhere are the most murderous societies - tend to see the world as black-or-white good guys vs bad guys.
A pity that were so many US children voters that lumbered the world with a Texas child for a leader.
Don’t be too cheeky, DD. A lawyer has to put his client’s case at its highest - indeed, it is incumbent upon him to do so - all the while upholding his duty to the court. That does not mean pardoning all by virtue of complete understanding, although it does mean making fine distinctions. I’ll leave your assertions about gun-owning societies to David or John H, both of whom are well-informed on this point, and reiterate once again that I’m interested in thoughtful comments on the nature of human malignity.
On that point, I’ll throw the French tag open to the floor: is it true that to understand all is to pardon all?
“is it true that to understand all is to pardon all?”
No. Take God - omniscient, but frequently vengeful.
“is it true that to understand all is to pardon all?”
No - understanding is different to evaluating and making judgements, and I thinking that in pardoning all one would be making some kind of judgement.
I feel that I havn’t quite explained myself. Anyway.
“I thinking” !!
No if by pardoning you mean ‘no punishment’. We cannot help being what we are, but what we are is partly shaped by the price signals sent out by the law including its punishments.
On the other hand I don’t believe in punishment for the sake of retribution. Retribution is irrational. Deterrence is not, but is one of the bases (albeit a last resort one) of social order.
Alas, the public appetite for retribution must be slaked - and it is the justice system that must do it - or the whole system loses respect.
The failure to slake the appetite for retribution is what leads to demands for prisons to be pictures of squalor, or to stories that prisons are little more than comfortable budget hotels from which one may never leave. No good lawyer can discount retribution, for all that he may feel - sometimes - that the only people who believe in pleas in mitigation are other lawyers.
I disagree somewhat with your assessment of Nietzsche’s theories on morality, Jason.
Nietzsche posited two forms of morality, the slave and the master. As an aside even tho’ he discussed Jewish morality as an example of the former he explictly was not advocating a racial theory or anti-semitism.
Anyway. There’s the slave and the master. The master’s moral range is ‘good’ and ‘bad’. The conception of evil as it might be applied here would simply be something akin to nature or the unpleasent aspects thereof. The good person is in control of her/his evil, the bad person is not. So the good is good in the sense of excellent or competent. This form of morality focuses on the individual; the primary moral relationship is with oneself. With one’s image of self. So the master refrains from violent acts (or not) because s/he is in control. Her/his self-image demands compunction.
The slave morality comes from the group. It is engendered originally by the resistance of people generally to the tyranny of the powerful who rule them. From here Freud’s notions re. the original horde are derived. However it develops amongst conquered peoples ie Jews. The evil in this case is not those dark apsects of human nature common to all but rather a specific quality of alliance with the bad guys in some cosmic war: Satan, Ba’al whatever. It’s also a tribal thing: we’re good, they’re bad.
This moral spectrum posits evil as a tainting attribute and good as being a state of resistance to it, of being untainted. Moral righteousness is collective. Evil is regarded as an external force which is capable of invasion. Evil is out there. Good in this sense means to be free of evil. Good is a negative attribute in the slave moral code denoting the absence of something.
Thus the master mind keeps ‘evil’ on a short leash. The slave mind casts it out. Both of these moral systems operate in us.
Consider coming across a derelict alcoholic-
The ‘master’ inside us feels contempt secure in the knowledge that even if I were to become destitute I would never succumb to a gutter-ridden existence begging for loose change with which to buy my next bottle. I am better than that.
The ’slave’ inside says: there but for the Grace of whatever go I. We are all human. The natural reaction is pity and it’s the slave part of us (we are all in this together) that thrusts our hands into our pockets.
The ‘master’ feels contempt, the ’slave’ feels pity.
It might seem like an argument for slave morality but in the absence of a moral environment (eg war) the slave mind is a lot less likely to act morally given that the slave compass is set by the group. If the group degenerates savagely only those whose moral compass is internal and individual are likely to exercise restraint.
Nietzsche tended to favour the master moral system probably because he was a fetishist of antiquity but also because he saw that a slave morality in a dominant culture (ie nineteenth century Christian Europe) was dangrous. Slave morality denotes evil as them whoever they are and paradoxically legitimizes any nastiness one can wreak upon them.
The Nazis, supposedly drawing on Nietzschean theories of a master race, acted out the worst aspects of slave minds by blaming Jews for everything and perpetuating great evil upon them ironically because the Jews themselves were supposedly evil.
This still plays out. Dubya calls bin Laden evil, bin Laden calls Dubya evil. According to their own moral codes they’re both right. Hysteria then ensues. Anyone who might criticize either man’s agenda within a certain sphere will meet this hysteria - you are siding with evil. Even if you are not siding with anyone.
I don’t think by ubermensch or superman that Nietszche meant some kind of diabolically elegant Vincent Price type serial killer. This is a common mistake. I believe he was referring to a humanity that was able to get past the hypocritical paradoxes engendered by moral systems, particularly slave codes like Christianity.
Sociopathology might be simply some kind of disorder rendering the bearer incapable of empathy. Apparently you can test for it. But it is, as has been said here, probably too rare to count in the broad spectrum of human affairs. And you don’t have to be one to perpetrate ‘evil’.
Himmler was said to have become violently ill witnessing a mass execution; a sociopath would likely not do so. Chopper Read’s been pretty brutal but his attacks of subsequent sentimental regret are evidence that he’s not a sociopath either.
I think ‘evil’ just a word for what we find unacceptable in ourselves and in nature generally. It’s an evasion.
Adrien
I wasn’t suggesting that Nietzsche was an anti-semite. I realise this was a slander perpetrated by his sister. Also I wasn’t exactly suggesting he endorsed sociopaths as our rulers either. But at the very least he seems a fetishist for cruelty, perhaps not on the same ground that cruelty may be perpetrated under a ’slave morality’ but cruelty nontheless e.g. he was very fond of the warlike Jews of the Old Testament and the arbitrary capricuous God it depicted.
The problem with this ’security’ is that - unless it is borne of great inner knowledge, considerable life experience or a remarkable imagination, it is impossible to be sure that one will never wind up in the gutter begging for loose change. Yes, there are people who can imagine themselves into any situation, given time, research and empathetic understanding. There are far more, however, who can never hope to do this, and their ‘master morality’ may turn out to be simple bluster when it is truly put to the test.
Also Adrien it was clear that Nietzsche wasn’t happy with comfort loving, calculating bourgeois liberal society e.g. all that reference to ‘men without chests’. Though he didn’t endorse fascism as such there are aspects of his system which meld perfectly with a kind of fascism of the European variety which simultaneously anti-capitalist and anti-communist and glorifies war. This is the main reason for my qualifiers and slight discomfort when I bring up Nietzsche whose thought I otherwise quite appreciate.
Jason - I didn’t mean to suggest that you thought Nietszche was anti-semitic. I usually bring that up as a kind of knee-jerk reaction to so many who’ve made the error. I just thought you emphasised his critique of herd morals and didn’t give much thought to his notions re. the master morality. Plus the superman thingy.
He criticized the herd mentality and most definately favoured the ‘master’ mind but I think his cruelty fetish is over-stated. He knew humans could be cruel and favoured facing up to it and thus being in control of it. I’m not sure he was a cruel man - remember the story about the chain-whipped horse.
SL- “There are far more, however, who can never hope to do this, and their ‘master morality’ may turn out to be simple bluster when it is truly put to the test.”
Yep it’s an elite thing the old master morality. And for most of us it’s an illusion. We couldn’t hack it. Actually morality is an illusion for a lot of us put in the wrong place at the right time witness the post-Katrina shennanegans in New Orleans.
Well he liked roughing it sure (maybe he was a bit Scots) but I don’t think he would’ve approved of the fascists. What bigger and more stupid herd could ever be imagined?
Jason
He made predictions about last century and this one. I can’t quite recall what he said about the 21 century but he seemed to be right about the last one.
You know what he said about the 21st century?
“You know what he said about the 21st century?”
Yeah he said he’d finally be understood.
Can’t recall, JC.
Is that true? I thought that was something of an urban myth. I do know the Nazis liked bits of him, but were very careful that the mass-market editions of his works had chunks removed - anything that could reflect negatively on their ‘movement’, of which I think Nietszche would have disapproved.
Even so, he is troubling to read both as a woman and a classical liberal. To Bertrand Russell, the most significant aspect of his thought was his sexism, which seemed imbued with an oddly sadomasichistic character.
People don’t always live out their philosophies.
For instance, Popper was a highly intolerant man.
Nietzsche was a very meek, gentle man in real life. He was even nice to Christians! As for that horse whipping incident, he was already mad when it happened so we can extrapolate even less from that.
I had the line from Thus Spake Zarathustra in mind, where he quipped (if my translation is correct) ‘you go unto women? Do not forget your whip’. To be fair I only have Nietszche in the house in German, and I haven’t read or spoken German regularly since 1999, so I may be imbuing him with, ahem, more verbal vigour than necessary.
Well I can’t vouch for its truth tho’ I seem to recall him saying such in one of his more esoteric tomes.
He wrote provocatively and in a manner deliberately designed to be misunderstood. He’s a repository of instructive errors. And he’s most definitely anti-democratic and sexist.
But these tome weilding people are just people. The reason they’re remembered is they wrote stuff some of which is useful. Mostly they’re full of shit just like everyone else.
On morality and aesthetics I think he’s rather good. I wouldn’t want to live in his Utopia.
Actually one biography I’ve read suggested he was homosexual so I think we shouldn’t read too much into that comment about women and whips.
“As for that horse whipping incident, he was already mad when it happened ‘
Was he?
I thought he went bonkers soon after. Kundera made it the moment of madness in The Unbearable Lightness of Being making something philisophical and poetic out of his madness and the incident itself.
But I’d thought it was afterwards he went cuckoo.
My mistake perhaps, but I would’ve thought of that as the onset (given the strange behaviour) rather than the instigator.
A meek, reedy gay man with health problems - the sort of chap who’d have trouble mustering the breath to blow out a candle on a dark night - who writes about the warrior and a defiant utopia of men with chests.
Hmmm.
Look who’s holding the whip, SL. This is what I mean about writers not always living out their philosophies
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/7/74/175px-Nietzsche_paul-ree_lou-von-salome188.jpg
That’s worth loading into a comment - I’ve got instructions from Kim at LP on how to do it.
BRB.
Nope, didn’t work. Our blog must be different.
“On the other hand I don’t believe in punishment for the sake of retribution.
Retribution is irrational. Deterrence is not, but is one of the bases (albeit a last resort one) of social order.”
No retribution is very rational.
It amounts to respect for the victim.
And it could, if applied properly, lead to lesser prison sentences and the reduction in costs to third parties.
I guess I have to postscript that.
I suspect that some calls for retribution TEND TO BE IRRATIONAL.
But I don’t think you can inductively extrapolate to retribution itself being irrational.
I myself would prefer that retribution not be of a sort which leads to permanent physical damage except where regime leadership is concerned.
Because this is government. And government makes mistakes.
Really thought provoking post, SL. Just to return to your mention of how that poor child took thirty minutes to die with nobody coming to his assistance and the subsequent gun/no gun discussion. I won’t presume to understand the reasons why those people in that particular case chose not to act, but there’s a documented psychological phenomenon (seen also in more gun friendly countries) called the bystander effect. In the 60s, a young woman in New York called Kitty Genovese was assaulted and killed on her way home from work, what shocked everyone at the time was that a number of her neighbours overhead the attack. There’s some doubt as to why that happened (and how many people actually realised what was happening) but it led to a couple of psychologists, Darley and Latane, doing some experimental studies on why bystanders don’t act. Doesn’t explain everything but has some interesting findings like the more people there are around, the less likely it is that someone will do something (from either diffusion of responsibility or possibly modelling others who are equally clueless). There are also other factors like your mood and hassle level that come into play (though that might be from later studies,). It’s good to be aware of it if you do see someone in distress and assume that someone else will deal with it, often everyone else is thinking the same thing. Also if you’re a victim of the effect, one tip mentioned in the Wikipedia link was to target a single person instead of generally pleading for help (though this doesn’t help if you’re in an empty street and calling out to unknown people inside flats).
“Pingu’s attitude is a symptom of the “learned helplessness†mentality of the nanny state ie it’s not up to me, it’s up to the government.”
Wow…lots of comments since last night when I posted.
So I’ll just reply to this one.
This has NOTHING to do with the state or learned helplessness. It has everything to do with the fact that I don’t like the idea of shooting, let alone killing another human being.
A gang member doesn’t have this problem. Hence their advantage in a hostile situation.
I really don’t understand this chest thumping mentality about how some people feel they could make a difference to crime if only they had a gun. I would be seriously surprised if most people here on this blog would have the ability to shoot someone down in cold blood before they were attacked.
And, as I mentioned before. Manslaughter. I don’t want to go to prison because I think I can be a hero and shoot a hoodie. The gang members don’t care, they are probably in and out of prison anyway, not to mention the high discount rates and low intelligence mentioned by SL and others. These guys just don’t care about the consequences. You probably do.
One of the bystander experiments was conducted in a doctor’s waiting room. The experimenter would pretend to be waiting, sometimes alone and sometimes with a colleague. When the dummy (the experimental subject) came in and started to read the seven year old Readers Digest the experimenter would stand up and walk around and then fall over as though suddenly taken ill. The colleague would sit still and take no notice.
If there was nobody else there the dummy would get up to help. If there was an inactive bystander there was a good chance that the dummy would sit still as well.
One of the things that upset me when I was diverted from helping the old guy who fell down the stairs is the fact that I’ve been an incurable oar-sticker-inner for as long as I can remember. This has ranged from beating up bullies at school to being the first to ring the coppers to taking in - at various times - a female victim of domestic violence and a child victim of abuse. And being prepared to back up my decisions with my martial arts skills.
I don’t think I have it in me to be a bystander. I’d either be a rescuer - or, I have to acknowledge this - a perpetrator. A few people have told me that I’m a bad person to cross. In days gone by I used to discount it, but I’m more relaxed about admitting it now. The man in the stairwell incident is the first time I can remember not going in aid.
Dead Soul said something which implied that impulse control might improve right into one’s 30s. I was considering this a basis for my outrageously AGEIST approach to guns. You see I want the 35+ guys to have more access.
And the younger guys to have more access to non-lethal weaponry alone. A massive SOCIAL constriction falls down upon us when these things happen.
Or it did do before we had mobile phones but I think it still does now. But with the 35+ types having the weaponry AND THE OTHERS NOT HAVING IT SO MUCH……
Then any 35 plusser in the area would know that IT FELL TO HIM TO SORT THINGS OUT.
So I think there would be less dissolving in one’s own social fears. And more of the older guy knowing that it was up to him to reach for his Glock, his taser, and his mobile phone and put the neighbourhood back in order quick smart.
My main concern - as with all these things - would be regulation, with a secondary concern around fraud.
It is fairly well-documented though that people don’t fully mature until quite late (although obviously there are a lot of individual anomolies built into this). I know I look back on some of the stuff I did when I was younger (either through naivete or ignorance or impetuosity) and just cringe… it’s embarrassing.
Right.
Look I’m not saying restrict the guns more then they already are to the younger guys. I’m saying open them RIGHT UP for the older guys.
The technology now is available to make it that even if someone takes my weapon off me it can only be used BY me. So if you have your weaponry rigged that way…. And if you also have invested in the various ways to secure your weapon in your house and car….
…. And if you have also invested in the non-lethal stuff so you have no excuse for killing people who don’t need killing….
….. Then I say open it right up for the 35+ crowd.
I mean open it RIGHT UP. That’s a massively important thing for other countries to know also. That even if they just raise tensions against us the next lot of containers coming in from the ocean will be bringing a massive arsenal for the 35+ crowd.
They will be more easy to bargain with under those conditions.
Even if they won the war it would be easier to cut a deal which didn’t include occupation.They wouldn’t wish to send uniformed soldiers into our cities under those conditions. And if they sent them those soldiers would die.
These are very important considerations for a middle power to come to grips with.
GMB, being of a certain age myself I can understand your view. But please understand that this issue does not need to rely on psychological theory or supposition. There is a mountain of empirical evidence from the US to show what actually occurs when guns can be legally carried.
For a start, those who do not like guns, are afraid of them or think they might use them inappropriately (eg pingu) do not usually want to get one. In fact, relatively few people do. It’s not compulsory and everyone makes their own choice.
Second, there is a reduction (yes, reduction) in certain types of crime and NO increases in domestic violence, random shootings, rage shooting, spontaneous outbursts, etc etc etc.
If someone gets shot by a person carrying a concealed gun, they must account for themselves just like the police. That is, they better have a good reason such as self defence or defending someone else, otherwise they are in deep shit. It’s no different to using any weapon.
In each state in which concealed carry permits have been introduced, predictions of mayhem have invariably been made, just as they are made here. Yet every single time they have been proved wrong.
People who go to the trouble of obtaining a permit so that they can carry a gun legally are the most law-abiding people in the community, in relation to both firearms and in general.
I don’t suppose simple facts like these will make much difference to those who have a ‘thing’ about guns, but they ought to make the rational ones think a bit.
David
The unspoken but open secret about the US and gun violence is black and Hispanic violence with guns.
Steve Sailor once wrote about it suggesting the reason why big city living whites are against guns is because of that problem, hence the divide between the big cities and the rest of America.
It is a real problem.
Right David.
But elsewhere I’ve expressed the idea that statistics are not enough. And then cannot we be ageist in terms of the INTRODUCTION of this measure?
Like we free things up for the 35+ guys and I think we would indeed get a reduction in crime….. particularly with drug decriminalisation in tandem…. And from there we can make the decision whether or not to drop it 5 years to the 30+ guys. And then to the 25+ guys.
You get folks that are cagey about guns. I’m cagey about letting teenagers and twenty-somethings having more access then they have now.
And by the way I’m not saying that they should have LESS. I’m saying we can safely expedite the 35+ guys having more.
Like if you are the only one who can readily use it, you can lock it up in your home or car, and you also have non-lethal weapons……. then you just go out and buy whatever you want just like that.
So I’m not talking about reducing access. I’m talking about opening it up very quickly to a MASSIVE segment of the population that I think most fair-minded people would have confidence in. Then if that works out we can reduce the age-limit 5 years at a time.
I think if it was working out we could get to where you want to go far more quickly along THAT path. Along my ageist path. Plus dudes like you and me could get some real quality gear straight away.
1. learned helplessness
This concept was coined by Martin Seligman in relation to experiments on dogs. It has never translated well to humans and should not be used to explain human behavior.
2.
While the evidence of frontal lobe inhibition of impulsivity is strong NEVER make such simplistic assumptions about the causes of human behavior. After all even teenagers demonstrate a very wide range of impulsivity. I am partly to blame for that because my earlier posts suggested that. I was trying to keep it simple and so have misled people. Sorry.
Nonetheless Graeme makes an interesting conjecture regarding delaying access to dangerous weapons and there is some empirical support for that.
3. Law and order in the USA.
It sounds racist but the earlier comment about blacks and hispanics has something going for it, though I would suggest it relates much more to blacks than hispanics. A US lawyer once suggested to me that if you removed black crimes from the stats the crime rate in the USA would be comparable to other nations.
4.
David L
Perhaps you can help me with this. I once read about a county in the USA where everyone was required to have weapons and were permitted to carry concealables in daily business. Very low crime rates there because the balance of power is restored, the crim knows if he pulls a gun he’ll have a shitstorm of bullets coming his way.
I can’t remember the name of the county and perhaps my memory is faulty. Can you help me here?