6 ms·

All humans are capable of horrific acts. It is a part of our humanity, we are apex predators who organize socially. The evolved algorithm in our brain that mana

All humans are capable of horrific acts. It is a part of our humanity, we are apex predators who organize socially. The evolved algorithm in our brain that manages that dissonance is extremely complex and will necessarily fail at times. We can't tolerate or condone antisocial behavior, but it is a mistake to feel safe in the thought "we" are better than "them." We are they, they are we.

sathackr 11y ago
I wish there was a multi-upvote button. This, so much this. It's so easy to turn it into 'us' and 'them' So many stereotypes, so much historical(and, of course, current) violence and bloodshed because someone convinces a population how 'they' are different than 'us', 'we' are better, therefore 'they' must surrender(and become like 'us') or 'we' will force 'them' to. My favorite example? Extrajudicial killings of non-us citizens unilaterally declared to be terrorists. And since it's 'them', somehow it's moral. Terrorism is bad, but doesn't give us the right not to afford another human the protections of things we have declared to be owed to all men. If 'We hold these truths to be self evident..." then why do we only apply them to US Citizens? (And then, take them away from some US Citizens, the ones that have been declared to be 'them' no longer 'us')
ams6110 11y ago
No, sorry. Some people kill or viciously assault other people, while most people don't. There's not a moral equivalence there. That said, I do think that the conditions described in the article constitute cruel and unusual punishment, at least by today's standards. I'm not sure what the framers had in mind; I'm sure 18th century prisons were not rose gardens either.
- whiddershins 11y ago
  I heartily recommend "Why We Snap" http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Snap-Understanding-Circuit-ebook/dp/B00SI02CTQ http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Snap-Understanding-Circuit-eboo... and although a boring read, "Sex and War" http://www.amazon.com/Sex-War-Biology-Explains-Terrorism-ebook/dp/B003UBAX3A/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1458956045&sr=1-1&keywords=sex+and+war http://www.amazon.com/Sex-War-Biology-Explains-Terrorism-ebo... for a different perspective on your statements. The violent impulse is probably available to all humans, and it is plausible to say that all humans under the right circumstances can manifest extreme violence. So it becomes details. How are the various impulses moderated under various conditions. It is the precise opposite of black and white, in my opinion. edit: I am not excusing violence or advocating we tolerate antisocial behavior. I am urging compassion and empathy for people whose brains have made one or more decisions devastatingly incorrectly as a result of what may be an extremely tiny variation in programming, or an edge case that caused their brains to make the wrong decision.
- ljf 11y ago
  OK, but why does the US have more murders per capita thank most other countries? What could be done to stop those people becoming murders? Or what pathways send people towards a life in prison?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
justicezyx 11y ago
Hmm, I guess I am too much a CS people. When I say "animal", I mean human as a kind of "animal". In terms of people killing people, that is a reflection of the "animal" side of human. Thus I use "animal". If you think I mean they are "animal", and I am not "animal"; and I am better then them. Sorry, I do not possess that prejudice. My question simply is: How we treat the "animal", which are people showing high-degree of animal instinct of a human, who killed other human? That's not an implication that they should be treated as "animal".
- zanny 11y ago
  The original intent of incarceration was to remove those from society who we could not trust to peacefully participate in it. That intent is naturally lost today - the mass incarceration of drug users being only a portion of a larger pie of injustice and horror committed on a daily basis in the US that includes other atrocities such as police brutality and civil asset forfeiture. Obviously in cases where prisoners kill one another, in a sane world, the constable and other administration of the prison would be held accountable, as would any officers who betrayed their duty to let it happen. It is always someones fault you put individuals who we deemed untrustable in the presence of others to be placed in circumstances to harm others again. Unsurprisingly, the reality is that locking people up is incredibly expensive. We spend more per prisoner than we do per dozen students in public schools each year. The practical costs of incarceration are huge, let alone the social and economic ones. It should be unsurprising the people are less receptive to tremendous taxes to pay for, by far, the highest incarceration rates in the world.
  - im3w1l 11y ago
    > The original intent of incarceration was to remove those from society who we could not trust to peacefully participate in it. Do you have a source for that? The Code of Hammurabi seems to talk about imprisonment as the appropriate punishment for defaulting on your debt, and the ancient Greek seem to have used it for that reason as well.
    - zanny 11y ago
rukuu_001 11y ago
> All humans are capable of horrific acts. I think it's important to internalize this idea. Whenever you hear of a violent and sickening act, ask yourself: under what circumstances would I do that? Answering 'never' is a failure of imagination. Engaging honestly with this question is the path toward solving the problem of our capacity for harm.

sathackr 11y ago

I wish there was a multi-upvote button. This, so much this. It's so easy to turn it into 'us' and 'them' So many stereotypes, so much historical(and, of course, current) violence and bloodshed because someone convinces a population how 'they' are different than 'us', 'we' are better, therefore 'they' must surrender(and become like 'us') or 'we' will force 'them' to. My favorite example? Extrajudicial killings of non-us citizens unilaterally declared to be terrorists. And since it's 'them', somehow it's moral. Terrorism is bad, but doesn't give us the right not to afford another human the protections of things we have declared to be owed to all men. If 'We hold these truths to be self evident..." then why do we only apply them to US Citizens? (And then, take them away from some US Citizens, the ones that have been declared to be 'them' no longer 'us')

ams6110 11y ago

No, sorry. Some people kill or viciously assault other people, while most people don't. There's not a moral equivalence there. That said, I do think that the conditions described in the article constitute cruel and unusual punishment, at least by today's standards. I'm not sure what the framers had in mind; I'm sure 18th century prisons were not rose gardens either.

whiddershins 11y ago
I heartily recommend "Why We Snap" http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Snap-Understanding-Circuit-ebook/dp/B00SI02CTQ http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Snap-Understanding-Circuit-eboo... and although a boring read, "Sex and War" http://www.amazon.com/Sex-War-Biology-Explains-Terrorism-ebook/dp/B003UBAX3A/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1458956045&sr=1-1&keywords=sex+and+war http://www.amazon.com/Sex-War-Biology-Explains-Terrorism-ebo... for a different perspective on your statements. The violent impulse is probably available to all humans, and it is plausible to say that all humans under the right circumstances can manifest extreme violence. So it becomes details. How are the various impulses moderated under various conditions. It is the precise opposite of black and white, in my opinion. edit: I am not excusing violence or advocating we tolerate antisocial behavior. I am urging compassion and empathy for people whose brains have made one or more decisions devastatingly incorrectly as a result of what may be an extremely tiny variation in programming, or an edge case that caused their brains to make the wrong decision.
ljf 11y ago
OK, but why does the US have more murders per capita thank most other countries? What could be done to stop those people becoming murders? Or what pathways send people towards a life in prison?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

justicezyx 11y ago

Hmm, I guess I am too much a CS people. When I say "animal", I mean human as a kind of "animal". In terms of people killing people, that is a reflection of the "animal" side of human. Thus I use "animal". If you think I mean they are "animal", and I am not "animal"; and I am better then them. Sorry, I do not possess that prejudice. My question simply is: How we treat the "animal", which are people showing high-degree of animal instinct of a human, who killed other human? That's not an implication that they should be treated as "animal".

zanny 11y ago
The original intent of incarceration was to remove those from society who we could not trust to peacefully participate in it. That intent is naturally lost today - the mass incarceration of drug users being only a portion of a larger pie of injustice and horror committed on a daily basis in the US that includes other atrocities such as police brutality and civil asset forfeiture. Obviously in cases where prisoners kill one another, in a sane world, the constable and other administration of the prison would be held accountable, as would any officers who betrayed their duty to let it happen. It is always someones fault you put individuals who we deemed untrustable in the presence of others to be placed in circumstances to harm others again. Unsurprisingly, the reality is that locking people up is incredibly expensive. We spend more per prisoner than we do per dozen students in public schools each year. The practical costs of incarceration are huge, let alone the social and economic ones. It should be unsurprising the people are less receptive to tremendous taxes to pay for, by far, the highest incarceration rates in the world.
- im3w1l 11y ago
  > The original intent of incarceration was to remove those from society who we could not trust to peacefully participate in it. Do you have a source for that? The Code of Hammurabi seems to talk about imprisonment as the appropriate punishment for defaulting on your debt, and the ancient Greek seem to have used it for that reason as well.
  - zanny 11y ago

rukuu_001 11y ago

> All humans are capable of horrific acts. I think it's important to internalize this idea. Whenever you hear of a violent and sickening act, ask yourself: under what circumstances would I do that? Answering 'never' is a failure of imagination. Engaging honestly with this question is the path toward solving the problem of our capacity for harm.