Well it seems like yet gain I have found myself without much to do today.
So with that I thought I would dedicate a lil piece out there.
Now I am planning on writing a lil tidbit on Colonel Gaddaffi’s death but that should be up after I have had some proper time to get some resources on it
But playing into that I wanted to pick up an aspect of what I will be talking about in that. And it really comes down to the way people deal with consequences.
We live in a world based on the fundamental logic of cause and reaction.
You put something in the fridge, it cools down.
You put something in a fire it gets hot.
You put a drunken penis in a vagina, you get pregnant ugly monkey baby aids.
But I want to concentrate more on the temperature aspect of things as such. Specifically the metaphoric heat people get into when they are angry.
You have this character in the comics known as the hulk, who is world renowned as getting stronger the madder he gets and he gets really really mad. I’m sure you are all away of his green skinned antics. It’s well plagirised throughout the world.
I mean calm down m’aam, how would he do if he was this guy
Christ on a bike, What if he got a cold call from a foreign call centre? Or if he lost he went in for half an hour and found out his snowman was missing, he might almost be as mental as this lady right here
Or if he didn’t have enough money to use a public telephone??? christ how many p0eople have 25 cents at their disposal in this day and age????
I mean in this clip, saying he is ‘bearly’ in control of his anger is an understatement
But as a side note. This is a concept I never quite understood. People having a bottomless pit of anger.
Now I kinda understand pity and other emotions like that, that aren’t particularly proactive, they are passive beasts. But anger is quite a active and instinctively reactive emotion and there is only so much adrenaline that can pump through your system at anytime before you burn yourself out and stop being angry (or at least violently angry).
Whether it occurs naturally that your body tires itself out or you have a power crash who knows. But I always found it odd that a character could just simply keep getting more and more angry at a situation. Surely a peak anger and a plateau at a lower level (at resentment) is reached? Surely??? I suppose art imitates life so i guess for some people this is a reality but these are the ones I find most alien from myself.
Meh, a complete side note in total. I might come back to it in the future otherwise i’ll spend too much time beating over this point that irks me so dearly.
So getting back on track, when something bad happens, one of the preliminary or subsequent emotions we will feel is some degree of anger. And dealing with this anger is normally the predominant issue when it comes to pacifying someone who is over come with it
But does anger have to come into things at all?
I tend to find the hulk, as a character concept, is really a fictional world depiction as to how all of us have yet really matured enough to deal with the consequences of bad things happening to us.
And this is reflected in the way we deal with crimes committed on us, our loved ones or members of society we deem as being vulnerable.
And with regards to dealing with crime, most of our systems put in place are there in order to deal with this anger by putting the perpetrators of these acts through a legal (sometimes moral, or sometimes immoral/over-reactive) act of vengeance to obtain some form of retribution.
In less ‘civilised’ (terms of civilization as defined by the savages in business suits, rather than myself of course) cultures, One would punish those who have been caught committing crimes severely, even with death.
In this day and age, what tends to happen is when something atrocious happens, the crime is heavily advertised in the papers.
Now again there are two reasons for this, one is that people do seem to be motivated by the horrific aspects of our potential far more than the aspiration (we respond far stronger to fear than to love, or to any other emotion). The second is that the news-based media respond heavily to this and push for it because quite frankly, it sells bucklet loads of paper and it’s a relatively thing to keep perpetuating on 24HR news. In all fairness, the concept of 24HR news is completely and utterly flawed and concise fact based journalism has turned into loop hole based smear campaigns.
I’ve always believed the media is forever supposed to remain neutral but it gives the impression that it is being guided by the opinions of the people, the masses, the heart of a country. On the contrary, I think it feeds this notion and helps confront stereotypes and such. In a time when it could be used to captivate and enlighten the masses, it’s become increasingly opinionated, opaque and downright financially funded to ensure it makes money. Making money out of keeping you ignorant, fearful and misinformed unaware of the real problems and solutions at hand.
I’ve always believed that anything which has a business model can NEVER be 100% relied on in order to truly help someone. They will one day come for you, and your children and then you’ll find yourself as one of the trillions of people who find themselves misrepresented while selling their souls for a few shiny coins.
So with such a massive outcry towards the actions against a media friendly victim (note: ugly non-hate crime ethnics generally make the news, and you’d be hard pressed to find a middle aged, middle class white male being the centre of any attention regardless), the nation grinds to a halt and an roar of public unease tends to get the police to become FINGERMEN, who simply wish to apprehend someone as soon as possible before citizens start taking the law into their own hands.
Then there is pressure for these individuals to get the book thrown at them, their humanity is completely stripped away and the medium portrays them as cold hearted monsters devoid of public sympathy. They become pariahs to their settlements and they are reduced to caricatures, given ‘cool’ killer names (the butcher of Bagdad, the Yorkshire ripper, the prime minister, gimp-faced mrs fimble who teaches RE).
So with that, someone (not always the person who commits the crime) is rushed and evidence is provided against them and if it all goes well, they get thrown in jail and are never to be seen again.
Justice is served, everyone is happy and we all live happily ever after right? Right?
You see, this system only really works like this if you have a mind of a 5 year old. Which is fine because in stressful situations the majority of us regress but that simplistic logic really has no place in anything other than a dystopian society.
This system doesn’t necessarily satisfy the needs of the victim or the perpetrator of the crime, it simply pushes the entire issue aside.
For convenience, I will cover the punishment side of things first to clarify.
Punishment on its own actually solves nothing.
This is especially true for external punishments. Any suppression of another’s humanity has no direct impact on crime rates.
You can plot a nice graph about the levels of strictness of potential jail sentences and punishments, against certain crimes over the years. You will find the number of incidents reported has no association with the level of punishment being handed out what so ever.
Take this example, you could have a death sentence for commiting murder or for putting your elbows at the table while eating, and people would still do both. We are just inline to break rules in our head where the time doesn’t justify that time.
But how do we address this?
Firstly, there must be a public acceptance that the time justifies the crime. A sentence is only reflective of the society it is set in, which is reflective of the stance of the people in that region. If you set laws that would put 85% of people in a decifit, then what is the point in trying to enforce them?
It serves no real purpose.
I suppose that is a point one could raise against any religion. I would presume that 99% of all people who state themselves as religious, have either bent or completely underminded one of the rules of their religion (not to mention broken the law, office etiquette, copywright laws or at least one thing).
But then if we lived in a world full of murdering child rapists, jaywalkers and people who don’t say please, would that make those actions any more or any less right/wrong? I guess this also goes with the age of consent, traffic and general politeness of a group of chumwits and how it has changed with many things over the time, or the reclassification of various drugs. Ultimately it is up to the unique society to decide for itself. Being right or wrong is entirely relative and entirely pointless to debate over.
Right or wrong should never be used to discuss social ethics
So if jail’s punishment system is there to just have no impact on people then what is the point of jail altogether it?
One would say it could be better used as a place where people could atone for their actions.
But then this brings me to a completely different point entirely, which is the only real way to reach a form of atonement or potentially the worst jail cell ever, is through a mental state known as
Actually, guilt is the second worst, WATCHING THE FILM ATTONEMENT IS THE WORST JAIL CELL EVER. Oh my god, how can a film suck soooo badly. Saying that, I wouldn’t even wish that on my worst enemy. Jesus Christ, Keira Knightly, you are going to hell for that piece of rubbish. Honestly, I will take you there myself…arrrrrrrrggghhhhhh *hulks out*
anyway, where was I?
Guilt is a self induced justice system when one someone with a one-way ticket crosses their own moral code.
It is completely relative and one is unaware of whether there is some inert social behaviours that are instilled in us naturall,y that will trigger this guilt, or if everything is based on our natural upbringing. Like anything both will ultimately have an impact on the way we go about this phenomenon.
The level of guilt is also important. A lot of us will assess a situation and will deep down know that it isn’t right or will hurt people but will weigh up the potential gains of that situations or will reduce the amount of guilt by assigning a fault factor to the people responsible or will limit their damage against what they would gain as an individual.
I would personally say that any system of punishment, if punishment should be used at all,( I prefer ) should manifest itself in getting the person to obtain some form of personal responsibility and grief guilt for their actions.
And not necessarily the guilt in getting caught and the impact it would have on his family/friends/resources to support his claim or his burden on the tax payer, but guilt towards his victim.
I saw that in some circumstances, they are trialing this thing (which would ideally help both parties) where the perpetrators would meet their victims and confess to doing a crime and being sorry. The victim would then eventually be able to meet up with the perpetrator and tell them they have been forgiving when they are ready and both parties can eventually move forward with their lives from the incident. There’s a version fo this called the ‘Bridges for Life’ scheme, click here to find out more information on it.
It has the potential to be a very strong platform for both parties to move forward from (ownership of doing wrong, acceptance and remorse, followed by forgiveness and working towards some form of personal, social retribution to atone) but like all confrontations, it could just be in words only and actually quite empty and pointless. But I would say it only ends up being pointless if the first step of assigning guilt is not properly fulfilled.
But then there will always be people who never will be able to forgive others for the things done to them, and vice versa..
The truth of the matter is that we have all broken a rule and whether that rule has had a detrimental repercussion on someone else leading to it being a crime or not may not always be at the forefronts of our minds when we are doing so.
It’s impossible to always think of the repercussions of your actions while in the moment (evidently being run by anger or some other emotion). That privilege is usually saved until just after you’ve royally fucked shit up.
But of course, by then, it’s far to late…