A Real Heroine

Posted on April 2, 2017 by Pat Harris under Social Obligation

Once in awhile someone does something beneficial for humans or animals or the environment. And once in a really long while someone does something beneficial for all life. This is extremely rare; but there is such a person. Strange—even though her contribution to all living things may be greater than that of, Einstein, Picasso, Lincoln or Columbus, her name is not nearly as familiar. One of her accomplishments, Silent Spring, published in 1962 is given credit for the start of a serious environmental movement. Her efforts are credited with contributing to the start of the Environmental Protection Agency, the banning of DDT, the development of the U.S. Clean Water ACT, and more. What she did for all of us was and still is—‘truly’ important. Who is this person whose contribution to humankind, and the planet as a whole, rivals all ‘important’ contributions throughout history? Her name is Rachel Carson!

After WW2, poisons were widely used. Rachel Carson disapproved of the government and industry spraying everyone and everything with poisons. One of Carson’s statements that critics use to attack her is, “Can anyone believe it is possible to lay down such a barrage of poisons on the surface of the earth without making it unfit for all life?” Carson believed if the public was going to be subjected to the risks associated with chemicals they had the right to understand what the risks were. The dominate mindset at the time was that mankind could and would control nature—and this hasn’t changed. They sprayed food crops, homes, schools and even sprayed children as they ate their lunches. By 1955 approximately 600 million pounds of DDT was produced per year. The thinking, if you want to call it thinking, was they could spray poisons to get rid of anything without considering the possible consequences—it seems they were wrong. They went to war with whatever they considered pests and when they did, the fallout spread to everything. Animals and animal products were contaminated, birds and fish were contaminated and their reproductive capacity diminished. There were reports of animals dying from the sprays. Carson, a Marine Biologist, had been studying the animals of the sea and was already sensitive to the fact they were being adversely affected by pollutants.

A person like Rachel Carson doesn’t come along very often. I’m not sure exactly what it takes to do great things, but whatever it is—she had it. She wrote and spoke about the dangers of the irresponsible use of chemicals. And when she had done all she could do—she had revolutionized the way we think about it. Certainly, her particular skills, scientist and accomplished writer, were important to what she did. But even more important, she had to care—a lot. This virtue would drive her to her goal while being pressed back by immeasurable adversity. I don’t suppose anyone knows why it is that a perceived strong person may be incapacitated when life burdens them excessively, and an apparently frail person may persevere. In Carson’s case, it was the frail and somewhat sickly person who came through as the real life heroine. She is a heroine of the first order. She fought not just for herself, but for all life on the planet.

It turns out that Rachel Carson was fighting the odds most of her life. Being a woman and continuing her education past high school in the 1920’s wasn’t easy. And changing her major from English to science surely added to an already difficult task. Then decades later she found herself in the position of trying to warn everyone about the dangers of the practice of poisoning too much too often; especially when the residual and long term effects weren’t known. She was virtually alone, head to head in a battle with the huge corporations and the scientists and politicians who were locked into the mentality that man could and would overcome nature forcefully. One of the well known spokespersons for the chemical industry and adversary to Rachel Carson’s vision, Dr. White Stevens, stated she was wrong. His statement, which made sense to those on his side of the issue, sounds blatantly, chauvinistic and narrow-sighted to those of the opposite persuasion. “The crux, the fulcrum over which the argument chiefly rests, is that Miss Carson maintains that the balance of nature is a major force in the survival of man, whereas the modern chemist, the modern biologist and scientist, believes that man is steadily controlling nature.” ~ Robert White Stevens.

In a society such as ours the forces working against a thoughtful, responsible person trying to elicit important change are tremendous. Almost a half century later some people are trying to blame Rachel Carson for the millions of deaths from Malaria in other parts of the world, attributing this to the limitations placed on DDT in the early 70’s. The fact is, her book came out in 1962 and, after reading it, President Kennedy called for testing of the chemicals in question. “In one of her last public appearances, Carson testified before President Kennedy’s Science Advisory Committee. The committee issued its report on May 15, 1963, largely backing Carson’s scientific claims.” In 1972 the EPA came into existence and one of their early decisions, based on reports from government scientists, was to ban most DDT use in the U.S. Rachel Carson had passed away almost a decade earlier in 1964, but her detractors will still try to blame her for the actions of a federal government agency.

Rachel Carson, born May 27, 1907 in Springdale, Pennsylvania, spent her childhood on a farm where she was able to explore her passion, the natural world. She loved reading and writing and by ten years of age was being published. Her mother taught her about nature on and around the farm, but Rachel Carson was particularly enamored with the ocean. She would eventually dedicate much of her life to learning about the ocean, and then trying to save it.

She did very well in her studies of science while attending the Pennsylvania College for Women in the late 20’s and she went on to Johns Hopkins College. In 1935 she received her master’s degree in zoology. Unfortunately, due to her father’s death in 1935, she had to leave school and support her family, mother and sisters. She took a job in civil service. Working for the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, Carson was writing radio copy for educational radio broadcasts and then began writing part of a public brochure about the fisheries.

Writing was something she had wanted to do all her life. Her position as a biologist had given her opportunity to research and write. After work she could write using information she acquired from her research and she submitted her copy for publication. Rachel Carson wanted to write and now her position and knowledge in the sciences gave her something to write about. Before starting the project of writing Silent Spring, Carson had written three other books all about the sea which received great reviews. And her books spent a significant amount of time on the bestseller lists. From the mid 30’s to the early 40’s her essays were being published. Then in 1945 Carson became aware of DDT. She was interested and she wanted to write about it, but the publishers weren’t interested. Nothing she wrote about DDT was published until 1962.

Her success, in what is now the Fish and Wildlife Service, allowed for freedom in choosing her writing. Her manuscript for The Sea Around Us was completed in 1950. Sections of it appeared in various magazines and she received several awards. This second book was on the bestseller list for 86 weeks. With this publication and the republication of Under the Sea-Wind, which was also a bestseller, Carson was able to give up her job and start writing full time in 1952. In 1955, The Edge of the Sea was completed. The mid 50’s included more magazine articles and a plan for another book. But, her new interest, conservation, contributed to her abandonment of a book about evolution. Then in 1957 tragedy struck again. A niece died and Rachel Carson adopted her five year old son, Roger. At this time she was still caring for her mother.

It seems that with the new interest in conservation, insecticide spraying programs were of renewed interest to Carson. Also in 1957 the USDA headed up a program to eradicate the fire ant through aerial spraying of DDT. The fire ant had been in the country for almost 30 years and was not of significant concern. But now that all the WW2 militarily funded chemicals were prevalent, the fire ant—suspiciously—took on a threatening posture as far as the bureaucracies were concerned. This incident was instrumental in Carson’s choice to devote herself to the topic of pesticides. This was another in a series of catalysts sending her on a four year journey to complete Silent Spring. Carson attended FDA hearings on revising pesticide regulation in 1959. She came away discouraged. She witnessed first-hand how aggressive these companies could be and she heard testimony that was contrary to all the research she had done. She did research at the National Institute of Health library and was convinced there was a clear connection between pesticides and cancer.

By the time she was ready to start writing in 1960 her health failed and she was laid up for awhile. Ironically, just as she was completing a couple chapters on cancer she discovered lumps in her breast—she was told she needed a mastectomy. Soon after there were further complications in her life including worse news about her health—the cancer was malignant and had metastasized. The editing of Silent Spring was completed in 1962 and the book published.

Carson was deluged with requests for interviews and appearances but turned down most of them. She had been through a lot and had endured a lot from the tongues of the critics of her work. But beyond all that she was ill. She was taking radiation treatments through this period and at the time she was so weak her friend had to take her to and from the hospital. Perhaps if the people involved in her medical care had any notion of what this one woman had done they would have tried harder. Her book stirred interest all the way to the White House and stimulated some to act. Carson attended a congressional hearing and made a recommendation for an agency to be responsible for the condition of our environment.

Rachel Carson died in 1964, but what she started lives on in those who, like her, use their minds and try to live their conscience rather than their desires.

Carson credited her mother with instilling in her a love for the natural world. She was fortunate to live on a large farm and her mother spent time with her showing and telling her of the wonders of nature. At the time in her life when she decided to write her book on chemical pesticides she apparently was in need of a nudge. She had resisted writing this book as she believed there were others who could do better because of the subject matter. In fact she spent the better part of a year soliciting others to take on this task. She could find nobody. Then she got a call from a friend telling her that her bird sanctuary had been sprayed in a local aerial pesticide program and it was killing her birds. This appears to have been the impetus for her start in what probably was the most difficult period of her life.

When her book was released even the President was aware of it. It prompted him to act and set in motion congressional hearings and eventually agencies and laws. People all over the world have read her book and people are still reading it. There may be people who have broached topics of greater importance and affect than this, but if so, there aren’t many. Her legacy is so great that it may never dissipate as long as there are some intelligent, thinking people around. As long as there are some that aren’t blinded by greed or apathy, Rachel Carson’s contribution will be remembered. Her impact on the world is one of the greatest, but sadly it will never receive the attention and the adulation of the masses like that reserved for a movie or sports celebrity or even a popular fifteen year old singer. Truth is, this fact underscores the difficulty and futility of working with the collective mentality of the human species. Thankfully, it didn’t stop Rachel Carson.

“Rachel Carson made environmentalism respectable. Before Silent Spring nearly all Americans believed that science was a force for good. Carson’s work exposed the dark side of science. It showed that DDT and other chemicals we were using to enhance agricultural productivity were poisoning our lakes, rivers, oceans, and ourselves. Thanks to her, progress can no longer be measured solely in tons of wheat produced and millions of insects killed. Thanks to her, the destruction of nature can no longer be called progress.” ~Don Weiss.

As I studied Rachel Carson’s life, reading from many authors about the effects of her efforts, I soon realized that 46 years later she is still affecting us. What she set into motion continues today. No doubt, the problems were not solved in total. In fact the pollution problems have continued and increased; but it isn’t because we aren’t aware of what is going on. At least in her day people were naïve—we don’t have such excuses today!

Organic or Not?

Posted on February 22, 2017 by Pat Harris under Social Obligation

I recently read a report by Hannah Wooderson claiming the Food Standards Agency commissioned a review by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine on differences between organic and conventionally produced food. The report says:

‘Organic Food does not provide any significant nutritional or health benefits.’

It’s appalling to me that such things are stated and spread in our modern world—and then believed. We know way too much now to make this statement. To do so is to ignore a lot of information that has been available to us for some time. But this article is typical of how ‘bad information’ is spread. And in this particular case—how ‘destructive information’ is spread.

In the article there was a paragraph with a simple description of organic. “Organic farming, which focuses on protecting wildlife and the environment, means no artificial chemical fertilizers are used, pesticide use is restricted and animals are expected to be free range.” The article goes on to say eating organic has become increasingly popular in recent years, but “the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition appears to cast doubt on the potential benefits to people’s health from the method.”

In the beginning of the article three rather large names of institutions are thrown out creating the illusion of credibility—and it works to a certain degree. Then people’s names and quotes are given adding to the apparent credibility. But as you read on you notice this is thrown together with little snippets which don’t seem to work well together. A couple examples; “Without large-scale, longitudinal research, it is difficult to come to far-reaching clear conclusions on this.” To me, this is senseless—because without sufficient research and evidence, it is ‘impossible’ to come to ‘clear’ conclusions . . . period!

Another one is “Researchers looked for differences in content of nutrients and other substances in 3,558 comparisons but did not examine levels of contaminants such as pesticides.” From this it is clear they focused on something I haven’t looked for in organic food–nutrient comparison, and missed the most significant characteristic of organic in this study–chemicals. Finally “Our review indicated that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally-produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.” The flaw in this article is organic isn’t about nutritional difference—it’s about getting natural, uncontaminated, unadulterated food.

What is puzzling to me is that in cultures where a significant portion of the suffering and death relates to how we eat, that anyone would make negative comments about organics. Why would anyone care if a small percentage of society pays more and eats organic? “Organic sales account for over 4 percent of total U.S. food sales, according to recent industry statistics.” ~https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environment/organic-agriculture/organic-market-overview.aspx

This begs the question, ‘why would anyone want to do research on whether organic is better or not?’ I know these researchers didn’t pay for this out of their own pocket, so whose interest would be served by paying for this kind of research and then spreading this propaganda?

At lot of information was avoided in this article. And important points missed. To begin with ‘organic’ isn’t about nutritional content—it’s about the ‘process’ by which the food comes to our plates. Although, like they said in the article, there are some positive differences. If you research ‘organic’ you will find it’s about avoiding pesticides, it’s about avoiding GMO’s and sewer sludge (euphemistically called biosolids). It’s about not wanting our food radiated. Buying organic is about wanting good food without chemicals. And this is not for appearances; it’s about staying or getting healthy; avoiding doctors and hospitals. There is also a concern for the environment, the air we breathe and the water we drink, and being considerate of the animals that live on this planet with us. And finally, when a person buys organic it may be because they care about what kind of planet we are leaving for posterity.

When you read about sewer-sludge fertilizer you find that even those in favor of it know you can only put so much on the ground because it pollutes. There have been reports for decades now on the down side of using chemicals on our food. It’s bad enough these days that it even gets on TV news occasionally—which has to be pretty bad! It’s no secret that chemicals have ruined towns, ecosystems, and reproductive capacity. They tell us we are carrying 250 chemicals in our fat cells which don’t belong there. And recently we have learned that it is especially concentrated at the top of the food chain even as far north as one can travel. And I assure you there is a whole lot they don’t know and a lot they are not telling us about the detrimental effects of the conventionals way of producing food!

Are there significant health benefits for those buying organic food? Without relying on big names and quotes to try to give credibility to my view, I will suggest common sense and intelligence. I contend that if you don’t want your food grown in a field of sewer-sludge and you don’t want it bombarded with high intensity energy particles and you would like to avoid eating most of the popular chemicals on, it or in it, because you think these may be harmful to you and your family, you should consider ‘organic.’ If this isn’t enough to convince you and you want to know more—look up reports on the effects to humans, plants and animals of breathing, drinking and eating chemicals. Then read up on sewer-sludge and the problems it’s causing. Then look for the ‘true’ reasons for GMO’s. They tell you it is to make food for the whole world, but we are already throwing food away in ridiculous amounts. It’s about ‘power’; about gaining control of our food supply and it’s about lots of money for those who are in the position to benefit.

If you want more information—check history. See if there is any evidence that industry and government have at times been ignorant, deceptive, self-serving or just down-right liars. If you check it out you have a chance of forming a ‘clear conclusion.’ You sure don’t want to try to form any conclusions with articles like this one.

To Better Laws

Posted on February 19, 2017 by Pat Harris under Social Obligation

Would an intelligent, sophisticated body of people design and support a system which criminalizes, prosecutes and fines its good citizens? I hope you will excuse my cynicism in the first part of this story, but it does reflect the attitude I developed as this was happening. If you read through you will find there is a message to be gleaned from this story.

It’s 8:00 AM and my wife just called me. We aren’t usually out and about this early in the morning, but she had no choice; she’s a pawn in the criminal system now. Yeah—she’s a menace. I will probably have to register her and notify the neighbors. I don’t know how it happened or why— I guess she just snapped. There are differing versions of the story, that’s always the way you know, her version and the cop’s. My wife and I have been together for nearly a third of a century and she has always been an exemplary member of society and a wonderful, honest wife and a caring, compassionate individual. So I think I will side with her on this one.

Nearest I can gather, she was on a rampage in town. She had been to the library to check out some books and then went to the nursery—probably a front though; maybe she was trying to score. She had an extra $20 in her wallet when I was sneaking around in it; I think she had just sold her last crop. Hopefully the profit margin will get a little better in time. She’s not real bright; she has a few degrees from a local college and she has been designing graphics on computers for a couple decades. She has a home business, has always done the books for my business and has been published in a couple magazines. By the way, she’s an artist too. So maybe she isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed, if you know what I mean. Oh yeah, she has written and illustrated a children’s book she hopes to publish soon. Almost forgot, she had an almost perfect grade point average in college, 3.94 or so, she’s never been in jail, never drank and never smoked. But there must be something wrong with her because she was sucked in by the legal system. The cop who bagged this one must be mighty proud. I’ll bet if his kids knew he had brought this one down they would be the envy of the neighborhood.

I must say though, having been with her over thirty years I can find no faults, but fortunately for me—the cops saw through her facade. The all-knowing, infallible personnel in the traffic law system got her number; according to them she doesn’t know how to drive and she fibs. Either that or she thinks she is telling the truth but is so wigged out on something she can’t see straight; she doesn’t eat Twinkies so that won’t fly. Oh, I forgot to mention she had a little whiskey in a coke at her 21^st birthday party in 1979, someone else suggested it, but she didn’t like it so she doesn’t drink. She doesn’t take any prescriptions and doesn’t even take aspirin. What a trouble maker; surely a menace to society. You would think the police would have her behind bars by now. Well, they tried. She just got back from traffic court. They finally landed a big fish when they caught her. Boy-howdy the local ‘sheriff’ is probably still bragging.

Sorry, I was feeling quite facetious for a minute. Fact is she did just get back from court. And there is a less cynical version of the story I just told. And I am telling it because I think it is shameful the way people prey on each other. I find it hard to imagine that an intelligent society would allow the system to degenerate to the point it has. It is as though nobody cares about anybody and nobody cares about what anyone thinks about them. In this case my wife got to experience the more seamy side of humankind and the way our society works. The whole story has a stink about it, and I know there are stories which are much worse; but if we can’t deal with the simple stuff we surely don’t have a chance with the complex stuff. I have been around for over 60 years and I have seen some changes. I’m not saying everyone was wonderful when I was young, but I think it was a lot better than it is now. And we only have one place to put the blame—on people. Please don’t think for a moment I am naive enough to think a policeman has a pleasant job, but that shouldn’t give them license to be inconsiderate of any individual.

In this incident my wife was stopped and told she had not stopped at a stop sign. The exact description on the citation reads as follows ‘no stop at sign.’ It isn’t even clear what she was supposed to have done wrong. The description doesn’t discriminate between a California stop or completely ignoring or missing it and driving through at 25 miles per hour. But that didn’t seem to concern anyone in the system at all—which should have given us a clue what we were up against. My wife told the officer she thought she stopped, he said she didn’t—and wrote her a ticket. It makes me wonder, how the supervisors would know what the officers are doing with their time except for by how many citations they write. I admit I don’t know what pressures are put on police to issue citations, but I definitely think this must be one of the problems with the system. I mean it is a system that needs to produce income to cover expenses. I don’t know what the money goes to, but it really doesn’t matter to the point I am trying to make here. What bothers me is when it is forced from the good citizens of the community? The justice system, speaking of the traffic portion, has the same problem as the medical system, who in either system would want anything to change?

Now to my way of thinking my wife was unfortunate to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. I assume this officer probably thought she didn’t stop—I can’t imagine any decent person intentionally lying about something like this. But, someone was wrong. Could the twenty year police officer have been wrong? He was sitting in a car, in a parking lot, on the side street—at the intersection of a tee. Very simply, my wife was driving straight through and he was sitting perpendicular to the direction she was traveling. Sounds like a great vantage point for him, except for a couple things. I went to the parking lot where he was parked and the cold, hard fact is there is a row of hedges lining the parking lot. I could only see the top portion of the cars as they came into view from behind the building adjacent to the parking lot. If he looked away from that intersection for a few seconds she could have stopped at the sign; then proceeded, and it would have appeared to him she never stopped. Is it possible this officer never took his eyes off the intersection? Is it likely that at some time on his shift he would get something off the seat, look in a lunch bag, tune a radio, answer or make a phone call? Probably not, he probably stared at that intersection for the whole day. Does anyone believe that? Yep—the judge did.

It is unfortunate that in societies such as ours police are needed, but they are. Personally I know we are better off with police than without, but I also think there is room for improvement. I don’t know what the first people said when a police force was created, but I can imagine a group of intelligent people getting together today and creating a police force. I suspect they would develop it from the basic premise that the police should work toward ensuring safety for the citizens in the community. I assume this is the premise on which any police force should develop and operate. But my wife and I now realize that the activity of the police force includes extracting money from the ‘lawful’ citizens. There are probably some exceptions to who gets ticketed, but for the most part it seems the police write citations and the courts collect fines—just run us through and get what they can. Feels like one of those sci-fi’s where helpful robots are built and they get too powerful and take over.

It continues in the courtroom. One of the first things the judge said to the whole group was 99.9% of the time he sides with the officers; does anyone want to change their plea? The hands went up—he excused them—they paid the fines. My wife opted to stay—as we should. If you think you have been unjustly charged with doing something wrong—say your piece. If there are officers who really are being abusive, or incompetent, it will eventually become evident in court—I hope.

I was shocked, as was my wife, when a judge in an American court would tell everyone they had a tenth of one percent of a chance of getting a fair hearing. The judge stood there making the point that he was heavily biased. It was apparent by the hands going up that a lot of people understood they could not get a fair hearing in that court by that judge? Unbelievably, that is the way it happened.

In my opinion the first thing that went wrong was the officer could have ‘easily’ checked my wife’s driving record and determined she is a law abiding citizen. He could have ‘easily’ said you need to make sure you stop completely at the signs and then recorded a written warning. This warning could then appear on the driving record for 2-5 years and if at any time an officer had concerns about the way she stops, or doesn’t, he or she could—with social impunity—issue a citation. Sure the officer had impunity, but that was legal impunity. But when one human is abusive to another they are in violation of a greater obligation–to each other.

Why would an employee of a legal system designed by good, law abiding citizens issue a citation at the first possible hint of an error? In his conversation with my wife the officer even referred to it as a California stop. So it’s obvious she didn’t just run through it. He even went so far as to tell her he occasionally does the same thing. How do you give a citation to someone for doing the same thing you do? I couldn’t do this to anyone. Certainly this would produce an unhealthy level of cognitive dissonance for the police officer. Unfortunately this doesn’t tell the whole story—we have mechanisms for shutting down our moral barometers when we have to do things which are morally objectionable. This isn’t necessarily good though because we then become unnaturally detached from our humanity.

That violation may not have hurt that officer then, but it may. According to psychologists we are adversely affected with cognitive dissonance when we have to act in ways which are not in accord with the way we feel. Furthermore that action and the impression it left on my wife and I will have a small effect on the evolution of society. People that abuse the system, and other people, must not realize that in time the people in their own families will be affected similarly, by abuse. They must not realize that when you treat enough people improperly it is going to come back around; literally. Do we not have a society which tends to be unfriendly? Maybe, just maybe there is a connection. The old law of cause and effect is unforgiving. My wife and I both have a different opinion of the system now and it will always affect how we perceive the people in the traffic system and what we have to say about them.

Unfortunately it is not unusual to get lost in the details when one focuses tightly on anything. But once the big picture is lost, once the attention is only on the letter of the law and not on the intent, a person has lost sight of a higher purpose. The emphasis then, in the case of traffic officers, shifts from helping create a safe environment for everyone to—writing tickets—period!

I wrote this because I hope some people will be reminded what being a member of society means. We should remember and consider that when we are born into a society we inherit an implicit contractual responsibility. All mature, responsible people have an obligation to society through this ‘social contract.’ This contract is easily understood when paraphrased as follows ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ In order to live successfully and comfortably in a society, cooperation and consideration are essential. Some think of this as reciprocity. Now I know not all people accept such responsibility, but fortunately there’s only a small percentage who abuse this obligation—and there is nothing easily done about this. But for the majority, who are reasonable and really desire a decent society for their loved ones, I think this is well worth considering. Even if some people don’t care if they live in a reasonable society I would think they would strive for one for the sake of their loved ones. I have often wondered how people who are destructive to society and the environment justify their actions when they have families. Corporations poison water, air, food, humans and animals; companies pilfer millions from working families; bureaucracies marginalize the citizenry who give legitimacy to their existence; leaders promote wars, etc. What happened to my wife isn’t as bad as these examples, but the common thread is lack of respect and compassion for fellow humans who deserve it.

I acknowledge that being on the police forces must be tough. I can’t imagine having to face that every day; I am glad there are people who choose to do so. I do want to thank the good police officers who are out there. But I want to make the point that there is a segment of society which responds well to being treated with respect. A few years ago I was pulled over for not having my lights on in a daytime lights area. The officer said he would let it go if I would do my best to turn my lights on. I now remember to turn them on every time because of his consideration and courtesy. I literally feel that I owe more to him than the law.

Just a thought, the laws are made to regulate our actions, but more importantly, we must regulate ourselves by the law we understand to be superior—Do unto others . . . !

Social Institutions

Posted on November 18, 2016 by Pat Harris under Ethics, Human Nature, Social Obligation

Do we legitimize harmful social institutions? It appears we do! And if we want humankind to improve, and plan to do anything about it, we must understand the forces which allow this. I contend there are harmful social institutions in our cultures and we unnecessarily legitimize them by enacting them; then teach our children to do the same. Since I have a strong innate aversion to harm, particularly to my family, it is my goal to identify harmful social institutions and consider some of the forces which may impinge on our capacity to do better than we have to dismantle them. Fact is, our predecessors cultivated, and we support and cultivate our irrational social institutions. Through the generations we have carried forward myth, superstition and plain old wrong answers from times when there were no better answers. I want to consider why we legitimize our faulty institutions and try to understand to what extent we are to blame for their continuing existence. By the conclusion of this commentary I hope to understand a little more about why we knowingly do harm to ourselves and our families.

For my purpose, a social institution and cultural institution means the same: “a complex of positions, roles, norms and values lodged in particular types of social structures and organising relatively stable patterns of human activity with respect to fundamental problems in producing life-sustaining resources, in reproducing individuals, and in sustaining viable societal structures within a given environment.” ~Jonathan Turner.

We create our institutions and support them; in turn our institutions create and support us. This cycle can be, and is, a harmful cycle! Around the world there are many social institutions supported and passed along in many cultures, generation to generation. Although many of these institutions seem fairly benign, some are nothing less than hurtful; disfiguring, crippling, sometimes dehumanizing—and even lethal. In different places and different times it’s easy to be critical of the more blatant forms of harmful cultural practices: female genital mutilation, male circumcision rituals, honor killing, body scarring, foot binding, chipping children’s teeth, living in castes, etc. Ancient evidence of some of these practices is found in studies of mummies and cave paintings. The longevity of these cultural/social institutions attests to the tenacity and power they have over our lives—even when ineffably cruel. These institutions make sense to the people in the cultures which practice them because they were enculturated with them; enculturated beliefs don’t have to be rational. Those outside the culture are not, therefore, able to understand in the same way—perhaps, not at all.

At the same time, the populations in the developed world, which generally don’t participate in such blatantly harmful behaviors—any more, seem no less guilty of doing harm to themselves and their children than are those in Africa or Asia who perpetuate the more blatant, egregious social institutions. But to judge them this way will be perceived by some as ethnocentric.

So, how do we fare here in one of the more developed countries of the world? Well, we support, with the way we live, the notions of; class, racism, genderism, speciesism, conferred vocation and education status, importance of cultural identity and many other constructs which are demeaning, hurtful and counterproductive to a good life. These are examples of tacit culture, things we do but don’t necessarily understand or explain; contributing to our difficulties. The worrisome component is the lack of critical thinking with regard to the seemingly benign artifacts from days gone by, as this may therefore also be absent when it comes to overtly harmful practices.

Our everyday actions support a culture which has strongly stratified its society; providing opulent lifestyles for a very small minority, a life of daily toil for most and a miserable existence, or death, for way too many—not to mention the burden to the planet. But we are taught to believe this is the way it should be. From my point of view the socio-economic institutions responsible for this are flawed in many ways and do critical damage to our species and everything else on the planet. But—our society continues to participate as if we approve; generation after generation.

As we listen to those adversely affected by the poor economic conditions we should feel some empathy because it can happen to anyone at any time; any of us! But, conspicuously missing from all pleas for better economic conditions is a critical judgment of what’s going on. Yes, people get critical, but they get critical of the wrong things; the president or foreign countries or immigrants or the American corporations which are moving and leaving us high and dry. But I don’t hear any putting the blame where it belongs—on us! We are the ones, generation after generation, who perpetuate the thoughts and actions which cause the conditions we are complaining about.

The Free Market is one example. When asking, ‘would you prefer a Planned Market over what we have’ the typical response is ‘NO’. But consider what is being asked. Would a market being operated by intellect and need be better than one operated by desire and greed? That’s over simplified for sure, but sufficiently accurate for my point. We have been taught and we support the status quo—even when people are being evicted from their homes, sick, jobless and scared. In this country, outside philosophical circles, it’s taboo to talk about the benefits of a planned economy. Why? We are guilty, we support harmful social constructs, and then we teach our children to participate fully and to teach their children to do the same. Why don’t we want to engage in this conversation?

Another of our social constructs which surely must come under the heading of harmful is the typical American diet. We are taught to eat a particular way in the U.S, which is reinforced in the schools, grocery stores, the media, restaurants, hospitals, etc. The American diet is now recognized as a significant contributor to the health problems in this country—expanding into the world. Medical science has been telling us that over half the deaths from the leading killers; cardiovascular disease, cancer and stroke are related to improper diet.

“Seven out of ten deaths among Americans each year are from chronic diseases; with heart disease, cancer and stroke accounting for more than 50% of all deaths each year.” “Four modifiable health risk behaviors—lack of physical activity, poor nutrition, tobacco use, and excessive alcohol consumption—are responsible for much of the illness, suffering, and early death related to chronic diseases.” ~ Center for Disease Control website. It has been stated by the American Cancer Society that the overall costs for cancer related illnesses alone, is $104 billion a year in the U.S.

A National Research Council survey revealed that 90% of the poultry from federally-inspected plants were contaminated with salmonellosis. A 1987 study by the Federal Center for Disease Control, reported in the New England Journal of Medicine, the salmonella thriving in the factory farms are increasingly resistant to antibiotics, they are also not all killed by most forms of cooking. The fact is, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, as much as 70% of the antibiotics in this country are used to fatten animals for slaughter, which is contributing to antibiotic resistance; and is putting all of us further into harm’s way. Should this be enough to cause us to change our ways?

The American diet is also responsible for severe damage to the environment, which is taking its toll on us—in fact on the world. Huge amounts of wastes are dumped into our lives because of the production and consumption of animal products. This practice is extremely inefficient and contributes many pathogens to our lives. Sixteen pounds of grain are required to produce one pound of beef; the 16 pounds of grain will feed a lot more people than one pound of beef. Furthermore, the grain is less likely to be contaminated with pathogens and is easier to store. Plants are much more efficient food sources—without the enormous destruction caused bringing it to market. Ten billion land animals are raised and slaughtered in the U.S. yearly. This contributes millions of tons of pollution in terms of greenhouse gasses and solid wastes. Animals create 130 times more waste than humans; 15,000,000 pounds per minute, and we have no treatment process for it, so it ends up in our water, air and land. Over half our fresh water is used in the production of animals and with the threat of water shortages in the next 15 to 20 years, this is another very conspicuous warning we seem to be able to ignore—so far. Apparently this hasn’t changed us either!

Speaking for the interests of animals, science is finally getting on the same page with compassionate animal owners; now admitting animals are more like us than we were told just a few decades ago. They have nervous systems; feel pain, joy and fear and they recognize faces—even their own. And some researchers have shown that animal primates are just as offended by inequality as humans. But, animals are treated by most as if they have no right to be on the planet other than to serve us. This is the same attitude taken toward slavery by slavers. They were wrong about slavery! I wonder if someday people will look back at our time as a barbaric time in humankind’s history as well?

Not too long ago those of similar ilk as Descartes treated animals as if they were automatons; without feeling of any sort. If the animals cried out when they inflicted terrible injuries on them they claimed it was merely a mechanical response. Now researchers tell us about the human-like characteristics and behaviors of animals which lead toward the very obvious notion—they have the same types of drives and feelings causing their behaviors as we do.

Chickens form friendships and social hierarchies, recognize one another, develop a pecking order, and even have cultural knowledge that is passed between generations. According to researchers, cows enjoy mental challenges and feel excitement when they use their intellect to overcome an obstacle. Dr. Donald Broom, a professor at Cambridge University, says when cows figure out a solution to a problem, “The brainwaves showed their excitement; their heartbeat went up and some even jumped into the air. We called it their Eureka moment.” (Opposing Views.com)

The animal production industry is harmful to everything it touches—to our health, to the planet and to posterity—not to mention all the animals. Still, according to a survey by the Vegetarian Resource Group in 2008, vegetarianism is the lifestyle of only about three percent of the population. Even with all which is known about the deleterious effects of the typical American diet to us, to posterity, to the planet and to the animals; the same dietary lifestyle choice is passed along—generation after generation. Evidently this is still not enough to deter us from a harmful institution!

Most of us are routinely adversely affected by myriad forms of corruption, incompetence, greed and more—even to the point of destruction and death. This damage is attributable to the institutions we have developed, and worse—support. The emphasis on financial excess and competition, the incessant striving for status (of any kind) the bias toward beauty and intelligence, the tendency to discriminate and dominate, are some of the by-products of our social institutions which also encourage corruption, greed, violence, dishonesty and more. Yet we encourage our children to join the fray, pursue the dream, to play by the unspoken rules, thereby supporting the institutions which validate these negative traits and exploit our populations.

The American socio/economic paradigm elicits negative traits in our societies; yet the majority of our populations go through the motions everyday as if everything is as it should be. While we are critical of some of the negative aspects of our cultural institutions, usually only the ones which affect us personally (our bank accounts) as a group we support and teach our children to support the status quo. And if anyone criticizes society for all our problems, society will consider him, or her, a pessimist—at least. So, it seems there is no doubt, we legitimize harmful institutions every day, in every way.

Is it true of us? Are we actually knowingly harming ourselves and our children because of our choices? Considering some of the evidence, the truth of this seems unavoidable; but it is typical for most people to resist this notion at first glance, but out of ignorance—as this is contrary to what we are taught. In the enculturation process we acquire a social identity and this identity is given to us based on what others think more than on what we think. It is a destructive social construct in that we then try to live our lives according to it, and in spite of it—instead of finding out who we are. We spend too much of our lives struggling with self image in a culture which perverts the sense of self and one’s identity in society. Some people are unnecessarily embarrassed and some overly proud of heritage, nationality, race, gender, education, vocation, neighborhood, possessions—right on down to the length of the fingernails for some people.

To understand how it is possible that we can, and do, participate in our own harm we must learn a little more about the effects of our nature, culture, beliefs and free-will. Do we really not understand what we are doing to ourselves and our families? It’s hard to imagine that we could understand—then continue down the same path. But it’s just as hard to imagine that with all the information available that we could not know.

How does our nature affect our judgment? Consider one of our innate traits; survival.

Because every brain activity serves a fundamental survival purpose, the only way to accurately understand any brain function is to examine its value as a tool for survival. Even the difficulty of successfully treating such behavioral disorders as obesity and addiction can only be understood by examining their relationship to survival. Any reduction in caloric intake or in the availability of a substance to which an individual is addicted is always perceived by the brain as a threat to survival. As a result the brain powerfully defends the overeating or the substance abuse, producing the familiar lying, sneaking, denying, rationalizing, and justifying commonly exhibited by individuals suffering from such disorders.”(Gregory Lester)

So the brain is hard wired for survival! Unfortunately this seems to cause some negative side effects for us, in our relatively modern world.

Consider some of the problems introduced by culture; culture being, the learned and shared knowledge that people use to generate behavior and interpret experience. Our culture defines us, as our culture is the pattern we are modeled after. Much of our cultural knowledge is tacit, subconsciously contracted; but once established, tacit or explicit—culture informs our thoughts and actions. So if we learn that eating animals at every meal is correct or that a capitalist economy is fair enough for our society or female genital mutilation is good for our sisters and daughters, this is what we will believe. Unfortunately, this is what we will do—and we will defend it. We live and make decisions based on these ideals—right or wrong!

What effect do beliefs have? How important are our beliefs in the decision making process? Well, people are willing to die for their beliefs. Our beliefs are at times so much a part of who we are we can’t let go of them even when confronted with contravening evidence.

Belief works like the blinders they put on a horse to keep it from spooking. Belief makes reality less spooky for us, which affords us a degree of emotional and psychological comfort. However, believing that things are a certain way has the unintended consequence of preventing us from seeing them as they might really be. The more emotionally addicted to a particular belief, the less able we are to consider anything else. Of course, we easily recognize such obsessive blind-spots in those whose beliefs are false. Remarkably, we are unable to see how this parallels our own true beliefs. Why? Emotional dependence is profoundly blind. Dependence has this same effect, whether it is an addiction to alcohol, love, food, drugs or beliefs. Indeed, beliefs may be the strongest of all addictions. (www.centertao.org)

The brain utilizes some form of a “framework” or “worldview” against which data is evaluated and collected. This worldview or “belief system” would consist of data drawn from experience that represents our subjective sense of the world around us. It doesn’t necessarily have to be factually correct, but it does need to be operational. In addition, the rejection of another’s data is not simply stubbornness, since the resistance to change would be an important element of human survival. Such resistance would ensure that data had to be overwhelmingly convincing before we would risk our survival knowledge on a new piece of information.(Adam Gerhard)

As part of our survival mechanism our beliefs are not going to change easily. “Beliefs are not supposed to change easily or simply in response to disconfirming evidence. Our caveman would not last long if his belief in potential dangers in the jungle evaporated every time his sensory information told him there was no immediate threat.” (Skeptical Inquirer)

We must also consider free-will when trying to understand why we legitimize harmful social institutions. There are some who believe we have no free will and some who believe our free will cannot be limited. The arguments on this subject have been with humankind for thousands of years at least, and the answers still aren’t clear; but with the advances based in philosophy and science we must be getting closer to truth. One explanation for the origins of our thoughts and intentions, is “they just arrive” and “we won’t know what we intend until the intention pops into our mind” ~ Sam Harris.

The model of decision making I am proposing has the following feature: when we are faced with an important decision, a consideration-generator whose output is to some degree undetermined produces a series of considerations, some of which may of course be immediately rejected as irrelevant by the agent (consciously or unconsciously). Those considerations that are selected by the agent as having a more than negligible bearing on the decision then figure in a reasoning process, and if the agent is in the main reasonable, those considerations ultimately serve as predictors and explicators of the agent’s final decision.(Daniel Dennett)

Considering the testimony of experts I conclude that we appear to have some control, but we may not be as free as we have been taught. “Man is free to do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills.” ~ A. Schopenhauer. The evidence seems to be mounting for the idea that we have some control, but we are at the same time; our thoughts, intentions and choices, subject to laws of natural cause and effect and physical processes at the level of the brain which are not yet fully understood. So it seems we have some limitations!

From this one can ascertain that our physiology and psychology can destroy, at least dampen, the reasoning, logical processes of the mind. And certainly if our belief systems are as dominating as it seems they are, and our ability to make free choices is tempered by other factors, biological and cultural, then change may prove to be difficult, perhaps impossible for some—even when faced with the possibility of disaster. Even—when we know we are doing wrong!

Who’s to Blame?

This phenomenon of the human mind coupled with the haphazard evolution of cultures and their overriding effects on our decision processes, allows us to pass our harmful institutions and practices from generation to generation; perhaps not culpably aware of just how harmful some of our beliefs and behaviors are, but certainly not ignorant enough to avoid carrying some blame for our actions—or inactions.

At this time in human history; we know better than appearances let on, and we may be at the precipice. If the predictions for mid century are partially forthcoming I feel sorry for those who have to experience life in such worsened conditions; and I feel shame because we are partly to blame for the problems our children will face. It seems we have reached the time when we have to take responsibility for our choices and actions—the next generations are dependent on us. We have blamed the gods and our genes for our behaviors up to now, but this isn’t sufficient anymore. It’s time for us to take charge of our evolution!

Death Penalty

Posted on October 17, 2016 by Pat Harris under Culture, Social Obligation

I oppose the death penalty. But I don’t oppose it in principle; there are behaviors for which it seems some should be put to death. I do oppose it in practice though; for three reasons. First, it costs more to use the death penalty than life without parole. Second, there is the well known chance of error. We surely don’t want to punish an innocent person and even more don’t want to execute anyone who doesn’t deserve it. Third, something that doesn’t get attention; even in the most ideal circumstance where there would be no chance of error, we should not use the death penalty. In a case in which everyone knows the accused is guilty, the accused admits it, there are no unanswered questions and the criminal is competent and completely responsible for his/her actions, there is a problem . . . and this problem may be insurmountable. It is the effect that implementing the death penalty has on the non-criminal members of society. So hypothetically, there could be circumstances in which I would say a person should be put to death. In principle I would admit it’s right, but in practice I could not support its implementation because of the damaging effects to those participating in the deed.

I want to preface this exploration by saying, I respect the fact that a person who has personally experienced the trauma of crime will have a view that others will not, and cannot, have. I am not trying to take away from or diminish the feelings of any victim of crime or any desire for retribution. I would just like to present some points for consideration as our society has and will continue to wrestle with the ethics of this matter. How we collectively deal with the death penalty has a direct bearing on people’s lives, both the ethical and the criminal in our society. And if it’s not obvious in my writing, I’m not trying to defend the properly convicted criminal. I am trying to defend the innocent—on both sides of the law. The bottom line being, wrong choices in this matter are disastrous. As it stands now, when errors are made, innocent lives may be ruined. And even if there were no errors in convicting and punishing criminals, innocent lives would still be damaged.

I am strongly convinced, based on justice, fairness and cost, we can reach and maintain the goal of the justice system without the death penalty; therefore without the risk of executing an innocent person and without burdening the good people in society with such an egregious task. Furthermore, eliminating capital punishment would eliminate the additional expense of billions of dollars as the conviction process is even more critical.

Maimonides said “It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent man to death.” I think we can take that one notch higher by not requiring the good citizens of our communities to participate in the death penalty process.

Most likely we all agree on one thing, the horrible crimes some people commit are beyond our capacity to comprehend. The thought of these revolt and sicken a normal person. Just hearing about them has scarred some of us for life. Consequently, to consider the elimination of the death penalty is asking a lot, from anyone. But this is one of those things we really need to get right.

Emotion plays a big part in our reaction to violent crime; as retribution does to our judgment of what should be done about it. To rationally examine such an emotional subject is difficult. To do this we must consider, detached from the emotional component of violent crime, the goal of the penal system. I hope to explore this subject with sufficient objectivity to determine if we are doing the right thing when executing another. In light of the fact, innocent fellow humans are convicted and executed; we must continue to address this flaw in our society until it is corrected. Lives depend on it!

This is a complex issue. In fact so much so that only recently are we able to begin to grasp the complexity. Even now in the 21^st century the factors affecting the commission of a crime and those affecting the proper resolution of a conviction are just barely on the radar screen. Once upon a time it was easy. If someone did something the majority, or those in power didn’t like . . . they were killed. In fact you could kill them any way you chose. As ‘fair’ punishment for crimes people have been: skinned, flayed, burned, boiled, drawn, pressed, drowned, eaten, beheaded . . . you get the idea. There seems no end to what humans will think up and inflict on others in the quest for justice, perhaps more to the point—retribution.

Also beyond my capacity to understand is the way people have historically acted about executions, and gruesome sights in general. Exactly what is being revealed about the minds of some people when you consider the ambiance created by complete strangers gathering to see someone executed? Or what should we think of those who choose to be and are executioners? It may be very revealing for psychologists to study some of these aspects of human nature.

It wasn’t until well into the Age of Reason that our attitudes regarding the death penalty started changing significantly. And it is only in the last few hundred years that the idea of long term incarceration in prison as punishment developed. Prior to this development, jails were more of a temporary holding area where people were detained until trial or execution. In those days not only was it easy, it was cheap. Exorbitant cost in the justice system is relatively new.

The changes in attitude in the last couple centuries toward criminals and punishment have realized improvements in the penal system. There is a lot to do yet, but we have climbed up from what appears to me to have been a cesspool of demented, superstitious, black-hearted pseudo-humans. Incidentally this string of adjectives isn’t describing the criminals, but those exacting horrible atrocities under the guise of justice, law and religion.

Today it costs a lot more to manage a death penalty homicide case than a non-death penalty case, and this is due to human diligence, within and without the system, trying to eliminate irredeemable errors. The proportionally greater cost for maintaining the death penalty, assuming the needs of the justice system may be met without it, affords sufficient justification for abolishing the death penalty. In researching this part of this subject it appears that 1 to 1.5 million dollars per execution is common, with some going much higher. A death penalty case contrasted with the cost of a LWOP (life without parole) case is as much as 70% more. With over 3200 people on death row in the U.S. this quickly becomes billions of dollars that could be put toward much better use. But this is strictly a financial consideration by which one could reasonably justify abolishing the death penalty. Since some people think that retribution is justifiable regardless of the exorbitant cost, I will explore the question from a moral perspective.

Some of the important questions I hope to answer in this essay are: What is justice in a case of criminal homicide? What does the notion of justice demand of us; and what does ethical propriety allow us? Once we identify the answers to these questions, we can answer the question this essay is concerned with:

Should we abolish the death penalty?

In my quest to find the ‘right’ answers to this question I have read other’s arguments. Some of these are well articulated defenses of the death penalty. They contain the arguments of deterrence, justice and retribution. I understand these terms and had the typical attitude toward the death penalty before I started thinking very much about this subject.

An article that I read most recently was by a judge and it was quite convincing on an emotional level. He gave specific instances of gruesome crimes in meticulous detail. No doubt this works on a lot of people. Unfortunately, it is all the emotion stimulating information many people need to be convinced, even on matters of such importance that errors may cost innocent people their lives. Fact is, this style of argumentation stirs my emotions, but it is most important to try to consider this objectively. His method of argumentation fell mostly on the persuasion end of the argumentation spectrum, its goal to convince the audience. But with persuasion, it doesn’t matter if there is truth or if it is good for humanity. In this mode of argumentation a person is successful when they have convinced their audience of their perspective—period.

Here’s some I thought inadvertently, articulated how much dominion emotion has in this arena. “The rule of law does not eliminate feelings of outrage, but does provide controlled channels for expressing such feelings. As the Supreme Court has recognized, society has withdrawn, both from the victim and the vigilante the enforcement of criminal laws, but [it] cannot erase from people’s consciousness the fundamental, natural yearning to see justice done—or even the urge for retribution.” The urge for retribution is emotional, very emotional. It is the emotion-driven desire that someone be punished for perceived wrong-doing. And it is because of this very strong emotional response that we must use our intellect to properly control our actions regarding the administration of justice. The second one. As Professor Walter Berns has explained: “In a country whose principles forbid it to preach, the criminal law is one of the few available institutions through which it can make a moral statement …. To be successful, what it says—and it makes this moral statement when it punishes—must be appropriate to the offense and, therefore, to what has been offended. If human life is to be held in awe, the law forbidding the taking of it must be held in awe; and the only way it can be made awful or awe inspiring is to entitle it to inflict the penalty of death. This one decries the judgment of the thinkers in this country who choose not to mix religion and law. It seems readily evident that we would not benefit from a Pentecostal government using biblical texts to discern right from wrong to administer justice. It doesn’t take much imagination to figure out what the consequences of this could be.

There’s no doubt, if we make our choices from an emotional level we will have the death penalty. And from an emotional position it would then be easy to justify the most horrific techniques for killing violent criminals just as slowly as we can. But there is a problem with this notion; we have the ability to think rationally. And we need to continue to get better at it if we have any hopes of a better culture for ourselves and posterity.

My preferred method of argumentation is nearer the opposite end of the argumentation spectrum—truth seeking. The best goal is always to arrive at the truth. In this mode I am successful when I have tested my beliefs against relevant information. I am not trying to convince anyone . . . except myself. For this reason I encourage argumentation about life’s important issues; it forces me to evaluate my beliefs. I am glad to consider other ‘truths’ in the process of trying to find whatever is closest to the actual truth, and I invite others to do likewise.

The death penalty has been around since the early days. There is record of it from at least Draco’s time, around 621 BCE. Apparently Draco was an ardent fan of the death penalty and applied it to pretty much all crimes, hence the term draconian. Proponents will suggest that the death penalty has some credibility just because it has been around throughout history (appeal to tradition) and most people have supported it. But the fact that it has been around for a long time has absolutely no bearing on whether it is right or whether we should maintain it.

We have responsibility to the present as well as the future. Bad or delayed choices now surely hurt these generations, but will also have detrimental effects on those coming. So, what is our responsibility to justice?

There is a lot to get right in a criminal case, and a lot that can go wrong. In capital cases this is even more so. When considering justice various facets are deemed important: retribution, rehabilitation, restoration, incapacitation and deterrence. Some of these are modern ideas (rehabilitation) and some ancient (retribution). The question before us is whether the death penalty is a legitimate choice for today’s population. So a major theme for this essay is ‘How do we best serve justice?” I want to consider this and more. There are facets of the justice system which aren’t accepted the same way they used to be e.g. retribution. And there are facets which just don’t seem to be considered at all e.g. what capital punishment does to the good people functioning as part of the system; employees, jurors, etc. In order to decide objectively whether the death penalty is right one must consider the goal of the justice system and the best way to accomplish that goal. Justice, by dictionary definition, must be considered from a moral perspective as well as a legal one. ‘Administration of the law; moral rightness.’ My goal, and my plan, is to cover enough of the subject matter to make my point—so I will not try to cover all aspects of justice or all of the facets of the death penalty.

In a death penalty case it must first be determined whether the suspect has committed the crime. And if so, it has to be decided to what degree the suspect would be responsible for his or her actions. Then the appropriate consequence of the crime would have to occur to satisfy the five facets mentioned previously: retribution, rehabilitation, restoration, incapacitation and deterrence, of meeting out justice.

Just as important, we need to consider what society needs to get out of this process. First, we want to know we’re doing the right thing. We also need to feel a sense of safety. And we need to know we’re improving the present and the future for those we want to protect. Then, we would want to get on with our lives.

Finally, we have to ask if society has any responsibility for the behaviors of these criminals—and if so what we need to change. The United States is at the top of the list for homicides in the world. Some claim there are reasons for this: poverty, prejudice, ignorance, violent entertainment, consumerism, drugs, alcohol, diet and many more. Considering this, if we really want to improve, we will need to remedy the flaws in these conditions.

Each of these are important points in a just society. And as we consider whether the death penalty should be abolished, each point, being integral to the success of the process, bears on this question.

WHAT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO THE ACCUSED?

Properly determining a person’s innocence or guilt is paramount. If this can’t be done then any decisions based on this part of the process are suspect, in fact not legitimate. Anything that jeopardizes the integrity of this part of the criminal justice system renders it all ineffective. And there are plenty of obstacles to getting this part right:

Mistaken eyewitness testimony
Coerced verdicts, false concordance
Inadequate legal representation
Police and prosecutorial misconduct
Perjured testimony
Prejudice
Suppression and/or misinterpretation of mitigating evidence
Community/political pressure to solve a case

At this stage of the criminal justice process errors start costing innocent people their lives. The statistics indicate that the error rate is significant. And when you consider the possibility of executing an innocent person, one mistake is too much. There have been approximately 138 people released from prison since 1973 because of exonerating DNA evidence. This doesn’t bode well for the way people have been prosecuted in the past. This leaves us with another troubling fact—there are a lot of people in prison who can’t be helped because there is no biological evidence in their cases. It also forces us to ask, how many of the cases tried without biological evidence are incorrect? And . . . how many innocent people have died because of errors in the process? DNA tests will no doubt make the results of trials better, but cases which have biological evidence are the small minority.

I realize there is a dilemma here that has to be the source of indescribable frustration, anguish, and anger. That is, when not able to adequately prove guilt—having to release someone who may be guilty. This comes down to trashing the rights of society in favor of the rights of an individual. This is surely one of those ineffable situations—anguish and anger just don’t get it, but the philosophical position which seems to make the most sense is to support the rights of the individual. No reasonable human being wants an innocent person to suffer, so this must be done right.

In a study by Wells (1998) they examined the first 40 cases in which DNA exonerated wrongfully convicted people. Mistaken eyewitness identification played a major role in 90% of these cases. Ninety percent! That is almost every case in this particular sample. Interestingly, as far back as 1896 psychologist Albert Von Schrenk-Notzing claimed that a witness testifying about a crime would not be able to sufficiently distinguish between what they had seen and what had been reported in the press.

Today’s science admits of cognitive errors in the trial process. A study (cited in Loftus and Doyle, 1992) recorded verdicts in mock trials with two separate sets of jurors. They each heard evidence differing only in the presence, or not, of an eyewitness. With no eyewitness, 18% of jurors found guilty verdicts. With an eyewitness the guilty verdicts increased to 72%. From this example it is evident that jurors, and others, give unprecedented credibility to eyewitness accounts. And this is easy to understand when considering the circumstance. A witness, presumed to have pertinent knowledge and sworn to truth, responds to questions . . . albeit questions specifically designed to suit a particular purpose. Whether the line of questioning is designed to clear or designed to condemn the suspect—you can be sure the witness is being steered—just exactly where the questioner wants the witness, and the jurors, to go. Add to this the fact that people don’t naturally want the responsibility of making important decisions and you can be sure the outcome will be somewhat tainted—at least.

Psychologists have demonstrated that even educated people will knowingly answer incorrectly when it is apparent their (correct) response will be rejected in a particular situation. Experiments have shown intelligent people freely giving wrong answers when those before them gave the correct answers, but were told they were incorrect. This was only under the minimal pressure of university experiments, nothing like a criminal trial.

Is it possible to avoid bias when the suspect is accused of criminal activity by people, presumably interested in justice? Is it possible to avoid prejudice when the accused is from a different group: race, nationality or ethnicity? Once someone is charged with a crime can anyone avoid being prejudiced by that charge? It is plain the deck is somewhat stacked to begin with.

I should take a minute here to admit that if I were to have the unfortunate experience of losing someone to a violent crime I suspect I would vote for the death penalty and would want to be the executioner. But this doesn’t take anything away from the argument to abolish the death penalty. In those conditions my desire to slowly torture the criminal would be understandable. But I also suspect that if that were to happen I would, subject to strong emotions, have created my own terrible memories and the experience would have altered me in a way that would not be beneficial to me or society. I think it is reasonable to support this notion with fact that many come home from the military permanently damaged by what they have seen, and most importantly, according to psychologists, by what they have done. But the fact is I would be responding from an emotional place. This response wouldn’t even require thinking as I suspect it would take place at a level of mental processing which does not engage rational, controlled thought.

The fact that I would want to be the executioner is why we need to resolve the controversy over the death penalty. The situation is further complicated by the fact that some people have been scarred by violence and their perception of right and wrong is probably, likewise, scarred regarding decisions about punishment. And there are people making decisions about punishment who have not experienced the indescribable trauma that comes from being a victim. So how can we hope to ever reach a reasonable decision in how to manage this part of living in a world where awful things occur?

If we don’t believe a normal person is capable of beating an old person to death just for fun, then we have to admit, those who do so must be abnormal.

Once a person is convicted of a crime we must know whether the convicted individual was sufficiently, in the sense that a normal person would be, responsible for their action. Perhaps the consensus is that a criminal needs to die for what they did and we just don’t care about why. But if we do care about why, if we realize that it could be someone we care about being tried for a crime, then we need to find the correct answers.

The general notion has been that everyone, except for the very obvious exceptions, is responsible for their choices. So what about those with abnormal intelligence or abnormal morality? Should they be held to the same standards as those considered normal (the majority)? Environment, genetics and free will are all variables influencing the problems we must overcome regarding crime, particularly violent crime.

When dealing with criminal behavior, societies have proceeded from the assumption that people are completely responsible for their actions and deserve to pay for their violations of law and morality and thereby, based their penal systems on this assumption. But science seems to be confirming what some have suggested, that some people are incapable of understanding and controlling their horrific behaviors. If this is true we must decide how to deal with those who don’t fit into a reasonable definition of culpable with regards to their actions.

To avoid any misunderstandings about what I am saying, my position is—I want criminals out of society. I am just arguing that we need to change how we deal with them. As more is learned about the factors affecting a person’s ability or inability to discern, or do right or wrong, it is evident the system needs considerable change. In the areas of genetics, environment and free will a lot is being discovered. But it may be a long time before anything definitive can be said about free will. Consequently, being aware that there is real possibility that extended knowledge into these areas will change how the penal system works, we should be convinced to be cautious and to choose the course least likely to produce the undesired result of punishing innocent people. This is certainly our responsibility to the accused.

According to the experts genetics and environment are crucial in the proper development of a child’s brain and personality. Genetics go so far, then, the environment works to shape the child’s mind. It is believed that genetic influence reduces some people’s ability to control their emotions and their behaviors. And studies also seem to prove that what a child sees and hears and learns to believe, will have an effect on their decisions later in life. Weak family bonds, as well as financial instability, abuse and neglect are correlated with the development of aggressive and criminal tendencies. Proper environment is important for a child to develop into a normal adult.

Using four separate measures of antisocial behavior, including convictions for violent crime, the research team found that each measure was significantly increased in the group that had both low MAOA activity and a history of severe maltreatment. In contrast, for participants with high levels of MAOA, no significant increase was found in any of the antisocial measures, even when they had experienced the same level of maltreatment. The overall impact of this gene-environment interaction can be judged from the fact that the 12 percent of the cohort that had both low MAOA and maltreatment accounted for 44 percent of the cohort’s convictions for violent crime. Looked at somewhat differently, 85 percent of the males with both risk factors developed some form of antisocial behavior. ~Psychiatry Serv 56:25-27, January 2005
© 2005 American Psychiatric Association

From this research it is obvious that genetics and environment are important components in any argument about punishment. This notion has received attention from thinkers in history at least as far back as Aristotle, but seems to have had little impact on any penal system prior to the modern era. In fact it is only recently that the Supreme Court has taken action that provides some protection for the retarded.

No person shall be convicted, sentenced, or otherwise punished for any crime committed while suffering from a physical or mental disease, disorder or defect such that the disease, disorder or defect prevented that person from knowing the nature of the criminal act or that it was wrong.

Thus, the court said, the objectives of capital punishment – deterring murder and exacting retribution for it – do not apply to persons of well-below-average measured intelligence.

Although the notion of free will has been considered since ancient times it is only just becoming amenable to the scientific method—so even science is working on it. As our sciences improve we will be better able to answer such questions. But in the meantime we still need to avoid making irrevocable mistakes.

In criminal law it is presumed that behavior is a consequence of free will. For this reason it is, as a general rule, believed that severe punishment can deter crime.

With the modern day developments in neuroscience the concept of free will and responsibility for one’s actions have become real variables in the discussion about the death penalty, and punishment in general. It’s only within the last generation that states began to make laws prohibiting the execution of retarded people. Currently the decision on whether a person is retarded is based on I.Q. tests. Evidently it has been decided that a person’s ability to discern right from wrong is proportional to their ability to figure out puzzles in a test. It does raise a question though. Are there factors which adversely affect a person’s moral fitness without affecting their intelligence? There are terms in this argument which may not be familiar, such as moral retardation or moral imbecile, which figure prominently in what is important to this part of our understanding of what’s going on. Is it possible for a person to be intellectually normal and morally retarded? If so testing for intelligence alone isn’t sufficient.

On her view, an agent acts freely only if he had the ability to choose the True and the Good. For an agent who does so choose, the requisite ability is automatically implied. But those who reject the Good choose freely only if they could have acted differently. ~ Susan Wolf 1990

As I stated it may be a long time yet before the notion of free will is understood and we are able to determine whether or not a person acted of their own volition. To compare another’s actions to our own to determine if they are responsible for what they have done is not sufficient. Admittedly, this may have been the only metric available in the past; but now it is understood by science that there are things going on at the level of the mind which dictate different realities for some than for the ‘majority.’ The fact is another person may not understand that torturing someone is wrong or that it is hurtful. Or they may know it is wrong intellectually, but not know it is wrong emotionally. And tests have shown that when brain scans show specific activity for empathy in a normal person, the same test may reveal deficient activity in the brain of a convicted criminal. It seems apparent that the facts reveal an important point; some people may not get as much feedback from their brain regarding incorrect behavior as an animal may get. If some people are devoid of relevant brain functions how can we punish them? Perhaps they don’t know and can’t know—just as a shark can’t know. They absolutely need to be removed from society—permanently, but how can we justify making their life miserable, let alone killing them? This would seem to be the reasonable, rational position for a sophisticated society to take—until we know for sure.

WHAT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO SOCIETY?

The reality is that we have to deal with crime and criminals. But while dealing with this reality it is our responsibility to protect the good citizens of our communities as much as possible. So throughout the process of apprehending, convicting and punishing criminals we need a process that gives us a high level of assurance we have done what was needed to eliminate the threat to society and deter future crime. And we need to do this without damaging the good citizens of our communities so we can live with a clear conscience.

In all of the cases in which the condemned is to be punished for a crime, someone must apply the punishment. In our society those persons are not the people who are directly affected by the crime. In fact the law does everything it can to keep people who have a direct emotional attachment to the crime uninvolved. So people who are not affected directly by the crime make the decisions and apply the punishment. Ultimately, innocent people are drawn into the world and behaviors of criminals; and paradoxically, if you don’t go willingly, you may find yourself in contempt . . . then prosecuted—as a criminal!

What do these experiences do to us? What happens to a juror when they stand up in court and set the condemned on the path to their execution? What happens to an individual when they slip a noose over another’s head and pull the lever or push a button to deliver a dose of poison or thousands of volts of electricity? Some can’t forget the smell of burning flesh or the sounds of death. Do these individuals deserve this for some reason? What happens in the minds of police officers who line up five in a row and, from 25 feet away, shoot a condemned person who is securely strapped in a chair? I suspect something happens.

It’s long been accepted that military personnel returning from battle have been negatively altered by the experience of killing and seeing others killed—in fact, to the point that they take their own lives. There is every reason to suspect that normal people required to condemn others to death, and for some, to actually kill them, there is going to be a change—for the worse.

Psychologists offer an explanation for how humans try to deal with this.

The gravest moral predicament if faced by executioners who have to kill. Unless they suspend moral self-sanction for the intentional taking of a human life they would be burdened by a troublesome legacy. Zimbardo, Bandura and Osofsky examined, in three penitentiaries, the pattern of moral disengagement in three subgroups of prison personnel. Prison guards who had no involvement in the execution process exhibited little moral disengagement. Members of the execution team enlisted all the modes of moral disengagement.

‘People ordinarily refrain from behaving in ways that violate their core moral standards because such conduct will bring self-censure. In some institutional role functions, such as military combat and state executions, the taking of human life presents a grave moral predicament. Moral sanctions do not come into play unless activated, and there are a variety of psychosocial mechanisms by which such sanctions can be selectively disengaged from lethal conduct. Psychological mechanisms which allow us to suspend moral sanctions include; biblical imperatives, the notion of deterrence and protecting society. Euphemistic language sanitizes taking life as simply a legal penalty and comparison renders execution merciful when contrasted with heinous crimes.’ ~From Moral Disengagements in Executions, Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law.

I think we have to ask where the immorality is in the death penalty. Is it in putting criminals to death—or is it in requiring non-criminals to participate in the death penalty process? Perhaps both, but for me it is more important to consider the implications to the innocent people in our society. From the language used in the previous statements about moral disengagement it becomes evident that capital punishment is though by some to be immoral.

If in fact we are scarred by interacting with the violent criminal element in our society we must curtail this activity. Do we want bad people out of society? Yes! Do we want the memories and nightmares associated with killing someone? No! At least I don’t. So the only reasonable answer seems to be to remove the violent criminal from society permanently—without behaving in the way they do. Psychologists have determined that our behaviors modify our attitudes just as our attitudes modify our behaviors. So, if we accept this we don’t want to behave violently as we will be inclined then to think violently.

As Mahatma Gandhi said, “All crime is a kind of disease and should be treated as such.” Crime is a cancer. Increasingly research points to brain disorders in offenders. For instance, Dr. Stuart Yudofsky, Chairman, Department of Psychiatry, Baylor College of Medicine writes, “We view people who are violent in the same way we used to view people who were mentally ill. In the old days, schizophrenics, manic-depressives and others were thought to be bad people who had to be punished. When we reconceptualize violence as involving the brain, then we are really going to start making progress. The brain is left out of the whole paradigm in the criminal justice system. We got nowhere punishing mentally ill people and we’re getting nowhere with our population of criminals. We’re just building more prisons.”

DOES SOCIETY HAVE ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OCCURRENCE OF CRIME?

Finally, we have to ask if society has any responsibility for the behaviors of these criminals—and if so what do we need to change. The United States is at the top of the list for homicides in the world. Here is a sampling of some of the many factors that when combined can lead to criminal behavior: poverty, lack of education, genetic deficiencies, the desire for attention and recognition, a society that stresses consumerism and materialism, lack of values, sense of entitlement, lack of empathy and conscience, negative role models, availability of drugs and handguns, childhood neglect and abuse, unemployment, thrill-seeking to numb the pain caused by hopelessness, alienation, single parent home, neurochemical imbalances, physical and head injuries, toxic environment, pesticides in food, heavy metals and bacteria in water, food allergies and intolerances, birth trauma, mental illness, low I.Q., hormonal problems, peer pressure, victim of bullying, mineral and vitamin deficiencies, maternal smoking and drinking, alcohol and drug abuse, paranoia, premature birth, memory and behavior problems, learning disabilities, attention deficits, poor language skills, compulsions, speech and vision problems. If these factors can contribute to crime how many of them can we change? How many should we change? There is little doubt, we have a lot to do, because these are all factors we have to take responsibility for. To add to this list I should mention violent media and in particular violent games.

PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) seldom results in violent criminal acts, and US Bureau of Justice Statistics research indicates that veterans, including Vietnam veterans, are statistically less likely to be incarcerated than a nonveteran of the same age. The key safeguard in this process appears to be the deeply ingrained discipline which the soldier internalizes with military training. However, with the advent of interactive “point-and-shoot” arcade and video games there is significant concern that society is aping military conditioning, but without the vital safeguard of discipline. There is strong evidence to indicate that the indiscriminate civilian application of combat conditioning techniques as entertainment may be a key factor in worldwide, skyrocketing violent crime rates, including a sevenfold increase in per capita aggravated assaults in America since 1956. Thus, the psychological effects of combat can increasingly be observed on the streets of nations around the world.

In conclusion, this subject is considerably more nuanced and complex than I imagined when I started this essay. And it is obvious that today’s sciences dealing with the mind are insufficient to answer some of the questions which need to be answered, but our knowledge is significantly improved in the last century. Hopefully some day we will have the answers and the wisdom to effect meaningful change. But there is no doubt that we could make vast improvements with the knowledge we have now, if we want to.

I know I haven’t touched on all the important questions, to do so would fill a book. But for the purpose of determining and expressing my position on this matter I think I have broached some of the more obvious points to consider.

Again, I think it is important to reiterate, our lack of change or lack of ability to implement the right solutions will continue to cost people too much—both those falsely accused and those required to participate in an unnecessary part of the legal system.