Critical Analysis of the System of Justice

The system of justice in our culture is founded upon a widely held assumption that few bother to examine. The assumption is that society can be regulated by a system of rules (or laws) enforced by sanctions or punishments. By profession, I'm a Systems Scientist. What we do in Systems Theory is to construct models of complex real-world systems. This discipline draws upon math, logic, and computers to model the most complex systems (like weather systems or economic systems) but we also use more pedestrian analogies and metaphors where they help to explain the basic structure of our more sophisticated models. Part of Systems Science is the discovery of optimal methods of regulating the behavior of complex systems, either to maintain stability or to drive them to a desired goal state. Feedback Control Theory is a cornerstone of Systems Science. The general idea of Feedback Control is that one observes the actual state of the system and compares it to the goal state. The difference between the observed state and the desired state is the error. The problem to be solved is to compute the optimal control to drive the error to zero. To do this, the feedback control system must invert the System Model, to find the differential control to steer the system so as to keep the error as close to zero as possible. This is how your Cruise Control works, c ntinually computing adjustments to the fuel feed to speed up or slow down the car as needed to maintain the desired speed. Computing (and inverting) a System Model is a key concept in Systems Theory. The general method of inverting a system model requires a computational technique known as Successive Approximation. Basically, one guesses at the answer, plugs it into the System Model, computes the result, and sees how far it misses the mark. Then one adjusts the original guess to a (hopefully) better guess, and repeats the process. This goes on indefinitely to produce a sequence of Successive Approximations until they conv rge to the sought-after solution. The general computational methodology is called Recursion, and is honed to a high art in Systems Theory. Sir Isaac Newton was one of the first mathematicians to propose recursion to solve for the roots of arbitrary equations. Our society is a system that can be modeled in the classical way that anything is modeled in Systems Science. If one does that, one can use the model to discover the optimal strategy to regulate society. The prevailing method of social regulation -- rules and sanctions -- can quickly be seen to be far from optimal. At best it's merely ineffective. At worst, it's counterproductive, driving the system to a state worse than the initial one. But there is another problem with rule-driven regulation. Rule-based systems such as our legal system are inherently limited by the theoretical limitations of rule-based systems in general. Rule-based systems are fairly weak. They don't support the calculation of general system models or their inverses, for the simple reason that rule-based systems don't support recursion. The solution to a system model can sometimes simplify to a ruleset, but a ruleset cannot generalize to capture a system model that requires recursion in order to solve it. The latest system models of human dynamics are of the class that require solutions more powerful than can be captured by dissociated rulesets and sanctions. Thus we now have the beginnings of a formal proof that the foundational assumption of our system of justice is unsupportable and untenable, incapable of achieving the desired goal, and arguably the cause of damage to the fabric of society. There is a solution, but the solution will require a fundamental rethinking of the mechanism of regulating society, and the abandonment of the limitations of rule-based regulation enforced by sanctions.

Just what I say! Hello Barry, we haven't met yet, but I've seen your mark on the "US Culture of..." topics I created in the Cultures Conf. I'm looking forward to see you pull hats out of rabbits and do other wonderful things. Do you do tap-dance? Curious, Alexander Resident ***CENSORED DUE TO UNCLEAR SPELLING***, The Spring

Only metaphorically.

Hmh. A thinker, huh? No offense, though. But there is one thing that amazes me: you are concerned about social problems, but you approach that area from angles I probably wouldn't. You care about the symptoms and problems. Again, not that I know a bit about stuff, but "fundamental rethinking of the mechanism of regulating society" does not really thrill me. Is that like "rethink to get the kinks out of the current concept", and then "rethinking it to fix the rethinking bugs", and a reform later to represent interests of certain interest groups, etc.? I would expect something like "fundamental rethinking of society" ought to be more to it, rather than fixing problems with a running system. Hmh. I see about three buckets of flaws in that suggestion, plus the odd gallon of enraged outcries. Still, what do you say, Barry? Alexander Resident ***Censored, Because If I Had A Clue, I Had Something - So, I Still Don't Know About That Silly Spelling Problem I Have***, The Spring

ACCCK! Point me in the F-ing right direction... Alexander... what are you so vexed about? You asked me how to spell bigot... did I miss the implications involved?

Here are the symptoms: School children are slaughtering each other at alarming rates and few know why. Americans are swallowing record amounts of analgesics, antacids, and antidepressants. Violence in our culture is out of control. Our jails are filling up. There are some 2 million adults in prison now. I'm clenching my teeth 24/7 and I can't tell you why. I'm receiving terroristic threats by phone, by mail, and by e-mail now. It's becoming so routine, I don't even bother to report it anymore. Most of the people I know are either in extremis or denial. I suspect a bug or two in the culture. Hrmmm... Let's put on our deerstalker and take a look... My my my... What have we here? Rules enforced by sanctions and punishments. How quaint. Ooh.. Here's another cute practice... Shaming and blaming. Where *do* they get these ideas? I could never build a system on those principles. Not one that worked anyway. Why those practices can be seen to the cause of anger, rage, depression, anxiety, feelings of oppression, feelings of injustice, feelings of despair. Who designed this system anyway? Sheesh.

in one point of view, we did, we do live in a democracty afterall... (actually, it's more of a socialistic republic but if I said that I never would hear the end of it...) School children are slaughtering each other at alarming rates and few know why. (I do, irresponsibility caused by the socialistic republic I referred to earlier...) Violence in our culture is out of control. (Overpopuulation...think zero population growth for awhile...) Our jails are filling up. There are some 2 million adults in prison now. (so empty them...I'd sleep better!) Most of the people I know are either in extremis or denial. (or in extreme denial...or megalomania...or paranoia...) I suspect a bug or two in the culture. Hrmmm... Let's put on our deerstalker and take a look... My my my... What have we here? Nihilism and egocentrism, just like I thought...

Time for some more evolved thinking, methinks. :)

so tell us Barry... how would you do it?

and if you need some help evolving your thinking, just ask!

I would organize a Social Contract Community, prolly on another planet. Planet Orenda. It would be a gated community. Nobody gets in unless they have a working Urim Processing Unit and a fully charged and operational Thumminator.

Meanwhile, back in the Real World... SERIOUSLY. I believe the question was serious. Could the answer be, too?

The point is, *I* don't have the power to do it. If there is a community who genuinely desires to craft such a culture, I would be honored to be part of it. But I know of no way to do the thinking for an entire community, and to specify a solution that works for everyone. Even if I had the processing power to do all that thinking, I don't have access to the data. I barely have access to my own feelings. To make it work, everyone has to participate in constructing the solution, through a dialogue process. Which means we need to begin with an educational system that empowers us to do that. We did something like that in MicroMuse, an online community. That would be a model, I suppose, for doing it in real life. But there are other issues, since real life has a more complex material economy than cyberspace.

The fault lies perhaps in the thinking part. I am not much a fan of thinking, and feel that perhaps it is the greatest obstacle for any such attempt. Intellectualizing the problems. This does - while being busy with the problem - nevertheless create a distance between the thinker and his subject. Getting stuck in analyses, etc. Would there be a more hands on-concept? Or something perhaps non-flashy, but pragmatic and workable?

There is no reason I know of that anyone in our culture should be denied the pleasure of learning how to think. Every week in the Children's Discovery Center at the Museum of Science here in Boston I put out a collection of puzzles. And visitors of all ages -- but especially children -- enjoy discovering how to solve them. The methods of reasoning involved in solving these puzzles vary widely from one puzzle to the next. Almost none of the methods of reasoning are taught in school. Take for example, he Tower of Hanoi Puzzle. The best known method of solution is called Recursive Goal Seeking. Most visitors who make a determined effort to solve that puzzle discover the method in about 15 minutes, depending on their age and the amount of coaching they get. I didn't learn about recursion until I was in grad school, yet I find that most children can master it with this puzzle at the age of 7 or 8 in less than half an hour. Children feel empowered whey they learn to think. And they win euphoric highs hen they solve these puzzles with minimum coaching.

I don't believe anyone wants to deny anyone 'the pleasure of learning how to think.' But sometimes overthinking an issue can be a problem. Barry, I did ask seriously. How would you do it? I didn't ask why you don't do it (i.e. '*I* don't have the power to do it') I asked how would you do it? I certainly don't expect anyone to 'think for an entire community' but you seem to have so many negative reactions to the present way of doing things (reactions to our present societal and justice structure) that I was sure you would have suggestions for alternative measures...

I just do it anywhere and everywhere, with those around me, if they care to participate. If they don't care to participate, that's their privilege, too. The Museum of Science is the one physical place I've done it the longest. Online I do it wherever I'm tolerated, which is mebbe 4 sites besides MicroMuse.

okay... I certianly respect that you make an impact by doing not by talking but the fact of the matter is... I don't learn virtually by watching... so, if you would, spell some of these things out for me. What changes could be made to improve the state of affairs? Believe me... the suggestion that 'by doing things will change globally' is not foreign to my mind... I'm just trying to pick the brain of someone who has some very definite beliefs... to me it's like learning about a religon... I may not accept it wholeheartedly but by asking and questioning someone who supports a different thought process/belief set I can gather more information that I can either choose to incorporate into my general philosophy or at least know enough about it to make a decision against adopting the ideas... C'mon Barry... sounds like you enjoy teaching... TEACH ME (by sharing more about your ideas on how to facilitate positive change)

The first thing to note is that learning is the quintessential emotional experience. All learning -- whether voluntary or involuntary -- is accompanied by emotions. This observation is important. Since learning is an inherently emotional experience, anyone who is proposing to intervene to facilitate learning needs to be prepared to pay attention to the affective emotional state of the learner and to artfully adapt the intervention. This is what a good mentor does instinctively. As learners become incr asingly responsible for their own learning, part of their responsibility is to report their affective state. Where is the learner fascinated, intrigued, confused, bewildered, puzzled, frustrated, anxious, bored, or chagrinned? So part of the culture change is turning on permission to mention emotions, and learning to identify and name them reliably. The other part of the culture change is to interpret emotions as clues to the progress (or lack of it) in learning, and make effective use of those clues. I don't enjoy teaching so much as inducing euphorias in others who experience pleasure upon successful learning. I get a kick out of inducing a good euphoria in those who seek my assistance in learning.

See this article (which Moonbeam is currently adapting and enlarging into a book)... Bring a Candle, Not a Sparkler

I've discovered four deeply rooted assumptions in the culture that, to my mind, are not supportable or tenable, according the best available scientific research and analysis. Assumption #1: Society can be regulated through the mechanism of rules enforced by sanctions. Assumption #2: Blame is sufficient to establish cause and effect. Assumption #3: Inducing feelings of guilt and shame leads to desirable learning. Assumption #4: Having power makes the first 3 assumptions true.

Barry, I wonder why I have the impression you barely read through my postings. When I say I do not appreciate "thinking", you come out the curve with some thinly veiled accusation of big-brotherism, censorship, etc. I do wish you would take a bit more care. Especially since your own statement "The first thing to note is that learning is the quintessential emotional experience." does not exactly contradict my stand, but rather supports it. To me this is a very personal concept, but also a suggestion to others to consider whether their super-brainiard ways do not have flaws, and to try and look if there are other approaches to deal with stuff. Maybe low-profile, but more satisfying. (Disclaimer: "Personal" refers to the author and implies that the author's agenda in this matter is neither of missionary character nor a crusade. The author has nothing to give, especially in the "tru teaching"-department, nor has he the wish to preach dogma and gather followers.) And I somehow have the impression that is even something you yourself are trying to point at. Satisfaction. Endorphine releases. Learning. Attempting. Frustration. Retrying. Satisfaction. Endorphine re... Or in other words, a puzzle well solved is worth a dozen chocolate bars. (Know what? I'm a generous fellow. This quote is cute, right? You like it? Aw, come on, fella, no need to be shy around me! Say, how about if I gave it to you? You care for it and treat it well and have it put somewhere in print - it is, after all, a VERY nice catchline - and credit it to "Anon., The Spring, 1999". No charge. A Gift.) Solutions that one FEELS good about, rather than solutions that only LOOK good, or that one THINKS are good, isn't really sure about. ***************************************** Re: The Kortian Assumptions Yes, nice. But then - these things are what the western cultures are based on (note that these patterns my or may not be found EVERYWHERE). These are thinkoid schemes, and you do right to denounce them. Still, they work more or less. Why is that so? Because the benefits have up to now outweighted the negative aspects. Do not neglect that why they are there goes back to a certain agreement within the society in question (this has been discussed in different topics in the Cultures conference; I have noted that while this is a very painful thing to hear or experience at times, it has not been rebuked as far as the content of this argument is concerned). Why is this changing now? Because we are reevaluating our value-sets. We want a different world (if only within our species, mind you). # 1 - Brute Forcism. You'll never convince a fella you just bashed up, but you'll convince your audience you're all business about things. I see this in e.g. the horrible tradition of Detention Hall in American schools, or the wars currently lead under NATO and UN mandates to get the world to get in line. Best example is perhaps election campaigns - you do not aim at convincing the other candidates, but the audience. Bash the guy good w/ some really funky and sly moves, and they are with you all the way. Note: I do not discuss whether the use of sanctions is justifyable or not. It's whether we like the sanctions, or the very concept of sanctions. Be good, get treat. Be bad, feel stick. So very much, huh, pre-feudal.) # 2 - Scapegoatism. Need I say more? For US citizens: See McCarthyism, for Germans: See National Socialism, for children: See The Dog (as in: "The dog ate my homework.") Nice tool employed by thinkers to distract from the fact that their solutions do not FEEL very good. # 3 - This is true. Fortunately, we both know there are other ways... Still, it is maybe sometimes more important what is learned than how ("I will not drive my neighbours from their house and kill them.", "I will not support unjust sanctions against people of a different religion, nationality, or political belief."). I wonder if e.g. the act of taming warmongerism and militarism in a society justifies use of #3, when it reliably leads to the neighbour's better sleep and sweeter dreams. # 4 - Well, there is that. How would you substitute this power? I wonder about this "true"-aspect. Truth is always the truth of the winner, as is history. He who can scribble this response here can make me be without a point. The fact is, # 4 is not - as you suggest - an assumption deeply rooted but incorrect (and perhaps inacceptable to some), but a concept that proves itself. This goes back into prehistoric ages, but can more reliably be proven with historic research (e.g. the Japanese people held that the Emperor was - as descendent of sun-goddess Amiterasu - himself a person endowed with divine traits, a living god; due to being defeated in their aggressive imperialism, this belief so deeply at the base of their culture and state-religion was abandoned under pressure of the victors). You may FEEL you are right, but this is not the truth. The truth is what people in ten, fifty or a hundred years will say. Will they care at all? This "truth" may change. Look at Marx - people were challenging and supporting ideas derived from his work for decades. Then, whole societies accepted them as basis for their social structure, other societies banned even discussing the ideas, sanctioning even for analysing it, punishing heavily anything that looked like supporting these ideas. (Note: I do not propose any side in this issue; I am using this widely-known dogmatic schizsm as a case study in acceptance or tolerance of ideas and comments on social situations. Analysing them is - as you seem to be proof yourself, Barry - more often punished than rewarded by any given society, no matter how innocent the analysts are.) And looking back, people say, "Old hat! Never really worked, did it!" - which is half-wrong. But who will care about this social experiment in two hundred years? Historic anecdotes like the viking settlements in North America - fun to have around, but did it have any historic relevance? Influence their society noticeably at the time? Is there a relation to us today? ***************************************** Part of this reflects exchanges we have had here on the Spring in many places and with a great variety of triggers.

"Oh my, so many words! I guess I'll rather skip it... Plus it's all so DRY and CRITICAL... What's this guys problem anyway? Why is he spoiling everything for us?" Listen, ... Ah. Exactly that: LISTEN! You might find out. (Or ask.)

(Or ask Stacey. She knows more about that topic by now than anybody would ever care to. Some goes for our young Master William.)

The things that interest me now are the things that are the most deeply embedded (yet unexamined) assumptions in the architecture of the culture. Are rules and sanctions a good way to regulate society? Why or why not? What other regulatory processes exist that might be preferable? Is blame sufficient to establish cause and effect? Is there a scientific way to establish cause and effect in which the answer is not a function of the party with the authority to fix blame? Are guilt and shame a viable tool to regulate behavior and induce learning? Why or why not? How are induced guilt and shame related to the emotions of remorse and embarrassment? What happens in a society where one party has the power to impose rules and sanctions and to fix blame? What happes to a society where the inhabitants engage in a recurring contest to induce guilt and shame on each other? What alternatives could there be?

Alexander, if you are not much of a fan of thinking, I can accept that. My post was in response to Stacey, who did express some interest in learning more of my thoughts. I could see no way to respond to your expression of a distaste for thinking, and so I did not respond. De gustibus non est disputandum. Over on MicroMuse and in earlier incarnations of the Orenda Project we did create working models where we practiced bringing these ideas to life. I am hoping to open an Orenda Community here in a new conference that Terry has approved and that William will be setting up soon. In the meantime, I can talk about it, but I'd rather practice it than mention it.

In order to make any progress in addressing the embedded assumptions in our culture, we need to demonstrate that the downside costs are rising while the upside benefits are fading. The findings of James Gilligan at Harvard and Scheff and Retzinger at the University of California support and reinforce the findings of Girard at Stanford, that a society founded on rules and sanctions, blame, shame, and guilt, is producing increasingly unacceptable downsided costs (primarily a rising tide of distributed viol nce throughout the culture) while failing to achieve the purposes for which those cultural tools were invented. More importantly, the emotional health of the society is suffering under the present regime of assumptions. Americans are consuming record quantities of legally obtained analgesics, antacids, and antidepressants. Others are eschewing the drug culture in favor of meditation and spiritual practices. Just yesterday there was a big international story about Falun Gong, a non-denominational meditative/spiritual practice derived from Bhuddism and Taoism. I expect to see a lot more of this trend until the sp ritually toxic practices of our culture are discontinued in favor a more enlightened cultural model.

that has become a theory I have been pondering...people have learned to worship the government materially, instead of anything remotely spiritual, thus the lack of responsibility so in evidence around us...

Are rules and sanctions a good way to regulate society? Why or why not? What other regulatory processes exist that might be preferable? In answer to that question: I feel that there are certain rules that are needed to perhaps insure the protection of a group. (tho shalt not kill, steal, bear false witness....you get the gist. However, we have been regulated to the point of insanity.... Wear seat belts... I almost became paralysed in a minor accident because my seatbelt jammed my rib into my spine... Many of the rules are set up to cover the actions of the real criminals... no smoking in public places... yet the pollution from factories are killing millions people and if you live downwind or downstream you can't escape them... and anymore who doesn't love downwind or downstream from one of these corporate killers. Is blame sufficient to establish cause and effect? Is there a scientific way to establish cause and effect in which the answer is not a function of the party with the authority to fix blame? The problem with affixing blame, is that the people in Authority decide what is blame-worthy. The recent Welfare Reform is a good example. I live in the poorest state in our country. Wages have been kept low to attract big business. Unions were *violently* squashed before they could start up. Minimum wage is not a living wage...In fact by some estimations it would take $14.00 an hour to stay off all forms of welfare. Yet the poor in this state are being blamed for being poor and having been driven onto the welfare roles to survive. Welfare has been cut...but no one is addressing a living wage for an honest days work. When I first got divorced and had my two samll children to support, I went to Human Services and said...I can afford my rent...clothing...and food for my children...all the their basic needs...but I need help with medical expenses. I was told I would have to quit my job and go on the welfare roles to get medical expenses covered...because it was a package deal. To make matters worse I recently found out that prior to passing welfare reform the Legislature passed a bill that denies federally funded legal representation to welfare recipiants. I have thrown this tidbit out to people to see their reaction and I can count on one hand the number of people who got upset by that fact. Read your Constitution we are guranteed legal representation. Oh and by the way if there really are spelling police in here...I have a disability that precludes me from that type of censorship. Plus I think perhaps you should be reminded that before we see any Books in print...they are sent to an editor. If the great minds who had spelling and punctuation problems had had their work censored because of these types of problems...I wonder which texts would never have made it to the bookshelves. -------------------------------------

Notice to the Spelling Police and the Emotions Police: If Debra is Dyslexic, then I'm Autistic. So go suck a sock. But first, help yourself to a Salted Peanut.

I would like to note here that I went to a school where my teacher would constantly come up and rap my hands with a ruler because my handwriting was so messy. What no one understood was that I had a problem that was beyond my control. A short circuit if you will, from my brain to my hands. The shame had long term effects on my self esteem that kept me from acheiving what a person with my IQ should have. My handwritting skills did not improve...in fact in college my professors just circled the mistakes but otherwise ignored them because the content of my papers were so above average they were able to overlook this disability. In my Englis 102 Class the professor who met with all his students to discuss their work simply stated to me...I don't know what to say...except you need an editor. I happened to run into the kid who edited my Newspaper pieces before they were published...and he grimaced and said to me...yes I am familiar with your writing...I get the privilage of editing it. If spelling is a problem...perhaps you should incorporate spell check. Content is the important issue in these discussions not technique. I'll take a peanut Moulton.

Gosh, I'm lost in hell here... got peanuts? Did I miss the arrival of the Grammar POlice? I went back and couldn't find even their tire tracks. Must be the light or something. Let me know. ;) * goes back to working on book *

There were some comments in another topic I believe... about spelling police deleting someones work for spelling erros...I just wanted to let them know that due to my disabilty they would be violating my rights if they used this as an excuse to delete my comments...therefore they will have to come up with a better excuse if they want to shut me up...(grin)

Got mirth?

My handwriting was so illegible, I couldn't read my own handwriting minutes after writing something. So I switched to back to printing, which I could at least decipher. Then, when I got my mits on a keyboard in the late sixties, I never went back to writing with pen and paper. The cool thing was that word-processors began to show up with grammar-checkers and spell checkers. That was a mechiah. They also had these tools that would calculate readability scores, by counting up such stats as the average number of syllables per word, the average number of words per sentence, the average number of compound, complex sentences, etc. They say one should write at about the 8th grade level. I tend to write at the 16th grade level, according to these indexes. Which is prolly what's annoying a lot of people.

Yes Barry you are annoying but only because you keep telling the truth and people tend to get annoyed when others do that. (grin) Got truth?

Writing complex information so people without background in that particular complexity can understand it, is an art.

I need to discover how to communicate the idea of model-based reasoning. I need to discover how to communicate the idea of recursion. I need to discover how to communicate the idea of non-destructive feedback control theory, non-destructive, non-punitive guidance systems. I need to discover how to communicate the names of feelings and emotions.

Are you trying to tell us you are a needy person? (Hugs Moulton)

hey peanut eaters... THIS IS AN INFOMERCIAL... the 'spelling police' as you so eloquently referred to them... have nothing to do with 'justice' or any other topic apart from some gentle teasing/annoying amonst a group of people that are fairly comfortable with the jokes... trust me, no one will deride you (for awhile!) now...not that any of you have come remotely close to treading on the obscenity line... I do try and remind people that the 'bad' language really has no place if we, as a community, and our ideas are to be taken seriously... Ah... NOW BACK TO OUR REGULARLY POSTED PROGRAM! (BTW... welcome Debra!)

Moulton hands Stacey a bag of Salted Peanuts and a cup of Grape Juice.

Well grassy-arse Senor Moulton! and for you... a sock box!

Cool. I can do those great logic puzzles on how many socks one has to pull out to be sure of getting a matched pair.

Hey Stacey it's great to be among nice salty peanut lovin folk. So sock it to me one more time. (grin)

What happened to justice? No really what happened in here? Where did everyone go?

I watched Ted Koppel's Nightline on ABC tonight. He did a story on Falun Gong. It occurred to me that what has begun to change is very startling. Beliefs are changing. In particular, the belief in the rule of law is starting to crumble. This is a good thing. The rule of law is a false god, not worthy of belief. When I needed the law, it wasn't there for me. The law was there to protect those in power. What kind of god protects those in power? Not the kind of god I can believe in. I believe in models. There are no model laws. There cannot be any. Laws are incapable of capturing the essence of an accurate, scientific model. Laws fail to explain or predict how the world works. Rather they explain how the world breaks. The rule of law is broken.

"The rule of law is broken" -- We've known that for quite a while. And as you noted earlier in another conversational venue, many books have been written that diagnose this problem but they always fall short when it comes to solutions. (We were talking about Philip Howard's book "The Death of Common Sense: How Law is Suffocating America") Did Ted Koppel's program offer any solutions?

I have on film the (at that time) DA here in Alb. screaming at me that the public needed to get it through it's head that the Justice was not about justice...but about process. So let's rename it...or sue for false labeling...isn't there a law somewhere about that? (tee hee)

Processes have 4 possible outcomes. 1) They can converge to a fixed point (e.g. peace, justice, satisfaction). 2) They can cycle, with a cycle length of N, for arbitrary N. 3) They can go chaotic, visiting an infinite number of states, in haphazard order. 4) They can run forever (diverge) without ever terminating or approaching a solution. The system of justice appears to be somewhere between 3) and 4). There is also a process that, by design, behaves like 1). The present system of justice is not that process. Nor can it be. The architecture of the present system of justice is too weak to achieve that outcome.

Did Ted Koppel's program offer any solutions?

If you mean Nightline in Prime Time, it asked more questions than it answered. Last night's episode was about our obsession with saving time. As to how to craft a process that satisfies condition 1) above, that just happens to be the subject of my Ph.D. research. It's founded on a powerful mathematical theory known as Fixed Point Theory.

I caught bits and peices of it. The thing that struck me was... that the more time saving devices I have...the less time I seem to have. What seems to be occuring in my life is that, time seems to speed up as society speeds up. There doesn't seem to be any time saved....instead we seem to warp time into hyperspeed as we become time conscious. I spend a lot of my energy trying to slow down and smell the roses...so to speak...to be present in the moment.

There is one advantage, which shows up in online communities. Social processes which run slow and ragged in real life run faster in online communities, and are better documented. So patterns become more salient. Deja Vu occurs faster and more reliably. This allows me to engage in Pattern Discovery in online communities and diagnose recursions that lead to thrash and virtual violence. The world runs faster, but then so does our debugging of the culture.

Last night's "Nightline in Prime Time" program didn't hold my interest that well - but then, it had to run competition with PBS's "Mystery" series, which was excellent. Time keeping and time saving are creations of human beings. A soulless, unnatural thing, the clock will run as fast as we let it, and that means it will run us to death if we don't stop and smell the roses, as Debra so kindly reminds us.

You may have missed the segment at the beginning, in the Diner, where they showed a model of the brain, with it's intrinsic timekeeping module. Every musician knows there is an internal metronome, run by a little homunculus known as the metrognome.

I was in the local public library yesterday, so I took the opportunity to dig up James Gilligan's book on the roots of violence in the culture. Gilligan is a Harvard professor of psychology whose main research interest is the psychology of violence. Gilligan finds that the cultural practice of inducing shame is a primary factor in violence. Shame induction displaces the naturally occurring emotion of embarrassment, thus interfering with normal learning. Shyness and anger are two of the more common results of shame induction. Another finding is that the cultural practic of guilt induction further exacerbates the problem. Guilt induction displaces the naturally occuring emotion of remorse, thus interfering with normal moral development. Depression and rage are two of the more troubling consequences of guilt induction. Guilt induction seeks to pinpoint the responsibility for a social misadventure, rather than diagnose the distributed causal mechanisms. Gilligan's research dovetails with the models of Girard and Bailey, who have identified the cultural practice of scapegoating as a key phase in the generation of violence in the culture. The key elements then, through which society creates systemic violence is shaming and blaming, scapegoating, and the visitation of authorized, sanctioned, and sacred violence upon the designated scapegoat, who is made to bear 100% of the responsibility for a distributed-cause social misadventure.

re: guilt and remorse...shouldn't we consider the consequences of our actions before we initiate them instead of after? I mean guilt is a forethought and remorse an afterthought, no?

it just struck me...Barry, I might be seeing guilt in your post in a different context...if you meant it in the other (ie, at fault) then my post above won't make sense, but if that is the context in which you are discussing it, then I feel that guilt isn't comparable to regret in this instance...

The inability to do model-based reasoning is a plausible explanation for failure to foresee the undesirable downstream consequences of a course of action. Few people even know what model-based reasoning is, since it's rarely taught in school or elsewhere in our culture. Guilt is neither a forethought nor an afterthought. Guilt is an ascription layed upon others by a judging agent. Guilt interferes with trepidation and remorse. It is trepidation (an uneasy feeling that what one is about to do will turn out unexpectedly badly) that arrests misadventures before they occur. It is remorse that prevents a recurrence. Guilt induction interferes with the normally arising emotions of trepidation and remorse. That's because in our culture, a finding of guilt is associated with the privilege of imposing sanctions and punishments, turning the scene into one of sado-masochism. The problem with sado-masochism is that the perpetrator (the self-appointed authority figure) has neither trepidation nor remorse for engaging in such a contra-indicated behavior.

Revenge violence is on the front page. Underlying the drive for revenge are strong feelings. Feelings of rejections and alienation, feelings of injustice. And from where I sit, it does appear that more and more Americans are experiencing episodes of rejection and alienation, episodes of unfair treatment and injustice. It is also clear that the root of the problem of recurring episodes of unfair treatment and injustice is to be found in our most cherished institution - the law. The law, once venerated and highly respected, has touched more and more people, and has visited more and more unfair treatment and injustice on Americans than ever before. It's a trickle-down economy. The culture of shaming and blaming, of alienation and scapegoating, of sanctions and punishments, is producing a nation of anger. Not everyone can receive injustice, sublimate their anger into depression, and survive on Prozac. Some will turn their anger into revenge. That younger and younger people are doing it should be a red flag that our horrific culture of violence is out of control. And the root of violence is to be found in our adoption of a rule-based system of social regulation, with the rules enforced by authorized and sanctioned violence. That model is no longer tenable or ethical. It's time we evolved to a more humane and civil culture.

I find it interesting that just as our government is cutting welfare roles, an inordinate amount of money is being spent to build more prisons. This tells me the government understands the ramifications of these actions and is gearing up to address the problems that will result. The break down of costs between welfare assistance and prisoner maintenance gives one reason to pause. The cost of assisting people on welfare, pales in the financial breakdown of prisoner maintenance. The War on Drugs is one example of the insanity. The cost analysis of housing this type of offender alone, should make one wonder. We could send these people to the best universities for PhDs with tons of pocket money for a fraction of the cost. The hidden cost to society of sending people to prison for drug use, is unbelievable. The prisoner emerges with a criminal record that precludes him from any substantial income bracket once he/she is released. Therefore they pay for a lifetime, for a lapse i judgment? Looking at the records of prison inmate recidivism paints an ugly picture that our society has chosen to ignore. When we send people to prison for minor offenses such as drug use, what have we done to their lives. It takes very little imagination to comprehend what happens to people in prison. Is it any wonder that recidivism is the end result? Especially when we tag on a life sentence by labeling them as criminals thereafter. Certainly there are instances where having a criminal record follow one through life, benefits the general public. (rapists, child molesters, violent behavior) But what are the benefits of putting drug *offenders* into this population in the first place? Rehabilitation through counseling has been proven by far, to be a more economical way to deal with these problems. However, crime is big business. The largest contributors to political campaigns are lawyers. The crime industry, if abolished, would collapse the economy of this country. Look at the biggest buildings in your communities, no matter how small...(the cost of building maintaining, and running them) The jail and prison system...(the cost of housing controlling, medical attention, and feeding inmates.) the whole judicial body...(Lawyers, Judges, bailiffs, police force) When looked at carefully, a new picture emerges of the most lucrativ and financially stable industry in the nation: CRIME. The youth of our country are going to experiment with illegal drugs...just as most of you and I did. I spent over 20 years as a musician...during that time I was witness to politicians, judges, lawyers and police officers partaking of illegal substances. I played at numerous private parties where these things occurred. Should the youth of this country, or anyone else face prison terms and the life long stigma incumbent with this process if they are caught doing the same? The I Ching states that there is no crime in youthful folly. The Acoma people (the ancient sky city Pueblo here in New Mexico) put it this way...young adults walk backwards. Should they be punished for a lifetime for a natural phenomena in their lives? Should anyone be punished for what is, in and of itself, a victimless crime? The crime involved in drugs is man made. Because our political/legal system has mandated drugs as criminal, the process of growing (or producing) and delivering drugs creates a hotbed for criminal activity. One that could be eliminated by decriminalization or legalization of drugs. When Moulton addresses shame and blame and rule based governance and talks about the Girard Model of Non-violence these are the types of legislated activities that are the result of this mentality. The backward thinking of a government that thinks it can legislate behavior.

.

EDITORIAL: Killing the Bad Guys Adam J. Smith, Associate Director, ajsmith@drcnet.org A study released last week by researchers at the University of Kentucky indicates that teens who went through the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program were no less likely, in the long run, to use drugs and alcohol than kids who had gotten their drug information in health class. The study is the latest in a long line of research raising questions about the efficacy of America's number one "drug education" program. More than 70% of American schools use DARE, making it perhaps the single most pervasive curriculum in the nation. Given that rate of application, one would imagine that there was some evidence that it works. In fact, there isn't. DARE, in which police officers come into classrooms for an hour per week for seventeen weeks to teach kids about drugs, self-esteem and resisting peer pressure, has been criticized since its inception on several grounds. Among the criticisms is DARE's zero-tolerance approach, which fails to make distinctions between different substances. Researchers have argued that treating marijuana the same as heroin, for instance, reduces the credibility of DARE's message. Others criticize DARE's law enforcement focus, which tends, they say, to demonize rather than to educate. A DARE "graduation" ceremony held in Miami last May illustrates this point. The ceremony was held at the Orange Bowl, with thousands of elementary school-aged DARE "graduates" in attendance to receive their certificates. The children watched Florida Governor Jeb Bush, on hand for the occasion, sign a new mandatory minimum sentencing law. But the real fun came at the end. At the close of the ceremony, the children were treated to a special performance by the Florida Highway Patrol Special Tactics Team. The Team rolled out across the stadium's field in an armored personnel carrier. Disembarking from their tank-like vehicle, officers engaged in a "shootout" with a group of "drug dealers." The vignette ended with the officers "shooting" and "killing" the bad guys, to the obvious delight of the cheering children. And so, having witnessed this clearly successful outcome, in which the police shot and killed -- presumably without a trial -- several drug suspects, these thousands of children became the latest class of DARE graduates. Such a display would seem to be directly in line with the ethos of DARE's founder, former Los Angeles police chief Daryll Gates, who once remarked that casual drug users "should be taken out and shot." So perhaps we ought not to judge DARE's success by how many of its graduates remain drug free, but rather by the number who, as adults, are content to stand and cheer while the state shoots down their less obedient former classmates. [from _The Week Online with DRCNet_ Issue #103, 8/13/99 -- at http://www.drcnet.org/wol/103.html]

There is no narcotic quite so intoxicating or quite so deadly as the exercise of power over the life of another.

Not only is it intoxicating, it feeds on itself ultimately consuming both the victim and the power-wielder.

http://www.abqjournal.com/news/1attorney08-13-99.htm Speaking of power over the life of another... this is the top story in our neck of the woods tonight. The victim was one of the good guys.

Chills run through my shoulders and arms.

hmmm

Umm Hmmm Shall say no more and get me back to Geo where it is safer...

No where is really safe. OK maybe it IS safer after all...

Good points. There is little chance anything nefarious will go unreported in the world's "free Press" if you hunt for it long enough. The internet is a great source of such things, and http://www.google.com is the best of them!

yep http://www.google.com/search?q=barry+kort&hl=en&safe=off&start=10&sa=N and the Spring shows up on it as well

So do I - to the tune of about 405 hits - almost all in Geo. Especially if your search using your login name!