Conference quark::human_relations

    
    	How about the fella - same age, right here in Massachusettes - that
    just yesterday got a life sentance for killing a young woman with a
    baseball bat?
    
    	Joe

I'm in full support of what Singapore is doing.  Fay did his vandalism over
several weeks; it wasn't just "an isolated incident".  Curiously, most of
the news I've been reading relates to the caning, not the fine or jail term.

				Steve

    That guy did NOT have any rights to vandalize a foreign country...
    he did, and he will have to pay for it.   (at the country's law, out
    ours).  Thatever happens... I am sure he will not like to vandalize
    again.
    
    if that same thing would happen here... New City would be free of
    graffitty!    because at that risk..."who" would do such a thing?
    
    It is very sad that we have to LEARN the hard way how to behave...
    
    Some people might find the purnishment barbaric, others won't, but I
    think that Singapore is very safe, very clean, very proud of itself,
    and foreigners loose their rights when breaking those of the host
    country... so.... in my opinion....if he was brave enough to break
    the law he should also be brave enough to take its consequences!
    (it is almost guaranteed that he won't do it again)
    
    Ana
    

   From what I have read, this youth has lived in Singapore for some time.

   I'm sure he was fully aware of that "you do the deed, you pay the piper"

   IMHO we should institute something like this in this country and just

   watch the crime rate decrease.


   IMHO

   Mike D

    .4... 
    Amen

    It took a long time to find out most of the details - when I first saw
    the "caning" story it was the mother crying her eys out saying her son
    was going to be tortured.  Well that sure got my attention - but before
    I wrote a check out to Amnesty International I found out the the 'boy'
    has lived there for a while, so he should know the consequense of
    crimes in that country - he is on the verge of manhood thus the
    innocent prank by a child excuse doesn't hold water and supposedly he
    had been warned by family members on how strict the Singapore
    government is.  
    
    I don't think I like the punishment of caning but that is up to the
    people of Singapore to create/change their laws - Visitors are expected
    to abide by the laws in the country they visit.  He didn't and he was
    punished, or will be soon.
    
    Jt

    While I think the punishment is excessive - for a first offense of this
    kind, I'd think repayment for repairing/cleaning up the damage, plus
    maybe some community service, and a groveling apology to the people
    whose property he trashed (and everybody whose time he wasted in
    catching and trying him!) would be quite sufficient - I'd agree that,
    under the circumstances, he ought to go through with it, and be
    thankful that the penalty didn't involve removing any of his
    appendages. But I do have some concern that all the appeals, and
    dragging the whole thing out, could result in considerably more
    emotional trauma than if he'd just gotten the caning right off the bat
    (so to speak). [Is the caning scheduled for after he's completed his
    prison sentence, or are they holding off while he's making appeals?]
    
    I'm not sure how I feel in general about the U.S. government's
    responsibility to its citizens when they get in trouble in foreign
    countries. I don't even know what the policy is - will the local
    embassy try to get a sentence reduced, offer to "deport" the miscreant,
    etc., or is it generally "if you do the crime, you do the time"? I can
    certainly imagine cases in which a naive tourist, having broken a local
    law out of ignorance, might need rescuing from a massively excessive
    punishment... I don't see any need for special treatment in this case,
    though.
    
    [Confession: While my opinions about this case aren't based on my
    reaction to the kid, I admit that when I saw him being interviewed all
    I could think was that he looked just like the kind of well-fed,
    over-privileged, spoiled-rotten vandal who thinks he's entitled to get
    away with anything (and generally does), and I immediately developed a
    profound dislike for him. Hasty, baseless, and judgmental, I know, but
    there it is. <grimace>]
    
    In any case, I think it'd be much better for him to get the whole thing
    over with; I don't know if the reported "suicidal impulses" are really
    there, but if he has to worry about all this for much longer, with hopes
    being raised and dashed every other day, it's certainly a possibility.
    [And of course there's the selfish reason for getting it over with: to
    get it off the evening news so we can go on to the next Timely
    Incident. ;-)]
    
    -b

    I agree completely with .3.

    
    	I find corporal punishment to be barbaric, due to its inherant
    violence. I read the description of what "caning" does to human flesh
    and I was disgusted.
    
    	I believe there are ways to forgive the person, without condoning
    the action, without forgiving what was done. Forgiving this fella for
    acting out in a destructive manner would be to not allow him to have
    his skin ripped open by a switch in the hands of someone who knows
    precisely how to do that.
    
    	Not forgiving his action would be the jail term, fine, service
    work - stuff that he can do to make up for his crimes.
    
    	People predisposed to violence are not constitutionally able to
    make this distinction, between forgiving the actor yet not forgiving 
    the action. Of course the mail is "overwhelmingly in favor" of what
    Singapore is doing; people are overwhelmingly violent, given what 
    goes on in the world on a daily basis, that's no big suprise.
    
    	I think it's a violent person who finds some kind of "value" or
    "usefulness" in "takin' it outta their hide", literally, when someone
    does something wrong and retribution is called for. I even caught
    myself thinking "he think's he's got problems" when I wrote .2; how
    merciless my own casual reaction can be. Guess I've been well trained!
    
    	I like the commercial sponsored by Harvard Medical, that depicts
    a teenage couple sitting in the car - with the man getting very upset
    over what the woman is going to do - that he feels is wrong, isnt what
    he'd prefer, isnt what he wants or whatever. He gets to pounding some 
    part of the car with his fist - that's the violent reaction to the
    situation at hand. The commercial goes on to delineate a more functional
    exchange, than the woman getting smacked, and the final caption is
    "THINK". As in before you act.
    
    	I had to think a bit, to get past my own merciless casual reaction
    to what this kids faces. I think I can hear the argument already,
    before I even hit ^Z; "Yeah well *he* should "thought" before he acted
    - string 'im up!". Perhaps so. BUT, who really needs to set the example?
    The people in charge maybe?
    
    	Joe

Perhaps some potential criminals will find certain types of corporal
punishment barbaric enough that those persons won't perpetrate the
crimes associated with that punishment.  You know, the deterrent
effect and all that.  I don't have any stats on this, but I wouldn't
be surprised if the countries with the most vulgar and heinous
retributions for certain offenses experience the least amount of crime
in those areas. 

    
    Re .10
    
    There's a certain country which has the most barbaric punishment in law
    that I know of and certainly what one would think to be the greatest
    deterrent of all.  Yet the crime, murder, is one of the highest, if not
    the highest in the world.  
    
    The punishment is capital punishment and the country is of course the
    US of A.  
    
    Nigel
    

    
    
      Capital punishment would be an effective deterrent if it was
    operating as it was designed. It does not work since it is attached to
    a goverment that is so bogged down with red tape. The only way I can
    imagine it ever working up to spec is for a total re-boot! 
      As capital punishment works now, it is no more of a deterrent than 
    jail time is. Since a convicted criminal can appeal the decision a 
    seemingly endless number of times, and then sit on death row for 
    umpteen years and THEN finally get off because of a technicality. 
      As far as I am concerned the goverment is operating like a 
    well-rusted machine.
      
     Since this is my first note here I guess I will get off my soapbox 
    now.   :-)
                                                *Brian*
      

    re .11, .12, hardly anybody is ever executed in the US, anymore, and in
    some (many?) states capital punishment is illegal, so as .12 says, it's
    hardly a deterrent.
    
    I have mixed feelings about the caning.  I'm glad Joe wrote .9, because
    I think it's important for people to realize what they are condoning
    when they eagerly say that they agree with what is going on in
    Singapore.  It really does sound barbaric.  On the other hand, if the
    person in question had vandalized my property, or stolen something that
    belonged to me, maybe I'd want to cane him myself.  People need to know
    that certain behavior (such as vandalism, stealing, etc.) is not going
    to be tolerated, and this message is not getting across in the US at
    the present time.  I really think most would be criminals feel that
    they can get away with just about anything, in the US, and they may be
    right.
    
    Lorna
     

    	On the one hand, I do believe he should be punished.   He committed
    a series of crimes, and he should pay for it.  I doubt there's anyone
    who thinks otherwise.


    	On the other hand, I think the caning is unnecessary.  I read a
    graphic description of what goes on, and whoever is wielding this baton
    must take a perverse pleasure in torturing others.  I don't see how
    else you could do something like that.


    	The baton is soaked in water overnight to keep it flexible enough
    so it won't break.  It is wielded by a martial arts expert who is
    probably very strong, and who is definitely very good at hitting
    things.  The caner is careful never to hit the buttocks in the same
    place, to make sure that as much of the surface is mutilated as
    possible.  With every stroke, bits of flesh and blood fly.  If the
    victim faints, they are revived -- the victim has to be awake for every
    stroke.  If they are physically unable to continue at some point, the
    caning is stopped until such time as the victim can withstand the
    punishment.


    	Frankly, any society which resorts to the physical punishment of
    its criminals -- and especially such excessive punishment as this --
    just can't be considered an "enlightened" society, in my opinion.
    You're punishing violence with violence -- what's the message here
    anyway?  I think in a case like this that we as a society have failed
    the victim; somewhere along the line we failed to teach them the things
    they need to know in order to be a productive member of our society.
    In this particular case, I would point a finger at the parents who
    probably spoiled him too much.  I'm not saying I blame the parents
    completely, I think ultimately we are all responsible for our own
    actions, but I do think they probably failed in some way.  And no, I
    don't see our society as particularly "enlightened", either.


    	Folks who argue for capital punishment haven't considered the
    sources of violence, I think.  I say this having at one time thought
    that capital punishment was the obvious solution to that problem.  And
    therein lies the problem:  it's obvious, it's easy, and we don't have
    to do anything.  Rarely, however, are the best solutions the obvious or
    easy ones (at least when you're dealing with people, who are by nature
    quite complex).


    	Why do criminals commit crimes?  Rarely because they *want* to be
    criminals.  I really believe a lot of it has to do with the home life.
    If they grow up in violent neighborhoods, the violence is the only
    "norm" they know.  If their parents are also violent, this message is
    further strengthened.  They commit crimes because it's become learned
    behavior, or they may do violence as a way of hitting back at their
    parents.  If you look at the movies, TV, even much of the modern music
    -- they all have elements of violence in them.  Where can a child
    growing up amongst all this learn what we would consider right and
    wrong?


    	The point is, someone growing up with these norms will *not* be
    deterred by capital punishment.  Building more prisons, and executing
    more prisoners will not solve the crime issue.  For one thing, when
    will we have enough prisons?  Where will it end?  As our population
    grows, do we build more and more and *more* prisons???  For another,
    someone growing up with different norms than ours will not see prison
    or death as a deterrent.  They may even see it as the normal course of
    things, possibly since so many around them end up there.  In any case,
    prison and death don't address the *why* of violent behavior, and if
    you want to change a person's behavior you have to address Why they do
    what they do.  To do otherwise is like applying a bandaid to someone
    with internal hemorrhaging.   You recognize there's a problem, you
    attempt to solve it with the obvious solution, but the person dies
    anyway.  Unless we get our act together as a society, I have to wonder
    how long our society will last.


    	However, I'm also practical enough to know that we can't give up
    prisons just yet.  There are simply too many people who shouldn't be
    walking the streets.  We either have to educate the current generation
    of parents, or we have to take the kids out of the violent homes or
    neighborhoods.  That's the only way I can see that we can break the
    chain of violence which is being handed down from generation to
    generation.  We also need more entertainment which depicts people
    solving their problems without resorting to violence.  I don't see the
    entertainment industry as a source of violence, but I do think they
    exacerbate the problem.


    	Most of what I've said doesn't apply to Michael Fay's case, I don't
    think.  I doubt his parents or neighborhood are particularly violent.
    And I would bet that complete restitution and a months worth of
    community service would probably do the job.  I read another article
    recently where someone who'd been caned as a kid mentioned that the
    psychological scarring from the experience lasted far longer than the
    physical discomfort.  I'm really having trouble understanding why
    people think this kind of brutality is necessary....



    Brian

    
    
       I heard today that that man who stole the shoes of a famous woman. 
    ( I cant remember his name) was sentenced to 4 years in prison. How can
    this be? Buttofuco gets off with 4 months, Bobbitt got off with about
    the same. and a thief gets 4 years?? If he had beaten the woman sfter
    stealing her shoes, I wonder if his sentence would have been shorter.
    
    
                                                *Brian*

    _The_Economist_ reported recently that 25% of all prison 
    inmates in the US are there for simple drug possession,
    and that experts estimate that a tiny number of people 
    (I forget the details) is responsible for 50% of reported
    violence and theft.
    
    It sure sounded like legalization of drugs and execution
    of that small number would make a big difference.
    
    There was more on this in that issue--I think was early
    March.
    
    		-John Bishop

re .14:

Why do you feel punishing violence with violence is wrong, and why 
would this not be the hallmark of an "enlightened" ( :-/ ) society?  I 
thought the idea of punishment was to do as much as possible to 
prevent recidivism and to deter non-criminals from committing crimes 
in the first place.  To me anyway, the idea that society owes 
something to an individual who has violated the rules society has set 
forth for proper behavior is ludicrous.

You say that "in a case like this... we as a society have failed the 
victim."  This attitude is so typical of criminal-coddlers.  Who 
exactly was the victim here?  If some woman were raped, would you say 
that the rapist is the victim?  If you were carjacked, your baby 
thrown out the window, and you were dragged to your death (a recent 
true occurrence), would you say that the carjackers were the victims?

I agree with you that because of some folks' upbringing their judgment 
and value sets aren't quite fully-developed, and that it would be nice 
to be able to fix this, but in the meantime there are criminals 
walking the streets who have *ZERO* respect for property and life, and 
you will not fix this even if you were to be able to change the 
educational system (including schools and parents) by Monday morning.

I tell you what - you take the Crips and relocate the whole bunch of 
useless bastards to Singapore and watch what happens.  I absolutely 
guarantee you that their behavior will change for the better after 
they see that muggings and stabbings result in swift and severe 
punishment (as opposed to free room and board with their buddies in 
this country).  I guarantee you also that living in Singapore with the 
Crips around would be far safer than living in the U.S with the Crips 
around.  Far fewer people would be beaten, raped, and killed.  So, you 
tell me which society is more enlightened.

    Singapore is a society which has high penalties for things which to us
    seem minor.  Fines for littering, including discarding of cigarette
    butts.  Fines for jaywalking near a crosswalk.  Death for drugs. One
    cannot be in Singapore without knowing that these penalties exist. Even
    chewing gum has been a prohibited substance at one time or another. Let
    him be penalized and come back and make the movie and do the talk show
    circuit and be done with it.
    
    ed

    
    	re .17 -
    
    >Why do you feel punishing violence with violence is wrong, and why
    >would this not be the hallmark of an "enlightened" ( :-/ ) society? 
    
    	I'd have something to say about this. First off, "eye for 'an eye,
    tooth for a tooth" is an *ancient* piece of wisdom. I'd think that in
    the last thousand years - or is it more like ten thousand? - that human 
    society would have moved somewhat beyond that particular level.
    
    	Violence is wrong, period. It's society's responsibility to set
    that example - it does no good (as far as setting an example) to go
    down to the same level as the criminals operate in. When your child
    baits you into an irrational argument - do you go down to his level and
    duke it out - or do stop, think, and realize that it's simply not useful 
    for either of you to do that?
    
    	A Jewish, originally American MD takes an automatic weapon into
    a mosque in a place called "Hedon" and starts blowing people away.
    He didnt do this because he had an "open hearted" relationship with 
    those folks. In fact his heart was quite closed to those people, I'd say.
    It was more like he was sending Anger and Hatred and Revulsion into
    those people; those feelings literally carried on each bullet as it tore
    into the flesh of each unsuspecting victim.
    
    	Consider the "usefulness" of that action. Extend that to corporal
    forms of punishment; the sending of Anger, Hatred and Revulsion into
    the flesh of some being. Doesnt matter if it's your anger or that of
    some whole society's; what's I'm talking about is the act of sending 
    Hatred and Anger and Revulsion into someone's physical body.
    
    	So the other day, in retaliation for "Hedon" someone detonated
    himself and several nearby children by touching off a car full of
    explosives. An operation occuring at the *same level* as the incident;
    in that it was sending Hatred and Anger and Revulsion into the flesh
    of...whomever happened to be on the bus, I guess. What was the
    *usefulness* of that? It's more like *insanity* and fits the classic
    definition of "doing the same thing and expecting different results".
    
    	In the same light, that of "what's the use?", is the sending of
    Hatred and Anger and Revulsion into the body of a 17 year old boy going
    to do *ANYTHING* but cultivate more Hatred and Anger and Revulsion, in
    a world that's chock-full of these qualities already?
    
    	Society *owes* an accountability to the way things are. If a
    society stoops down to the same level as that which the crimes are
    comitted, in an attempt to impart an effective punishment, the ultimate
    result will only be the cultivation of more acting out on a criminal
    level. The solution must be something different - it's too bad for
    "Singapore" that their heart does not yet see that.
    
    	IMHO,
    
    	Joe

    
    
       The laws in Singapore are definately different. Gum chewing is
    illegal because their President or whoever was in charge, stepped in
    some one time: so he outlawed it! When I went there, I was briefed
    heavily by my C.O. We were warned about things like this. They are not
    the only country that outlaws chewing gum. Some of the Arab countries
    also feel the same way. I think stiff and immediate punishment is an
    excellent deterrent. 
    
                                                *Brian*

    Actually, the "eye for an eye" pronouncements in the Bible were an
    attempt at clemency.  Previuosly, the penalties were more likely
    "a head for an eye" and "and arm for a tooth."

    
     We deal with a crime problem,where 90% of the crime is commited by
    20%-25% of the population. These career criminals know,the "Criminal"
    justice system will treat them with a set of rules,created to disway
    the casual criminal. In other words we have locks on our doors to
    deter casual crimials,keeping honest people honest,the determined
    career criminal "will" get in,and if apprehended will serve a little
    time then do it again,and again. We have rules,they do not. We pass
    laws for honest people to follow. Career criminals have thier own
    rules,do what they want to whomever they want,anytime they want. A
    society which treats it's preditors,like some sort of spoiled or
    misunderstood child,is doomed to remain prey,and subject to the whim
    of those who would do harm,for perhaps no reason other than entertainment,
    or enrichment.
 

Hello everyone,

This topic is a very interesting one and is helping me reasone out a line
of logic. 

Most often  violence either as aggression, defence, retribution or punishment
or in any form is interpeted in the context of it's situation.

It's the situation where violence is applied that helps me deal with the
inherent obcen nature of violence.

If we were to look at a situation where violence was applied to save a childs
life we might think of the violent act in a certain frame work. 

It's becoming apparent to me that violence, even though inherently obcen may be
the only effective tool that an inlightend society can deploy to those of us
who reject our social tabos and carry out aggressive acts.

Many of us who carry out aggressive and othere criminal acts do not respond to 
reason, logic or intelectual exchanges where social values are attempted to be
instilled. It's not an intellect thing most often. It's more of a " I reject
your tabos and will take what I want " thing. We can intellectualize with them
and most often we might find that they are very bright if not in fact BRILLIANT
at times. I say this because that in most cases they have figured out better
than we that "CRIME PAYS" " AGGRESSION GETS YOU WHAT YOU WANTED " .

Think about it, what are the checks and balances for civil behavour, Religious
rules of fairness and honesty, tabos, yes but they are effectively erroded and
totaly inoperative in many instances. Primary motivators for a sought after
behavior might be " do this or don't do that " because you will either
gain or lose something. You may gain something you value or you may gain
a painfull experience, you may lose something you value or your punishment
yoke might be removed.

Some of us do not respond to the intelectual arguments because we know that
many of us are easy pickens as a community or an individual. The mind of such
a person usually understands the realitys of life much more clearly than
most and they have very little to lose. What are we going to do to them, take
away thier freedom ? and in doing so provide a fair percentage of them with an
improved life style and an education. Well if your a street person crime might
" PAY TWICE ".

Unfortunetly  personal physical pain " violence " might be the only common
denominator that transends culture, language, deficiant social or religious
tabos in such a way that inhibits a person from thrusting the knife in 
our ribs for the spare change in our pockets. 

Now thats the kind of violence I really don't wan't to see.


Gerry

    
    Do you think he would EVER do a repeat (or some similar) crime if he
    remains in Singapore, receiving their punishment?
    
    Do you think he would EVER do a repeat (or similar) crime in the U.S.
    if he received our form (none??) of punishment for the offense??
    
    Deterence! Something we seem to have misplaced in the U.S.
    
    Gary

Setting aside the philosophizing, moralizing, rationalizing and proseltyzing
for just a moment, the issue hasn't to do with whether the kid deserved it,
whether it's humane, whether it's effective, or anything else. The issue
has to do with the fact that he's in their country and subject to their
laws and penalties. For any American official to plead or object is both
arrogant and presumptuous. If we wouldn't (don't) do the same for their
citizens who might be subjected to that day in and day out, we have no
business making a big deal of it because one of our citizens is being treated
the same. I know of no human rights furor currently underway in this country
regarding Singapore's mistreatment of their own people.

Would we expect, or relent to, a request for leniency if we were to bring
charges against a foreign national here in the States?

-Jack

    
    
    	I agree that if one goes into another country, one must realize
    they may be dealing with barbarians, should they get themselves into
    trouble. However...
    
    	What's presumptous is to assume that a connection is even made
    between "getting a beating" and "doing something wrong". When a physical
    beating is given as a punishment for wrongdoing, a likely cognitive 
    consequence is simply, "when I get caught, I get a beating".
    
    	How come? Could it be that those are the two biggest things in
    one's awareness at the time; first the "getting caught", then the
    "beating"? I bet if you looked at what's on our 17 year old's mind most
    of the time these days, it's not something about "how wrong it was what
    I did", it's more like "how painful it's going to be to take this
    beating they've got planned!". I read he's being treated for depression, 
    so I believe my guess is correct.
    
    	So, if this model is accurate, even 50% of the time, how can 
    something be an effective deterrant to doing something wrong if the
    'something wrong' part doesnt enter the mental picture? Seems to me
    that someone who gets beaten for doing something wrong, will just do 
    that same wrongful act in such a way that they'd be sure they simply
    _didnt get caught_ the next time.
    
    	Joe

the assumption is that people who know right from wrong will willfully chose
only the right things.

The assumption dosent bear out in reality. Some people do whatever they can get 
away with. The term get away with also means trivial punishment. If you can 
embezel several hundred k, pay a hundred k in fines and spend 5 years in jail
you come out ahead.

There is no object lesson of right or wrong here. It's a very clear case of
 punishment which in it's selfe serves to deter repeat actions.

If thinking continues that an adolecent, young adult or adult with a sound mind 
has a difficult time understanding a given criminal act as being a wrong action 
and that punishment is the instruction of that understanding then that thinking 
is failing.

It is the thinking in our present system and it is failing. I would love to 
design the perfect correctional program complete with all the humanistic 
trappings of an inlghtened advanced intelect however if we do not impliment
some primitive but extremly effective punishments now we may not have the
decade or two of time it will take to design it.

IMHO

I'm still learning folks and the mind is open

Gerry

    
    RE .26
    
    I could accept that argument if humans had a brain and the intelegence
    of a cat. MOST humans however can support the mental ability required
    to relate action to consequence. I believe we call it 'learning'.
    
    Gary.
    

    re .26:
    
    A country that tries its best to deter criminals from repeating their
    offenses against society is barbaric?  I would think barbarism would be
    best exemplified by a country that let its criminals run free after a
    short token stay in a hotel^H^H^H^H^H jail, a country such as, oh...
    say... the U.S.

    From my college book, "History of Western Philosophy, Hobbes to Hume.
    
    Locke on Political theory and the "state of Nature"
    
    "By the same reason may a man in the state of Nature punish the lesser
    breaches of that law, it will, perhaps, be demanded, with death?  I 
    answer:
    
    	Each transgression may be punished to that degree, and with so much
    severity, as will suffice to make it an ill bargain to the offender,
    give him cause to repent, and terrify others from doing the like."
    

    	It's interesting to me to note just how much emotion has been
    raised by this issue.  I think this is because people are scared.  So
    am I.  But I'm just as scared that we as a society won't figure out the
    proper way to handle the problem and it will continue to get worse.  I
    also believe that most problems are best solved when you have a clear
    head and a stable pulse.


    	A couple of vague "facts" (actually, statistics would be a more
    appropriate term -- and as we all know, statistics can be massaged to
    fit most any viewpoint) are woefully insufficient to confuse me.  In
    fact I have read nothing which even remotely comes close to convincing
    me that there is anything of substance in the arguments presented.  And
    I am quite open to changing my mind, if someone could present something
    which appeared logical to me.  I have no doubt, and in fact had no
    doubt before I entered my first note, that my arguments would likewise
    have no effect on anyone else.  They really weren't intended to.  I
    simply felt strongly enough about this issue that I wanted a dissenting
    (perhaps I should say, "another" dissenting voice, eh, Joe?) voice
    represented in the replies to the basenote.


    	The fact is, unless you've done some exploration, and come to
    certain awarenesses it's unlikely you'll understand what Joe and I are
    saying.  This is in no way meant condescendingly; a few years ago I
    wouldn't have had a clue about this stuff either.  I actually hadn't
    intended to write anymore on this subject, but I felt there were a
    couple things (at least  ;-)) I'd left unsaid.  But before I go into
    that, I'd just like to point out that not one person (that I can
    remember, perhaps I missed someone) responded to the "Why do criminals
    commit crimes?" question.  Until you honestly think about this it's
    highly unlikely you'll ever come up with a good long term solution.
    Until you understand where the violent behavior comes from, you can't
    correct it.


    	I get the sense that some folks are mistaking "enlightened" with
    "safe".  What you really want is "safe", correct?  Safe and enlightened
    are two VERY different things.  The dictionary I have in front of me
    says of enlighten:  "To give knowledge, truth, or understanding to.  To
    inform."  Where does physical punishment fit into a definition like
    that?  And don't give me, "If you do X, we'll punish you with Y and
    that's the truth.  Understand?"  When I used the word enlightened, I
    was speaking of a society that punished its criminals in such a way
    that they truly learned that what they did was wrong and why.


    	This reminds me of the sexist issue.  Men have been treating women
    in a sexist way for a long time.  Now it's also happening the other
    way, where women are getting a chance to treat men in a sexist way.  Is
    one better than the other?  Does the latter case help prevent the
    former?  No.  By perpertrating the latter case, you are only
    perpetuating the very *idea* you say you are against.  If you say you
    are against violence, then it must be against all violence -- there is
    no right or wrong kind, only wrong.  If you want something to change,
    you first have to change MIND SET.  Then you have to ACT that way.


    	I heard of a study where convicted rapists were put through
    therapy.  It turned out that nearly all (or perhaps all, I forget) had
    been sexually abused as kids.  Coincidence?  I think not.  The number
    of rapists who emerge from "normal" prison sentences and do not rape
    again is very small.  The number who emerged from this pilot program
    and did not rape again was quite high (I'm thinking 35-50%, but it's
    been awhile so I could be wrong).  They showed the convicts literally
    crying because of the deep-seated pain they were carrying inside.  Not
    only pain for what they'd done, but more so because of the pain that
    had been done TO them.  This is what I meant by criminals most often
    being "victims".  Initially the costs of such a program are quite high,
    but in the long run it was shown to be much cheaper.  That's because if
    you can take a repeat offender, and make him a productive part of
    society, you no longer have the cost of feeding him, clothing him,
    sheltering him and so on.  Beyond that, he becomes a productive part of
    society working a job and paying taxes.


    	I'm really not sure why people think I'm saying criminals shouldn't
    be punished.  I never said that.  What I said, or meant to say, is that
    they should be punished such that they *learn* from the punishment.  I
    also didn't say let's do away with prisons, in fact I said we still
    need them (for now, unfortunately).  As for the "idea of punishment",
    well, non-criminals rarely commit crimes so I'll not linger on that
    subject.  To me, punishment should be a learning experience; if you
    don't learn anything, or if all you learn is, "If I do X, I'll get Y
    treatment so I'd better get smarter about doing X.", you haven't done
    any good.  Just because you've locked a person up, or beaten them until
    they faint doesn't mean you've taught them what they need to know.  You
    haven't "enlightened" them, you've simply punished them.  The two are
    NOT synonymous.



    Brian

Ahhh Gi'day...�

    There are  probably  millions  of  abused people walking the planet who
    rape  nobody.  There are millions of people walking the planet who were
    beaten  repeatedly  with canes (and anything else) who don't believe in
    violence.

    I went through a very tough Catholic school system where violence was a
    way of life. I don't beat up homosexuals or spray cars for sport!!!

    The problem  with  our  society is that there it allows every EXCUSE to
    screw  up.   I  rape because..., I kill because..., I steal because...,
    I'm homeless because..., I'm unemployed because...

		     I'M A VICTIM, IT'S NOT MY FAULT!!!

    This HAS  to change, because it doesn't work.  Never has.  Prob.  never
    will.   People  must  learn  to  accept  that  the  only  person who is
    responsiblefor themselves *is* themselves.

    Enlightened is an elitist term.  We sitting in our lounge room with our
    slippers  in  front of our "enlightened" media are making judgements on
    the foreign barbarians. It's all relative.

    Most people  in  Europe (and here in Australia) think that entertaining
    ANY form of Capital punishment is "barbarian".

    And to  recall  a statement from a Singapore minister the other day, "A
    man  who shoots an innocent Japanese kid walks away scot free, and they
    call *US* barbarians? With a system of justice like that, no wonder the
    U.S.  has a crime problem."

    Actually, there  were TWO people involved in this crime.  The other was
    an  Australian.   Even though there was an outcry against granting bond
    (they  knew  they  would  run)  they  were  given bail.  The Aussie ran
    (probably  the  way  the  Singapore  authorities  wanted  it),  but the
    American was silly enough to stay, and he gets what's coming.

    re .31
    
    > ...  The number who emerged from this pilot program
    > and did not rape again was quite high (I'm thinking 35-50%, but it's
    > been awhile so I could be wrong).  
    
    So 50 to 65% _did_ rape again?  And that's _with_ the therapy, right?
    
    That's hardly a recommendation for release.  Frankly, that's a
    recommendation for a system that just cheaply kills criminals rather
    than spends lots of money on prisons and therapy.
    
    Again, I'll recommend the article in _The_Economist_.  At least it
    has hard(er) numbers and lots of cross-cultural comparisons.
    
    		-John Bishop

    People who maintain that violent criminals and sociopaths should be
    given no more then a slap on the wrist or rehabilitated have not had a
    violent crime perpetrated against them or their loved ones.....bringing
    these crimes close to home generally changes forever the way one views
    violence, punishment and incarceration!
    
    Just an observation.

    
    	The Worcester Telegram & Gazette is doing a "people poll"
    	thru Cityline regarding this topic today.  If you'd like 
    	to vote call 508-792-9400, it option 1200.  1 for YES and 
        2 for NO.  The results will be in tomorrows newspaper, I'll
    	post the results.
    
        Dianne

    
    if its really the will of the Singaporean people to cane severely
    the backsides of transgressors, so be it. 
    
    it appears that he got his day in court, and will shortly make 
    the aquiantance of Mr Cane.
    

    
    	The Telegram published the poll numbers today, but I forgot
    	to bring them in.  It was a landslide in favor of the yes
        vote thou.
    
        Someone told me the President requested clemency for him, did
    	anyone hear if this has been granted?

    
    The news report last night seemed to indicate Bush or Reagan, a past
    president anyway (sorry the memory is going...) is going to interceed
    on the deliquents behalf with the prime minister. A statement made
    by the prime minister did not seem to indicate he had any belief that
    the youth was getting anything more than he deserved.
    
    Gary.

    I think I understand what Brian is trying to say, and I agree with him
    in principle.
    
    As for Fay,  I feel the prison sentence and fines are sufficient, 
    although I would have liked to see restitution verses fines.  I know
    it doesn't matter, but the caning, while totally within their culture,
    is a bit hard for me to deal with.
    
    As for the situation in the US, in particular, I think this notestring
    illustrates the complexity of the situation.  I agree that our entire
    societal infrastructure could use some "re-engineering", and being an
    educator, certainly see value in a first-offense attempt to educate
    (depending on the crime).
    
    In supporting such a proposal, I also understand - sadly - that there
    are those who will not respond to this approach.  They will resume
    their lifestyle of crime, and usually violence, again and again and
    again.  The rub, then, is what do we do with those?  Therein lies our
    greatest challenge as a society, IMHO.  
    
    Brian's case of perpetrators being victims first is quite correct, from
    my perspective.  Thus, in any crime, all participants are victims. 
    This does not excuse the perpetrator, nor does this qualify him/her to
    abdicate his/her obligation to society.  On the contrary, he/she does
    the time.  Then, after a first time attempt to educate - let's call it
    an intervention (and again, depending on the crime.  This is not for
    every category of activity) - the system takes its normal course; 
    whatever society deems that to be.
    
    On another note, the Old Testament bible quote has been used in this
    notestring several times.  I always find it interesting that when
    quoted, it is NEVER completed.  It actually goes, "An eye for an eye,
    and a tooth for a tooth - BUT VENGENCE IS MINE, SAITH THE LORD".  Just
    something to think about.
    
    In conclusion, I too am fearful our society may take a "quick fix",
    severe, sweeping approach to the problem.  If so, we could well end
    up with a police state rivaling the USSR Secret Police in its prime.
    
    Thanks for listening.
    
    -Bill  

    For what it's worth, Fay had four (4) previous convictions
    for vandalism and/or "mischief", according to a letter from
    a Singaporean offical to Newsweek.
    
    So it's not like he didn't know what the rules were or was
    doing this for the first time.
    
    		-John Bishop

Ahhh Gi'day...�

    "Clemency" -  you  mean where some grandstanding politician gets up and
    makes  a  rather large name (and photo-op) for themselves by pretending
    to hang out and then sparing little Kittie or condemned prisoner at the
    last moment to rapturous applause?

		This is Singapore we are talking about, mate.

    I heard on the news last night that Singapore also dishes out
    severe penalties for not flushing public toilets!  Just thought it
    was interesting.  Makes one wonder just how far one should go
    to insure the environment we live in is ship-shape and proper.
    
    

    RE:  .42
    
    Any penalty for leaving seats up?
                   
    

    regarding .39
    
    I too share many of the points and concerns raised in .39. I also share
    the frustration that many of us feel regarding the errosion of personal
    freedoms, apparent safty and the objection by many that to defend your
    selfe from crime may be looked apon as a crime.
    
    This coporal punishment example brings to mind how my old neighborhood
    operated. When young, full of vinager and a keen taste for vine ripe
    muscat grapes ( white and sweet ) I and my friends on occassion would 
    take to late summer evening raids on our neighboors gardens.
    
    We were always told by our parents how important a garden is to
    everyone and we knew it to be true by the abundant food we would enjoy
    from them but for some reasone nothing tasted quit as good as those
    sweet, white muscat grapes that we knew were right at hand and easy
    pickens from our neighbors vinyard.
    
    So we took to running night time raids, filling our T shits by tieing
    knots at the belly and making clear of the fence just as the screen
    doors flew open and the sound of cursing and foot stomping chasing
    behind us. We would then hide in the woods and eat our fill, Wash
    off in the brook and sneak home to our beds, burping the night away.
    
    The word was passed by the mothers throught the neighborhood that some
    serious happenings if they continue will beget some serious action. No
    one knew it was us kids doing this but at the supper tables
    conversations like "If this garden raiding continues, well I wont be
    surprised if someone get's a tast of rocksalt from a double barrel".
    
    Well we didn't listen and I and two others got a taste of 12ga rocksalt
    on the back side of our legs, just too much grapes in the T shirt to
    get over the wall in time.
    
    Did not do it again, did not tell Mom and Dad I got hit with rocksalt
    but Mom wondered alloud why I was taking so many warm soda baths, I
    kept saying bug bites were real bad this summer.
    
    And the neighborhood was gald to hear the crowing of the old neighboor
    who made sure and tell why everyone heard the boom boom the other night
    and how sure he was that at least a couple of em are sporten shreaded
    pants. I throw mine in the trash late that night and burned the trash
    and the grabage like a good kid the next day.
    
    And at the barber shop that Saturday I heard how it happened how that
    next time, if there was to ba a next time, why he would just shoot out
    the screen window, cooper screen was cheap enough to replace so as to 
    not let em get too far out of range.
    
    Anyway, people takeing care of their own problems and not letting the 
    problem change their way of living or their values, about standing their
    ground is to me what this issue most closely compares to. They worked
    too hard for what little they got and they would be damed if to roll
    over and give up to anyone that dared to take.
    
    I learned more from this event then most any one lesson of youth or
    life and what I learned was that nothing is for nothing and even your
    old neighboor could square off your rear end. It took me down a few pegs
    and before school started in the fall we all helped Old man Princibe
    take in his garden, can up the beans, tomatos and all and put his 
    grapes and vines to press. He was amazed at all the help us kids gave
    him that fall and broke into a broad grin every time he would tells us
    about how he laid down two full choke barrels of 12ga saltrock one
    night and that no hoodlums would do him or his garden in even if he
    was just an old man.
    
    And we knew he would keep his word and we all ended up crieing for him
    when he died and we missed his strength in the old neighborhood.
    
    Sorry for the tale, but to make a stand today you might have to know how
    it feels to fall down first because both positions hurt like hell.
    
    Gerry                                              
    

    Yes, failure to flush a public toilet in Singapore was, as I recall, a
    $500 fine, about the same as jaywalking.  Considering that that toilet
    was open to the elements and insects and about the same as a French WC,
    this law was undoubtedly intended to help control the bug population.
    Singapore is 1 degree north of the equator and very hot and humid.
    
    ed

    re .42, .45, when I recall some of the horrible sights I've been
    subjected to in public restrooms, in the US (and even here at
    Digital!), over the years, it sounds fairly reasonable to me.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re: .44
    
    Thanks for experience.  You must be incredibly smart to have realized
    that the dose of rocksalt and the pain was a deterent to stealing the
    grapes rather than being an incentive to steal 'better' and not get
    caught next time. According to several replies in here that is all
    pain/punishment teaches. So you must be REALLY bright.
    
    Hmmm, it's either that or their opinions are REALLY ......
    
    Gary.

    
    	re -.1
    
    	You're basing your argument on the short-sighted premise that 
    someone's reaction to corporal punishment necessarily correlates to 
    intelligence. It does not.
    
    	It's far more likely that someone's reaction to being beaten will
    correlate to their feelings about it, perhaps in relation to - or - along 
    with their feelings about themselves, which is an *emotional* response.
    
    	Emotions are well known to be illogical; "If A, therefore B" doesnt 
    work with emotions. That's why...It's like trying to put a square peg in 
    a round hole - people who try to force logic on another's emotions drive
    them into the back rooms of mental institutions - or other institutions,
    like "jail".
    
    	"Smart" and "bright" are words used to qualify intelligence. That
    is *not* the same thing as "dicipline", which can be used to qualify
    someone's reaction to their emotions. Sorry - your point doesnt hold 
    water!
    
    	There are plenty of brilliant people, who do not have a lot of
    dicipline around their reactions to how they feel. Kurt Cobain comes
    to mind... Conversely, ...
    
    	What "several replies" are trying to point out is that the value
    of having dicipline around one's reaction to their own feelings isnt
    conveyed to another person by whipping their butt! Or shooting them
    in that place with a shotgun loaded with rocksalt, or doing some
    other de-valuing action to them.
    
    	Joe

                        << Text will be entered from  >>

  Interesting,

  What was going on in my little brain during that time as I reflect on it ?

  I knew plainly that the deed was wrong, I was a good Altar boy, wen't to
  Catholic school, Had/have parents that loved and cared for me and didn't
  have any problems in school or with relationships of any kind. I also knew
  that the garden was valuable and that we were causing hardship.

  The boy next door I was for sure, the kid that brings the paper to you
  from the front lawn and catches your dog for you when it breaks loose.
  The first class scout with all the merit badges.

  So why did I go along and do it, plan it with the gang and actually make it
  happen.

  In my case I think I did it because I thought I could get away with it. I 
  felt kinda powerfull, puffed up, I could do what I could get away with.
  And I did just that. Several times infact. We all felt it was a power thing
  and we bubbled with the rush of it. It raised the hairs on our necks, we were
  invinciable.......we were young and needed a good lesson.

  It was a rush, It affirmed that we were in some way above and beyond athority.
  There was plenty of athority on my street, Gawd, you were every mothers son
  and every farther had athority, they could reach into your kitchen with one
  loud call and send your mother or father into emedeate action.  

  The logic for doing this ?....none...nope no logic... The old man, for the
  sake of conversation and a hand at getting the high pears on the ladder
  would have given us bunches of warm sweet grapes but maybe we needed at that
  time to give the athority thing a taste of our own salt and vinegar and
  see if we could get away with it. We were very full of ourselfes.

  As I think of this it saddens me to remember the trouble I caused this poor
  old man who was trying to make ends meet on a World War 1 disability check.
  And it gladdens me that he still had enough BACK BONE in him to set my
  back side moving because if he didn't I don't know where or how I would have
  eneded up at that time.

  And in our case, a scolding and grounding would have brought CONTEMPT.. 
  We would have complied with it alright, it would have slowed down our 
  shanangins but it would have bounced of our puffed up notion of ours selfes.
 
  I don't think anything could have made us turn the corner quicker or with 
  more clarity than to realize that people regardless of our opinions of them 
  could be tougher than us.

  We can call this a Logic thing, an emotion thing an intellect thing or some 
  other thing but whatever ya call it .....It sounds like BOOM, BOOM and it
  stings like hell so take it from a one time pumped up little S**T with an
  attitude. You get respect from them when you beat them at thier own game.

  Gerry

    
    Wrong again!  Im basing my argument on the track-proven premise that
    BEHAVIOR CAN BE CONDITIONED. Be it consious thought or some underlying
    'emotion' the end result is still the same:
    
    	BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION.
    ( Not doing whatever it was that got yer arse whooped. = Not
    vandalizing cars because the end result is my butt is going to hurt
    like h*ll.)
    
    
    You don't seem to think this works, but Pavlov would certainly
    disagree!
    
    Gary.
    

    Re behavioral conditioning: perhaps, but to me the rock-salt story
    suggested that the "conditioning" we're talking about wasn't the
    rock-salt at all, but the upbringing the kids had had. That is, they
    already knew what they were doing was wrong, and that they didn't
    really want to do wrong things (at least not where their families could
    see), and when it was brought home to them, they took their punishment
    and were glad it wasn't worse (i.e., public - or at least that's how I
    felt about it when I was a kid; I'd have preferred almost any physical
    suffering to having to face my parents and admit I'd messed up!). I can
    very easily imagine kids who'd been brought up with (or who'd otherwise
    arrived at) different values, reacting to the rock-salt incident by
    burning the farmer's barn - or even house - down some dark night, and
    feeling themselves justified in their vengeance.
    
    I suppose that's a major factor in how people respond to being caught
    at something. If they empathize with the victim and realize that
    they've done harm to somebody, there's hope; if they simply feel
    annoyed at getting caught, they're probably going to do it again, only
    more carefully next time...
    
    -b

    I heard a statement from someone in Singapore that woman cannot be
    caned nor can the seriously ill or retarded.  Someone who is seriously
    ill will usually receive a suspended sentence of caning.
    
    ed

    
    	Re .49 
    
    	Sure, behavior can be modified, and conditioned, but unless human
    beings are the same as dogs (which they are not) it might take a bit
    more that some physical "conditioning" to effect a desired response.
    
    	I think your opinion is limited by the view that because corporal
    punishment does work for some poeple; therefore it ought to work for
    most everyone; therefore, it's the best we've got to offer.
    
    	My argument was to suggest that a substantial number of people do 
    not make the "not doing whatever it was that got your arse whooped" 
    connection, because these folks cannot "logicize" their emotions. In 
    other words, how they feel about what they do is not change-able or 
    modify-able simply via their "making sense of it".
    
    	I shored this up by saying that "intelligence" and "dicipline"
    do not necesarily have a correlation. That is to say, having
    intelligence holds no advantage when it comes to making an emotional
    decision around one's own behavior. There's a myriad of examples...
    
    	My suggestion is that this world get out of the "dark-ages" where 
    we think we can still beat people into submission and that a human
    being's behavior will change if we simply jolt them with enough 
    electricity. (All that is not true and there's a myriad of examples I
    could give to show that too).
    
    	It's just so coarse, crude and...inhuman. It's in effect saying
    that we want these people to be human - behave humanly - by treating
    them *inhumanly*. Doesnt work!
    
    	Joe

    I heard this morning that the punishment has been carried out. The
    result of all clemency requests etc has been to shorten the sentence
    from 6 lashes to four... I am sure he is a little sore right now, but
    in good health otherwise.
    
    He did some wrong... and he paid for it. it is that simple.
    
    Ana

    
    	He's probably in good health alright - a little "post traumatic
    stress syndrome" never hurt anyone's attitude about themselves or the
    world around them...
    
    	I wonder what the extent of his actual physical injuries are?
    "Just" welts or blisters on his behind? Or did he need stitches -
    
    	Joe

He hasn't paid completely - he still has a prison term to serve and a fine
to pay.

I heard that the attorney his dad hired is going to pressure Congress to
impose sanctions on Singapore and ask for boycotts against the country's
products.  I hope nobody goes along with this.

				Steve

    Re: .52
    
    
    >   My argument was to suggest that a substantial number of people do
    >   not make the "not doing whatever it was that got your arse whooped"
    >   connection, because these folks cannot "logicize" their emotions. In
    >   other words, how they feel about what they do is not change-able or
    >   modify-able simply via their "making sense of it".
         
    
    O.K! You convinced me. You are absolutly right. People can't "make the
    connection". They cannot "logicize" their emotions, nor can they change
    how they feel about what they do by "making sense of it". There is
    certainly NO VALUE in punishment of humans. It changes nothing, does no
    good.
    
    So, that agreed to, it now becomes obvious that we have been really
    wasting our time in society, especialy when raising kids!! Scolding,
    spanking, grounding (for young teens) or other forms of PUNISHMENT are
    worthless since "what they do is not change-able or modify-able".
    
    It becomes obvious to me now that this is just worthless brutality,
    needlessly inflicted upon our youth. Since you have demonstrated that
    punishment serves NO purpose or use in deterring or changing behaviour
    or attitutes, we can now simply sit back, let our children grow up and
    see if they are inherently good or bad! IT MUST BE GENETIC!
    
    WoW! Think of the time this will save, and how it will cut down on
    crime! We won't have to wait for someone to kill to execute them, we
    will know as soon as they commit their first offense that they are
    inherently bad! And since you have proved that their behaviour is "the
    way they feel" and that it can't be changed, we can just fry them on
    their first offense, (shoplifting candy at the age of 8, for example).
    
    Yup! You sure have convinced me! ;-)
    
    Gary.
    

    re .54
    
    Actually, I heard he has 3 months of imprisonment left to go...  but I
    agree that too much was made of this incident.  I think it's absurd
    that the President of the United States was asked to intervene on
    behalf of a vandal.  Fay was old enough, and had enough exposure to the
    culture to understand the consequences of his actions beforehand.

    
    	Gary,
    
    >It becomes obvious to me now that this is just worthless brutality,
    >needlessly inflicted upon our youth. Since you have demonstrated that
    >punishment serves NO purpose or use in deterring or changing behaviour
    >or attitutes, we can now simply sit back, let our children grow up and
    
    	I never said that. I said *corporal* punishment isnt valuable for
    teaching someone the usefulness of something like "dicipline". You're 
    the one that's lumping together "spanking, grounding (for young teens) or 
    other forms of PUNISHMENT"... The point I'd like to convey is they're
    not at all the same. 
    
    	Grounding your young teen for the weekend is _not_ the same as a
    trip to the woodshed with the belt. Confined to their room, over time,
    s/he has the opportunity to think about and investigate the causal
    relationship between his or her action and the punishment. At least
    he or she has the chance to take it on as such. Conversely, as someone
    bodily dissapates the pain of physical blows to the behind, where 
    dissociation - in which one literally "leaves" the experience - is a 
    fairly ordinary response, one does _not_ even have that opportunity.
    
    	[I'll admit that I do not have an answer for the case where a teen
    chooses further deliquency over the opportunity to reform themselves - 
    when being grounded and missing the dance that weekend does not effect a
    change in their behavior - they dont learn from that type of punishment]
    
    	Although I dont know it (because you cannot know another person's
    experience) I'd bet that Mr Fay was hardly "investigating the causal
    relationship between his action and the punishment" as the cane was
    doing its deed. Like I said, he probably wasnt even there mentally or
    emotionally - caning - the whole problem with it - being infact a
    brutal and traumatizing form of corporal punishment.
    
    	Joe

    	Actually he may not have known the seriousness of the punishment
    for his particular offense.  Although many things that we consider
    outside of the realm of law are criminal and punished severely, the
    particular offense is punished disproportionately in comparison with
    other similar offenses.  The only other crimes which merit caning are
    rape and murder.
    	Apparently the the severe penalty for vandalism is to discourage
    the use of graffitti to express disagreement with the government. 
    Since they can effectively clamp down on the print and broadcast media,
    the only way that any opposition can be heard is outside of the regular
    channels.  So they make sure that people who might express
    anti-government sentiments through graffitti are strongly discouraged.
    						John
    PS If ZGO is on the network, and anyone there reads this, please foward
    a copy to your local censor.  I always wanted to be an international
    fugitive.
    

    
    
      This kid is going to be crying all the way to the bank! He is soing
    to be a millionare!  He will write a book and go on talk shows ect.
    For a million dollars you could cane me for sure. 
    
    
    
                                                *B*

    Re: -1
    
    I sure hope the Singapore gov't succeeds in keeping the guy behind bars
    long enough for the overblown media hype to fade.
    
    Profiting from a spanking smacks of American capitalism at its most
    disgraceful...
    
    -rich
    Mass Storage Engineering OEM D&SG  SHR1-3/O13    DTN:  237-2124
    Work: [email protected]                      508-841-2124
    Home: [email protected]                URL http://www.pn.com

    	I recently read a couple of articles about Fay's caning, and while
    I wanted to share them intact after conferring with a moderator it
    seems that would violate our non-redistribution policy with Clari News.
    So I will paraphrase the highlights.


    	It starts out by saying that US trauma experts say that above and
    beyond days and weeks of excruciating pain and seeping wounds, Fay
    could face years of nightmares and flashbacks -- similar to what
    Vietnam Vets faced.  They say the caning is much worse and much more
    extensive than several dozen cigarette burns.  In 24 to 48 hours the
    buttocks could swell to double their normal size.


    	However the psychological trauma is viewed as much, much worse than
    the physical trauma.  It could lead to severe depression, nightmares,
    flashbacks, surges of anxiety and a feeling of not being in control for
    years to come.  One doctor was quoted as saying *no* one could go
    through this and not come out traumatized.


    	The second article was written after the caning, and stated that
    Fay was in mild shock and was on extra doses of tranquilizers.  Think
    about that -- the poor guy had to be drugged in order tolerate his
    condition.  If that doesn't equate to torture, I don't know what does.
    By the end, there was blood running freely down his legs.


    	It also appears that Fay received two blows in the same area,
    something they're supposedly not supposed to do.  This has resulted in
    wounds of two inches in diameter in spots.


    	On top of that, the Singapore government is refusing to allow the
    US embassy to send a physician to assess his condition.  Apparently
    Singapore has not signed the international human rights treaties.  What
    a surprise there.


    	Experts say there could be acute seepage of fluids from the wounds
    for up to 14 days, and it could take up from 6 to 8 weeks for full
    healing to occur.


    	On top of that, there seems to be some question as to his guilt.  I
    thought he'd admitted his guilt, but he says that he was beaten to get
    a confession, and then duped into a plea bargain.


    	I have to shudder that we live in a world where people think this
    is not only necessary, but good.  Especially for such a comparatively
    minor offense!


    	And someone mentioned laughing all the way to the bank about this?
    Keep the stinking money.  I'd rather have my mental health any day.  Or
    hoping the guy stays behind bars for the "overblown media hype" to
    fade?  It *is* a big deal.  Especially to Fay.  At this point, I'd just
    love it if he were somehow proven innocent.


    Brian

    re: -1
    
    
    
    Enough with the "Blow by blow" descriptions.  IMHO he got exactly what
    he deserved.  Bet that anyone thinking about trying those types of
    stunts will think twice before doing them!  That's called a deterrent,
    which is something this country has been lacking for quite some time.
    
    No flame intended, just my $.02 worth
    
    Tom

    I have mostly liberal political views, but I'm also concerned that
    American society is 10 times more dangerous in terms of violent crimes
    than Singaporean society.  In a way, their views on corporal punishment
    and law & order are more humane than our own.
    
    -rich
    Mass Storage Engineering OEM D&SG  SHR1-3/O13    DTN:  237-2124
    Work: [email protected]                      508-841-2124
    Home: [email protected]                URL http://www.pn.com

    
    	re .64 -
    
    	Actually, this country is well versed in the use of a "deterrant"
    - just look at all those nuclear weapons we have stockpiled, that we
    cant get rid of now.
    
    	Also I dont buy the "enough with" talking about what happened.
    That's just what we need; to let it sink back down out of awareness,
    so casually written off as "he got what he deserved".
    
    	Perhaps we should instead make a ritual out of remembering what
    happened, bring back into our awareness the "blow by blow" details of
    the abuse this guys *skin* took on, on an annual basis. Maybe after a
    few years it would sink in, just what the potential of this kind of
    traumatization of another human being actually is.
    
    	Re - .1, While the level of crime may in fact be a whole factor
    of 10 less than what we have here; does not disqualify Singapore from
    being perhaps a _dreadful_ society within which to live. I dont know,
    I cant say because I've never lived there, never even visited the
    place. It just might be - might be - a place where everyone "acts normal"
    out of fear of what could happen to them, should they step out of the
    median of the social behavorial distribution. 
    
    	So yeah - could be quite effective against crime - but the whole
    of the society is motivated by fear - they're scared _all_ the time;
    they _never_ dare take their minds off the narrowing line they have to
    walk. Now, this is an exaggeration; BUT, when you talk about using fear
    as a deterrant for unwanted behavior, you must recognize the potential
    that the idea has. I'd say just ask any ex-prisoner of war what it's like
    to live under the gun - and you'll get a sense of what that idea is
    heading toward.
    
    	Joe

    Re:  Joe's comments about living in fear
    
    I think the happy medium between a totalitarian Nazi regime, wherein
    nobody steps out of the party line for fear of being spirited away from
    family and friends without a trace, and the chaotic anarchy which
    reigns on so many American city streets, is one of building a consensus
    for behavioral norms.
    
    This consensus should address only the essential ingredients of civil
    order, and not extend into the very corners of people's lives.
    
    Once this consensus is established--thou shalt not stab a
    great-grandmother in a supermarket parking lot, thou shalt not post
    proprietary software to the Net without permission, etc.--I don't have
    any problem with a policy of swift, severe, humane punishment for
    transgressions.
    
    We've lost the "swift" and "severe" parts from our judicial system, in
    a vain attempt to preserve "humane".
    
    -rich
    Mass Storage Engineering OEM D&SG  SHR1-3/O13    DTN:  237-2124
    Work: [email protected]                      508-841-2124
    Home: [email protected]                URL http://www.pn.com

    
    	Hi Rich,
    
    	I dont know that I'd call it "vain"...
    
    	I do think we're far from a functional, balanced system of
    enforcing appropriate behavior on the population. I think that's
    because you're right in a sense when you say there's no "easy"
    answers. There's simple, "first-order" brute-force answers. There's 
    also complicated, time and resource consuming answers. I think the
    best solution lies somewhere between grunting "lock 'em up and throw
    away the key" or "shoot 'em all - let God sort 'em out" and providing 
    something like life-long therapeutic rehabilitation with probation.
    
    	I do not know what that would be. Obviously, I do think it's a
    bit beyond a "just whack 'em real good" type solution -
    
    	Joe

    Re:  vanity in the justice system
    
    It looks to me like a lot of our efforts are in vain.  Something
    approaching half a percent of our population is incarcerated (look
    around your DEC facility and mentally throw one out of every 200 of
    your co-workers in jail--that's a staggering number).  It takes months
    to get a legal decision made.  Most offenders are let go with
    less than a wrist-slap.  Those who are incarcerated are subjected to
    abuse, humiliation, rape, and disease by fellow prisoners.  The
    debate over capital punishment often loses sight of the fact that it
    costs 10x as much in legal and other fees to process a death-row
    case as a life-imprisonment case.  Why we even let behavior get that
    far out of control that we even have to consider so many cases of
    murder and violence, I know not.
    
    -rich
    Mass Storage Engineering OEM D&SG  SHR1-3/O13    DTN:  237-2124
    Work: [email protected]                      508-841-2124
    Home: [email protected]                URL http://www.pn.com

The whole arguement of "enlighted society" in relation to this case makes 
me feel a bit ill...

I've lived in Singapore.  It's a nice place.  Children grow up there 
without fear of getting shot in schools, drugs are almost non-existant and 
a person can drop his wallet on the street and expect it to be handed back 
to him.

It is a functioning, working society.  I respect them and their goals.  I'd 
rather live in a functioning society than an "enlighted" one (by the way, 
is America an example?  Is life in New York City our base line?).

Lastly.  It is their country.  They make the laws and "we" ex-pats had 
better live by them because unlike America, if it's a law, they mean it...

Alan
Geneva

    
	Re .70 -
    
    >Children grow up there without fear of getting shot in schools,...
    
    	Yeah, but perhaps they grow up there *with* the fear of what would
    happen to them should they drop a piece of chewing gum on the sidewalk!
    I'm sure you and all the other advocates of "a working society" (by
    whatever means...) will intuitively know yourselves which fear is better 
    - for everyone else to get to feel, on a daily basis. BTW, growing up in 
    fear is growing up in fear - you cant just swap it around and expect the 
    ultimate consequences to be any different.
    
    >I'd rather live in a functioning society than an "enlighted" one (by 
    >the way, is America an example?  Is life in New York City our base line?).

    	I suppose you've actually lived in a trully "enlightened" one, so 
    you know precisely how dysfunctional it is. America and NYC are not
    examples of enlightenment and that's part of the problem; there are
    none so readily available in this world today. There will never be any 
    either, if people go around mixing words to suggest implications they know 
    nothing about.
    
    	Nazi Germany was a very efficient, functioning society. Step out of
    line, they come and take you away. Who'd want to live that way? The
    "obediance without content...obediance for the sake of obediance" has
    been tried before - it works for a time, peaks out and then falls apart.
    People need a greater depth than "just because" - I'm holding a gun to
    your head, or, - I'm wielding a very big stick. That's not a solution
    to anything in the long term and it's simply shortsighted to even think 
    so...
    
    >Lastly.  It is their country.  They make the laws and "we" ex-pats had 
    >better live by them because unlike America, if it's a law, they mean it...
    
    	That's fine and understood. Perhaps vistors better live by them
    because, unlike America, Singapore is a place where something like 
    *compassion* is yet unheard of, let alone practiced. That'd be all I'd
    need to be clear on, to follow their laws to the letter for the time I
    was there.
    
    	Joe

>    	Yeah, but perhaps they grow up there *with* the fear of what would
>    happen to them should they drop a piece of chewing gum on the sidewalk!
>    I'm sure you and all the other advocates of "a working society" (by
>    whatever means...) will intuitively know yourselves which fear is better 
>    - for everyone else to get to feel, on a daily basis. BTW, growing up in 
>    fear is growing up in fear - you cant just swap it around and expect the 
>    ultimate consequences to be any different.
 
    Gosh, that takes me back... Sort of reminds me of 13 years of 
    Catholic Schooling... Yep, fear is a great motivator!
    
    /Bob

    The "fear" dissapears when you pick it up from the floor. It is that
    easy! (I could "live" with that fear very easily)
    Ana
    

    re: .71 (Joe)
    
    > BTW, growing up in  fear is growing up in fear - you cant just swap it
    > around and expect the  ultimate consequences to be any different.
    
    Why not?  I suggest that while the emotional and physical response
    called "fear" *may* be undifferentiated, I see no reason why reasonable
    fear of punishment or ostracism for undesirable behavior should generate
    unreasonable fear.  I would suggest that whatever these "ultimate
    consequenses" are that you speak of, they would be very different,
    depending on what it is that's feared.
    
    Steve
    
    P.S.  Btw, having lived overseas for a while in an environment where
    people were expected to be responsible for their own mess, I woulnd't
    mind it if Americans were, for example, somewhat more fearful of
    criticism, social ostracism, and/or mild legal sanctions for dropping
    their chewing gum (and cigarette butts and fast food wrappers and
    trash-in-general) on the ground.  The attitude that it's ok to toss
    one's incidental trash anywhere is ugly, irresponsible, and expensive.

Fay was released from jail yesterday.

		Steve

    
    	Re .70, .71 (Ana, Steve)
    
    	I'm suggesting that "fear" may not be the best motivational tool.
    That is may have dire consequences, in sort of an easy way out now, pay
    greatly later manner.
    
    	Consider teaching the value of keeping one's home clean to
    children. One way, the kids keep the home clean out of fear - of a trip
    to the woodshed with dad and his belt perhaps.
    
    	Another way, is that everyone in the family talked about it and
    decided that a clean home was what they each wanted in truth. Each
    person agreeing to do their part; the sole motivation being in having
    someplace nice within which to live.
    
    	Consider teaching the value of keeping one's conscious clean to
    children. One way, the kids are shown pictures of cancerous human lungs
    and then told that's what their soul is going to look like, should they
    tell a lie or take something that doesnt belong to them.
    
	Another way, is that a child has some awareness of how he feels and
    can talk about it. In discussion with a significant caregiver, the kid
    was gently led to making a decision that being free of the weight of
    guilt and shame was what s/he really wanted for their own self in truth; 
    the sole motivation being in having "something nice within which to
    live".
    
    	Now I realize this is perhaps ridiculously simplistic, BUT what I 
    find dropping out of the contrast between motivation by fear and some 
    other way is the seeds of violence and/or disease. Those of course being
    directly decendant of the fear-motivation. I'm talking *corporal* fear
    here - that of being locked up, or hauled off, being physically beaten 
    or dismembered in some way - not just fear of losing your "TV privledges" 
    for a week or two.
    
    	And there's the "well - it works" argument. Fossil fuels work quite
    well for transportation and recreational purposes too - they just might
    not be the _best_ choice; more a convenience in the present moment. Why
    screw around with batteries, when you can just drive up to the pump?
    Why mess with another way when a couple 'o swats to the behind gets 'em
    in line just fine?
    
    	Maybe just to avoid planting the seeds of hell in another
    generation - that's all. To avoid what those seeds could perhaps, with 
    just the right cultivation, grow into. Where does anyone suppose what
    was in the group of policemen who beat up Rodney King grew up out of?
    IMHO, you put this kind of stuff into someone...
    
    	Joe	

    Joe,
    
    The police who "beat up" Rodney King followed their training to the
    letter.  This was explained by Massad Ayoob, a law-enforcement
    consultant from Concord, NH, in the trade press shortly after the
    incident.
    
    Seeds of hell?  I dunno about that...  I know several COPs who are the
    nicest people you'd ever want to meet, truly, but some of the stuff
    they have to do to accomplish the tasks they're paid for (and to stay
    alive) is downright nasty.
    
    When you have to shovel s__t, you're bound to get s__t on your shoes!
    

    re: .76 (Joe)
    
    I'm not suggesting, Joe, that fear be the *only* motivator.  But it
    seems to me that to eliminate it altogether from the repetoire of tools
    is to give up the control of society to those who choose, for whatever
    reason, not to listen to reasonable persuasion.  At the end of all the
    good motivators, society, if it is to remain civil, needs an "or else";
    I suggest that social groups need a balance of positive and negative
    reinforcers and that it's furthermore appropriate that the negative
    ones are to be feared.
    
    > 	Another way, is that everyone in the family talked about it and
    > decided that a clean home was what they each wanted in truth. Each
    > person agreeing to do their part; the sole motivation being in having
    > someplace nice within which to live.
    
    And if one member doesn't agree and decides not to clean up?  I agree
    that it's better if all agree to do their parts, but what happens when
    one person says, "I don't want to"?  What if the undesirable behavior
    is something with greater consequence than a messy room?  What if an
    older and stronger sibling decides that beating up a younger, weaker
    sibling is worth a "time out" or "no tv for a week" type of punishment?
    
    While I agree that it is preferable that people act in a positive
    manner because it's in their, presumably, enlightened self-interest. 
    But the clear fact is that some fraction of the population doesn't get
    that message.  I believe that there had better be some pretty clear
    messages from society as a whole which say that if one chooses to act
    in a seriously harmful manner, there will be consequences that the
    perpetrator will find immensely unpleasant.
    
    > what I  find dropping out of the contrast between motivation by fear
    > and some  other way is the seeds of violence and/or disease. Those of
    > course being directly decendant of the fear-motivation.
    
    Why?  I would suggest that one of the "seeds of violence" is the
    belief that there will be no dire consequences for ones violent acts.
    
    > Why mess with another way when a couple 'o swats to the behind gets 'em
    > in line just fine?
    
    I'm not suggesting the use of fear of punishment as a convenient or
    exclusive tool in molding behavior.  And I agree that those who do so
    with children are likely creating big trouble.  The problem I have with
    your position is that it seems to suggest that fear of serious
    punishment has no place in shaping behavior.
    
    Steve

    
	Re - VICKI::CRAIG 
    
    >The police who "beat up" Rodney King followed their training to the
    >letter.  This was explained by Massad Ayoob, a law-enforcement
    >consultant from Concord, NH, in the trade press shortly after the
    >incident.
    
    	IMHO and that of others, they were also following their training
    simply from growing up in this society, which is one that's pretty well
    saturated with hatred, anger, and fear. A big part of the reason RK was
    beaten was because hatred, anger and fear were already in the hearts of
    the officers who did that; their for the job training - such as how to
    use a billy-club effectively - likely served to water the seeds already
    there. *Practice* acting out hatred anger and fear, whether it be
    training for law enforcement or training for combat in a war, and it'll
    be very easy to do when the opportunity arises.
    
    	Personally, I dont like your quotes around "beat up" - as if that's
    a matter of opinion or it wasnt real somehow.  If an *animal* is
    captured, it'll naturally fight back - and measures have been thought
    of to minimise any injury to it in taking it captive. If a human being
    is being taken captive and s/he fights back, there's (apparently) no 
    motivation to minimise injury sustained during the process. Even though
    taking a tiger captive maybe just as deadly as taking a man with a knife.
    If not hatred, anger and fear, what else allows such atrocity to take
    place, what else dismisses the importance of not causing injury to
    another human being?
    
  
    	Re .78 Steve -
      
    >I'm not suggesting, Joe, that fear be the *only* motivator.  But it
    >seems to me that to eliminate it altogether from the repetoire of tools
    >is to give up the control of society to those who choose, for whatever
    
    	I think the world could be a very peaceful place if it was
    eliminated altogether from the options. At the scale of family, city,
    state, country and world. Nuclear arsenals come to mind; "those who
    choose, for whatever reason..." and we'll blow the sh*t right out of
    you. At what cost was that security, that amount of control? If all
    the money that was ever spent on this particular tack was put back into
    the world, would we all not be considerably closer to paradise? Again,
    admittedly simplistic, BUT - think of the consequences we've faced and
    are facing because of this choice - and it's all pretty much being
    dismantled anyway - as a product of "higher consciousness" thinking
    BTW.
    
    >I suggest that social groups need a balance of positive and negative
    >reinforcers and that it's furthermore appropriate that the negative
    >ones are to be feared.
    
    	Cant say that I have a solution. The only statement I can make is
    how everyone's citing how much fear we live with in this society, and
    implying that Singapore is such a better place to live (or it seems
    like it would be, or it did after a couple years there) What everyone
    wants it to live without fear - of your kid getting shot in school,
    of someone snatching your purse, of a nuclear weapon bursting overhead.
     
    >And if one member doesn't agree and decides not to clean up?  I agree
    >that it's better if all agree to do their parts, but what happens when
    >one person says, "I don't want to"? What if the undesirable behavior
    >is something with greater consequence than a messy room?  What if an
    >older and stronger sibling decides that beating up a younger, weaker
    >sibling is worth a "time out" or "no tv for a week" type of punishment?
    
    	My 11 year old decided - just last night - that helping out by setting 
    the table was not worth getting to have dinner. Boy was he hungry after
    I gave what was leftover to the dogs! He made his choice, he went
    through the consequences of that choice - and it wasnt like I gave him
    the 'ol "LISTEN MISTER! YOU GET YOUR BUTT BACK OUT HERE AND SET THAT
    TABLE AND BE A PART OF THIS FAMILY - OR ELSE!!" His choice? Fine by me.
    He's protesting that to his perception, he's the only one that has to
    help out. I still have the opportunity to address his feelings about
    that - had I given him the fear motivator (or else!!) I would not.
    
    >But the clear fact is that some fraction of the population doesn't get
    >that message.  I believe that there had better be some pretty clear
    >messages from society as a whole which say that if one chooses to act
    >in a seriously harmful manner, there will be consequences that the
    >perpetrator will find immensely unpleasant.
    
    	That's fine - as long as it's realized that is a 1st order
    solution. "Incarcerate those who dont get the message" - could be as
    well "shoot those who dont get the message" - it's still a 1st order
    solution. Still a band-aid, still shallow, still a matter of
    convienence. You have moles in your yard; 1st order solution is to
    trap them or poison them. (That's like arresting addicts for using)
    But the moles eat grubs, so you can kill all the grubs and - presumably
    - the moles will go away (That's like trying to stop the flow of drug
    imports into this country - presumably...) Now you cant change the
    moles hunger for food of some sort - but you can change a deliquent's
    hunger for acting out bad behavior and better yet, you can change that
    which are the seeds of that hunger - that's the *level* that trully
    needs to be addressed. 
    
    >I would suggest that one of the "seeds of violence" is the
    >belief that there will be no dire consequences for ones violent acts.
    
    	If you get a chance, watch the Frontline presentation entitled "The
    problem with Evan". (I even took the time to scan through this weeks TV
    guide to see if it was going to be re-broadcast on '44 or something -
    for the benefit of those who'd be willing to take that suggestion)
    You'll see how the seeds of deliquent behavior are planted (what I
    called the "seeds of hell" in my previous reply) and what one family
    tried to change - albeit unsuccessfully - in how they go about things
    in order to effect their son's downfall into deliquency.
    
    	Personally, I found it frightening to watch, because the father's
    style of dealing with his child is *exactly* what comes naturally to
    me. It's just...my training as an Americal Male! My own father wasnt 
    like that; his was, yet I got it from somewhere (society perhaps?) 
    because as I watched the program, what this guy was doing was exactly
    what I have _felt like_ doing with the children I'm living with on many
    occasions. It is very revealing to me to "get it" that the only thing
    that stops me from enacting that style of parenting is the strength
    of my beliefs (as posted in this string) and the certaintly I have
    around the absolute correctness of higher-consciousness thinking, such
    as "It's okay to 'feel like killing someone'; not okay to actually do
    so". "Killing" in that example could be anything that was in fact abusive 
    - and the idea would be just as valid.
    
    >The problem I have with
    >your position is that it seems to suggest that fear of serious
    >punishment has no place in shaping behavior.
    
    	Like I've suggested, watch that program and perhaps re-think for 
    yourself how you feel about it. Try basing it on the effectiveness and
    success that the family portrayed had with shaping Evan's behavior
    using "fear" and negative reinforcement techniques. Listen to the teens
    in their program of recovery (the guys with the masks) tell how much
    of it they grew up with; watch Evan's father and mother's openmindedness
    as they visit the teens group in their search for an alternative way. See
    them get it for a time, then see it fall apart and go back to the old
    way. Hear what finially happens - see the inmensity of the difficulty
    we're talking about.
    
    	Joe
    
    Steve

Joe,

My quotes around "beat up" were there because often officers are 
required to subdue combative felons.  During that process, the felons 
may sustain injuries.  I considered, and still do, the term "beat up" 
to be inappropriate and borderline libelous considering the true facts 
surrounding the encounter.

When a person is arrested, he's supposed to submit to the arrest or 
take the consequences.  We don't allow much slack in this area because 
humans are supposed to have brains and realize that failure to submit
to an arrest can be dangerous.  RK failed miserably here and wore the 
marks to prove it.  

We allow tons of slack when capturing animals because essentially they
have no idea what's going on during the capture-and-restraint process.
Animals don't know the difference between hunter and wildlife
researcher. 

	A big part of the reason RK was beaten was because hatred, 
	anger and fear were already in the hearts of the officers 
	who did that [...]

Interesting comment.  How do you know this?  Are you acquainted
personally with any of them?  

    	
    	Re .80 -
    
    	Well, I certainly grant you differences in and disagreement over
    our assessment of the RK situation. I think he was beaten; you think
    he was being subjected to appropriate actions as may be required to
    subdue combative felons.
    
>When a person is arrested, he's supposed to submit to the arrest or 
>take the consequences.  We don't allow much slack in this area because 
>humans are supposed to have brains and realize that failure to submit
    
    	Unfortunately, that broad view does not take into account many 
    situations where a person may not _be_ rational, may not "realize"
    anything. I think it's a large assumption to make of some random person; 
    that they "are supposed to have brains", because man is a rational 
    animal; therefore all human beings - in *whatever* state - ought to be 
    able to figure out that the most rational course of action is to submit
    - rather than take a beating.
    
    	It sounds like another "convenience" to me. "Uh - this guy doesnt
    get it <WHACK!> - crack his skull..." I dont buy that that's okay to do
    to someone, that that's the *only* course or way to take someone into
    custody. If they're going to take a wild animal - you dont see several
    folks with billy-clubs beat the thing into submission - that's because
    they *care* about what happens to it, they want it to arrive whole and 
    uninjured - it's this precious tiger!
    
    	Apparently, once your rational cognition is lost, authority doesnt 
    have to care about your health. If you're "just" another human being 
    anyway...
    
>We allow tons of slack when capturing animals because essentially they
>have no idea what's going on during the capture-and-restraint process.
    
    	Yeah - I'll bet they dont. I spose it's unnatural for a human being
    to be so emotionally freaked out "during the capture-and-restraint process"
    that they just cant somehow reason their way into a submissive state.
    
>Interesting comment.  How do you know this?  Are you acquainted
>personally with any of them?  
    
    	Easy - and I dont know any of them. If *I* was one of the officers;
    just regular 'ol ordinary me 'n my humanness - with what's out there in LA 
    - I'd be so scared of what I might run into on the job that I'd welcome 
    any convenience like "hit first - ask questions later". I mean as long as 
    it was my ass on the line? You can bet I'd be scared! Full of fear of the 
    unknown. Totally irrational feeling...not necessarily surmountable via 
    some rationalized thought. Gee - sounds just like what someone might feel 
    during a capture-and-restraint process.
    
    	Now just cause I'd welcome it in a fear-ful situation, doesnt make it 
    *okay*. My flag raising in this string is to simply bring about some
    awareness and consideration, amidst some callous dismissals of real
    tradgedy that I've read. "Oh he had it coming" - and that's it - *end* of
    consideration. When RK or Faye or some kid in a dysfunctional family is
    going to be damaged for the rest of their lives by what happened to
    them! I'm not out to "win" any arguments here, I'm just shining a light
    on some stuff that it seems a few people yet would like to just shove 
    back into the dark. _That_ wont help anyone or anyplace.
    
    	Joe
    	

    Hi Joe,
    
    Guess it's time for me to jump in with my 2 cents.  You said:
    
    >Unfortunately, that broad view does not take into account many
    >situations where a person may not _be_ rational, may not "realize"
    >anything. I think it's a large assumption to make of some random person;
    >that they "are supposed to have brains", because man is a rational
    >animal; therefore all human beings - in *whatever* state - ought to be
    >able to figure out that the most rational course of action is to submit
    >- rather than take a beating.
    
    I agree with you, so how do you rationally subdue an irrational person?
    I'm certainly not advocating wanton beating but struggles commonly
    ensue in these situations and a psychotic, drugged-up or adrenaline-
    hyped person can have a tremendous amount of strength.  Sometimes they
    won't be subdued until they are unconsious.
    
    >Easy - and I dont know any of them. If *I* was one of the officers;
    >just regular 'ol ordinary me 'n my humanness - with what's out there in LA
    >- I'd be so scared of what I might run into on the job that I'd welcome
    >any convenience like "hit first - ask questions later". I mean as long as
    >it was my ass on the line? You can bet I'd be scared! Full of fear of the
    >unknown. Totally irrational feeling...not necessarily surmountable via
    >some rationalized thought. Gee - sounds just like what someone might feel
    >during a capture-and-restraint process.
    
    I think your sense of fear in the above situation is definitely NOT
    irrational.  There is a purpose behind fear - survival.  I think a
    police officer in any large city that does not have enough fear to 
    make him/her approach any situation with caution is waiting to become a
    statistic.
    
    Fear is a fact of life, and a necessary fact at that.  It's there for
    survival and it's there for co-existence.  And there are different
    kinds of fears.  I believe one's conscience is a form of fear - either
    of what someone else might think of or do to me, or what I would think of
    myself.  Certainly none of us go through life without wanting to do
    something that we shouldn't (maybe snitch a piece pie Mom just baked)
    or not wanting to do something that we should (babysitting pesky little
    sister).  
    
    People respond to different levels of fear.  Some children, for 
    instance, can be talked to and the fear of parental/family disapproval 
    is enough to get them to clean their room.  Others don't care and the
    fear of a spanking or privilege removal is needed.  Some adults will
    react passively to an arrest, others won't submit unless they are
    unconsious or dead.  Some country's leaders can negotiate disputes,
    others feel taking the first shot is the best strategy.
    
    What I am saying, I guess, it that we are all individuals and as such
    you cannot expect appropriate behaviour out of all of us using only one
    techinque.  You can reason with some of us, others you may have to use
    stronger measures with.  Some of us will not abide by others rules at
    any cost.  It would be  wonderful if reasoning resolved all disputes -
    but then we'd all be too much alike and that sounds REALLY boring!
    
    
    Jane
    
    

    
    	Hi Jane,
    
    >                           -< We need fear  >-
    
    	Oh really?
    
    >I agree with you, so how do you rationally subdue an irrational person?
    
    	I knew that question would come up. I dont have an answer, because
    I dont have any experience in restraint; as an orderly, an officer or
    a veterinarian. However I still hold the belief that something as
    effective as clocking someone across the knees with a nightstick could
    be thought of, given that there wasnt so much care-less-ness around the
    issue. I believe RK was hit with those "taser" stun darts - they didnt
    work - so I'll grant that the idea of "more humane restraint techniques"
    has already been developed.
    
    >I think your sense of fear in the above situation is definitely NOT
    >irrational.  There is a purpose behind fear - survival.  I think a
    >police officer in any large city that does not have enough fear to 
    >make him/her approach any situation with caution is waiting to become a
    >statistic.
    
    	I disagree. I think that's a matter of "good sense", of not being
    too full of yourself, egowise perhaps, of not thinking you're
    invincible cause you have a badge, vest and 44 caliber pistol. All
    products of the rational mind.
    
    >Fear is a fact of life, and a necessary fact at that.  It's there for
    >survival and it's there for co-existence.  And there are different
    >kinds of fears.  I believe one's conscience is a form of fear - 
    
    	I'd call it a "healthy" sense of shame - healthy, because it's
    your protection, your sense of limitation, your understanding that
    you are NOT God, your humility - without which, well...
    
    >People respond to different levels of fear.  Some children, for 
    >instance, can be talked to and the fear of parental/family disapproval 
    >is enough to get them to clean their room.  Others don't care and the
    
    	What do you 'spose is the difference between the one's who respond
    to losing the approval of their parents - and those who dont care about
    that? Who - for some reason - need corporal or deprivation punishment
    in order to effect a change in behavior. The answer is in that
    Frontline program "The trouble with Evan" - at least I think it's
    there. I believe when you trully understand the difference between
    those who respond and those who dont, you'll also get why "pursuing
    the same course", so to speak, albeit at a greater intensity, isnt an 
    effective solution with those people.
    
    >What I am saying, I guess, it that we are all individuals and as such
    >you cannot expect appropriate behaviour out of all of us using only one
    >techinque.  You can reason with some of us, others you may have to use
    >stronger measures with.  Some of us will not abide by others rules at
    >any cost.  
    
    	That's all true. I just dont advocate physical bodily injury, or
    fear of that, as a useful measure. The reasons why are all in the notes
    I've written here.
    
    	A little story about fear. I went to my childhood home this past
    weekend and went for a walk Sunday morning. The RR tracks was the
    gateway to my teen and preteen playground world, so I headed down 
    there to see the changes over the years. There's a RR bridge that 
    crosses another couple of tracks - one which I've *always* been deathly
    afraid of...terrorized of. I walked out to it.
    
    	As a youngster, I wouldnt cross it - I'd go down to the bottom,
    cross the two tracks and up the other bank. My friends would all laugh;
    and they'd demonstrate how easy it was to cross, by walking on the very
    edge, crossing over the thin beams of the adjacent structure, etc. Now, 
    the bridge isnt formidible; you'll be across in 30 seconds at a walking
    pace, trains are infrequent, the ties are spaced so that one could not
    physically fit through them; it's wide enough so that if you fell right
    over, you still wouldnt reach the edge.
    
    	So there I am, standing at the beginning of this bridge. And with
    the rational thought: "I'm 37 now; I can cross this bridge because I
    understand all the factors involved". Well, famous last words because
    two steps out onto the thing and I *froze* - just like I did when I was
    10. Abject irrational fear - the very same terror I've always felt
    about it - coming up in me at 37 years old.
    
    	A fellow who's ideas I like has said that to stay with this kind of
    fear - you can learn something about fear. What are the body patterns?
    What's the warp and woof of it? How is the sensation behind the knees?
    So, I figured that if I couldnt cross the bridge, I could at least make
    use of the opportunity to investigate irrational fear in this way. I
    sensed that my arms were all tingly, like they were going numb. My heart
    was racing in much the same way as it might if someone was chasing me. My
    palms were all cold-sweaty. I was losing my sense of balance and I kept
    looking over my shoulder as if the edge behind me was coming up on me.
    
    	"Enought of that" I thought - "I'll never question another's fear
    or phobia - no matter how ridiculous it seems to me, because this stuff is
    *real* - it's NOT something that you can just "get over" by thinking
    about it or understanding; that 'that little spider cant possibly hurt
    you'"
    
    	I went off in the other direction for a walk - about a 1/2 hour
    of mindful breating and observance - and I returned to the bridge. A 
    second try yielded the same response - no matter how concentrated I was 
    on the rational aspects of the situation - or just my breath. Yet, I 
    couldnt leave and I affirmed that I was going to cross that bridge if 
    I had to do so on my hands and knees! That's called going into the fire 
    and is not a practice that this society encourages or believes is
    useful. So I went across it with my fear ape-style, one step at a time 
    - and I got to see what fear is a little bit more.
    
    	Not exactly content with that, I crossed this thing until I could do
    it standing upright, two steps at a time. It took a lot of concentration
    and coming back to ground emotionally - which I did through an
    awareness of breathing technique - for me to be able to do it. I
    crossed it several times, until I noticed my mind starting to wander
    to throughts other than "how scary this was" - and that was it. I DIDNT
    stop in the middle and look down, or go up to the edge - I dont want to
    hurt myself, just confront an irrational fear I've had all my life.
    
    	It took some time. It took some concentration. It took a lot of
    coming back to ground on my part. Rationalization and understanding had 
    *nothing* to do with my success with it - that got me two steps out onto 
    the thing. It was a purely emotional difficulty, one which did not lend
    itself to a logical solution. I understand that if I went back to that
    bridge tomorrow and stepped out onto it, I'd still have the same fear
    come up in me - now regardless of the fact that I *know* I've crossed
    it! However, I know how to get myself across the bridge now; I know
    "how" to face that particular fear.
    
    	Fear - I wouldnt wish it upon, or deliberately make it part of
     *anyone's* experience.
    
    	Joe
    

    re: .79 (Joe)

    >	IMHO and that of others, the [police who beat Rodney King]
    > were also following their training simply from growing up in this
    > society, which is one that's pretty well saturated with hatred, anger,
    > and fear. A big part of the reason RK was beaten was because hatred,
    > anger and fear were already in the hearts of the officers who did
    > that; their for the job training - such as how to use a billy-club
    > effectively - likely served to water the seeds already there.

    While I am by no means in total sympathy with the officers in the King
    case, neither am I in total agreement with your interpretation of the
    events and the motivations of the players.

    As one whose spent time in law enforcement, I'd agree that there is a
    degree of fear, but not necessarily from the societal source you
    suggest.  Fear certainly does exist, and well it should - it's a real
    scary job.  For instance what would you do to stop a convicted felon
    from racing down the street at over 100 mph?  And if you could manage
    to get is car stopped before it rams into a crowd of innocent
    bystanders, how would you propose to take him into custody?  What if
    he's a lot bigger than you and doesn't want to do what you say?  What
    if he's angry?  What if he's under the influence of any of a number of
    substances which numb the sensation of pain?  What if he pulls a
    weapon?  I'd be willing to bet you'd be experiencing a hefty dose of
    fear and not the kind that "saturates" society.  I can assure you that
    in similar situations, I surely did.

    One of the most difficult parts of being a street cop is that you
    never know when a routine-looking situation will turn deadly.  The
    spectre of an officer being shot while making a "routine" traffic stop
    has happened often enough to become a clich�.  So every warrant
    served, every traffic stop, every domestic dispute call, every barroom
    brawl is potentially lethal.  Imagine how you might feel if every time
    you turned on your terminal, you ran the risk of being on the business
    end of a deadly weapon.  I suspect that the messages you received
    growing up would have little to do with what you'd be feeling.

    The fact of the matter is that police officers are charged with doing
    a dangerous job and must do it within significant legal constraints,
    restrictions that the suspect feels no compunction to observe.  That
    most police succeed as often as they do - the vast majority of the
    time - is remarkable.  That abuse of office happens from time to time
    is regrettably inevitable.  I don't condone it when it happens, but to
    chalk it up to a "society. . saturated with hatred, anger, and fear"
    is, at best, an incomplete interpretation of the reality of police
    work.

    re: your bridge-crossing experience
    
    > Rationalization and understanding had  *nothing* to do with my
    > success with it - that got me two steps out onto the thing. 
    
    I think reasoning and logical understanding had plenty to do with the
    success of it.  It was a reasoned response (i.e. that it was personally
    important for you to confront this phobia) that got you there in the
    first place.  Which step, in any difficult endeavor, is the hardest?
    
    > I understand that if I went back to that bridge tomorrow and stepped
    > out onto it, I'd still have the same fear come up in me - now
    > regardless of the fact that I *know* I've crossed it! 
    
    I have my doubts.  I believe you'd have some fear, but not the same as
    that which paralyzed you as a child.  Your body/mind has new
    information and I suspect that this information will modify the fear
    response.
    
    Within the context of the topic of crime and punishment, it occurs to
    me that if those bent on murder, rape, and assault could somehow be
    imbued with that paralytic fear you felt, the world might indeed be a
    better place.
    
    Steve

    
    	Re .84 - Hi Steve.
    
    >That abuse of office happens from time to time
    >is regrettably inevitable.  I don't condone it when it happens, but to
    >chalk it up to a "society. . saturated with hatred, anger, and fear"
    >is, at best, an incomplete interpretation of the reality of police
    >work.
    
    	I didnt mean it as a complete interpretation of the street cops
    reality, more as a means of developing my idea that instilling hatred
    anger and fear into someone - say, via the form of punishment used to
    correct their behavior - isnt the best idea. 
    
    	My implied suggestion is that this is what led to the "abuse of
    office" in the RK case. Not knowing the officers at all personally,
    just by knowing the society within which they were raised. If abuse of
    office is trully "inevitable" then I suggest that having this kind of
    hatred, anger and fear within one's heart can make one - to some degree
    that is significant - more susceptable to that inevitability.
    
    >I think reasoning and logical understanding had plenty to do with the
    >success of it.  Which step, in any difficult endeavor, is the hardest?
    
    	Getting there - to the confrontation - wasnt the most difficult - at 
    least it seemed that way to me at the time. Getting myself out onto the 
    thing, past the middle and to the other side was what was most difficult.
    The going-through with it part.
    
    >I have my doubts.  I believe you'd have some fear, but not the same as
    >that which paralyzed you as a child.  Your body/mind has new
    >information and I suspect that this information will modify the fear
    >response.
    
    	We'll see - I'll go back there and find out if I can just walk
    across it - without any preparation time, without abject irrational
    fear popping up and causing me to freeze - cause now I intellectually
    understand that I can cross it without harm coming to me. I'll let you
    know here.
    
    	This weekend I found a book "Christianity and Fear" by Oscar
    Pfister, published originally in German and translated from "Das
    Christentum und die Angst" in 1944 at a yard sale for fifty cents. In
    it he says:
    	
    	"Only the theory of fear explains the changes which love undergoes
    when life encounters certain obstacles; it alone explains the atropy of
    love occurring when there is a growing sensitivity toward the illusions
    caused by fear and its various compulsions - as well as the eruption
    of primitive sadistic impulses otherwise kept in check by civilization
    (...)"
    
    	I find that statement very interesting and relavent to the
    discussion here. Because why the outrage upon seeing the RK tape or
    hearing about Faye's sentance? Beatings appear to be uncivilized -
    especially when seen out of context; "Hey - look at what these cops
    are doin' to this guy!" or "Listen to what they're planning on doing to
    him!" 
    
    	By understanding the context or "life obstacle" you can begin
    to understand what's happened to "love" and how fear plays its part
    in what's going on. Now the fella writing that book was concerned with
    "Christianity and Cristendom" remaining "in a state of health", with
    *fear* being a problem to that end. I'd bet that his treatment would 
    lend itself as well to the whole of our present day society - at least
    as far as the usefulness of fear-based motivation goes. That's why I
    bought it.
    
    >Within the context of the topic of crime and punishment, it occurs to
    >me that if those bent on murder, rape, and assault could somehow be
    >imbued with that paralytic fear you felt, the world might indeed be a
    >better place.
    
    	I think my point is that is simplistic; it's a nice wish, but in
    reality it doesnt come about without a rider, without perhaps paralytic 
    fear of much of everything else in life - besides that of comitting an 
    assault or other atrocity. 
    
    	Joe
    

    With all the news hype about famous people in trouble (like Tyson,
    Jackson, and Simpson), and the Singapore caning case, this weekend
    I got to thinking about something:
    
      What does a society which lets someone like Lorena Bobbitt off
      without a wrist-slap have to offer a society which provides
      safety and personal career opportunity, and enforces law and
      order with strict discipline?
    
    We like to feel 'free' in this society, and we hate the notion of
    living in a Nazi regime where people are afraid to look at someone the
    wrong way for fear of being expunged from society without a trace.
    
    Somehow there's gotta be a happy medium.  The crimes and punishments
    which dominate our popular media really have me worried lately.
    
    With regard to the sentiments Joe just expressed in .85, it looks to me
    like it's dangerous to be a street cop because our society doesn't have
    much respect for cops.  We let people off the hook too easily.  Our
    prisons are overcrowded not because we build too few of them, but
    because we aren't tough enough on criminals, and because we don't
    focus on building a society which provides opportunity for all and
    discipline before behavior gets out of line.
    
    -rich
    Avastor Disk Engineering           SHR1-3/O13    DTN:  237-2124
    Work: [email protected]                      508-841-2124
    Home: [email protected]                URL http://www.pn.com

    Lorena Bobbitt was tried in a court of law, and acquitted.
    
    John Bobbitt was also tried in a court of law; he, too, was acquitted.
    
    According to juries of their fellow citizens, there was not "enough"
    (evidence, etc.) to convict them of the crimes of which they were
    accused.  What more do you want?
    
    Keep in mind, of course, that our "justice" system concerns itself with 
    law, not justice.

    
    	A few notes back, I replied arguing that maybe the kind of fear
    that serves as protection is really healthy shame, that which gives
    human beings a sense of limitation.
    
    	There's also healthy fear, which is akin to healthy shame, in that
    it serves to protect us from dangerous situations.
    
    	What's applicable to this discussion is "how" or the mechanism by
    which, these healthy senses become dysfunctional. All human beings born
    with just the ordinary facilities you get at birth have a sense of fear
    and shame inately (IMHO). By what process does someone go from that to
    get to a person who's having adulterous relations with his neighbor's
    wife - in Texas?
    
    	It's well known that by repeatedly shaming a child - causing him or
    her to feel ashamed by some deliberate action that's repeated - will
    effect their inate sense of shame in a negative way. The sensation can
    be pushed down out of consciousness, where it can now operate
    subconsciously, becoming functionally autonomous - the person feels
    ashamed whether there's reason to or not. The emotion can also be
    simply cut off, in which the person can act shameless; they have no
    limits or boundaries.
    
    	In a like manner, a person's inate sense of fear can be effected
    negatively by some deliberate action that's repeated during their
    emotional development. Likewise, the sensation can be pushed down
    into subconsciousness or emotionally cut off, where fear has been
    emotionally disengaged from. That is, something or some situation
    which would ordinarily bring up fear in an individual no longer does.
    
    	Corporal forms of punishment is an action which has the potential
    to both effect someone's sense of shame and fear in the ways I've
    described above. A child feels great shame when they get a paddle
    taken to their behind or a belt; the feeling coming up in the form
    of "I am worth less than". Because you make time for what you care
    about, whacking someone is a relative quick-fix. You also dont hit
    or deliberately injure that which you care about - unless of course it's
    routine to see Dad take the ball-peen hammer to the hood of his new
    car when it wont start...
    
    	Fear of pain. Corporal punishment attempts to correct behavior
    via that motivation or threat. So let's say that we have a family whose
    historically versed in the use of corporal punishment; grandfather did
    it that way to Dad, Dad does it that way to Son, Son does it that way
    to the Cat. It's multigenerational and Son has emotionally developed
    within this particular sphere of influence. So, for the sake of the
    development of my idea, say he's lost his relationship to his sense of
    healthy shame and healthy fear somewhere along the way...
    
    	Now he's out in the world in this state. He feels he can do
    anything, because his sense of limitation is gone. Spray paint those
    cars? No problem! "But aren't you afraid of getting caught - look at
    what they'll do to you!" "Eh - you get caught, you get a beating; you
    just dont get caught". Fear of threat no longer a valid method to this
    person.
    
    	How many folks in the over crowded jail system do you think may
    have had this type of experience in their childhood - or worse?
    
    	The problem gets more complex. Because not only can styles of
    dicipline be multigenerational in a family, the very roles both parents
    and children take on in the system to keep it in a dynamic balance can
    be also. So what happens when you have a lineage who practices corporal
    style of dicipline and also has a role of "the sick person" or "the
    trouble maker" or "the problem" all ready to be fulfilled?
    
    	So now he or she is out in the world - not only with the shame and
    fear dysfunctions, but also with a role-experience as a troublemaker.
    In other words this person mattered - got their attention and
    validation needs met - by getting themselves into trouble. How many
    people in the overcrowded jail systems do you think got themselves
    there by behaving in a way that was merely being loyal to their family
    system and their role in it? Just switching that context to the system
    of society?
    
    	What good could "just whacking 'em harder next time" possibly do
    for someone in the state of being I've outlined above? The depth of
    the problem is tremendous and you could take an "increasing degree of
    severity" type consequences right up to the level of mass-executions, 
    IMHO, without the effect you're looking for, so to speak. The depth
    of the solution - and its difficulty - is the same as is the problem.
    The true problem.
    
    	It gets even more complex when you consider the fatherless families
    of inner city gang kids and the roles which are formed in an attempt
    to find a place and balance a dynamic *somewhere*. These kids who make
    their gang their family - literally - and act out on society their role
    in it - out of the same family loyalty as someone who had one with at
    least a mother and a father present. This type of problem will not be
    solved by a "hit 'em harder" type solution IMHO. Something more is
    needed - and the "overcrowding of jails" is merely an indication of it.
    
    	Joe

    That "something more" I could translate into "family values" something
    that is not too well known because this society forces many people to
    work and relegates family to second rank... mothers used to nurture,
    gear, and educate children at home, "before" their school age, and
    today, because most mother and father work, children are a lot on their
    own, there is no core family, instead, we have day care, babysiter,
    etc. but not a 24 hr. mother gearing kids...  Gone are the days in
    which a father could earn for his family needs just by himself and have
    his wife caring for their children...
    We're going through about 3 generations of absentee mothers and society
    is showing this lack by ways of jouth joining gangs seeking identity,
    recognition, strength, self-steem... whatever, instead, they get into
    trouble and thus the overcrowing of prisons and the daily occurrence of
    crimes...
    
    If you're interested to see the background of these law-offenders
    you'll find where they come from... not from close knit families where
    the father is a bread-winner and the mother rears and bring-up their
    children... they come from different directions.\
    
    Of course I don't say that mothers work for the pleasure of working and
    leave their kids to be reared by others, what happens is that in these
    times it is very difficult (for not saying almost impossible) to make
    end meet with only one income.  For me, a sign of progress is a well
    balanced life, where "Family" is more important than "Money"...
    unfortunately, I don't see we are "progressing" a bit but au contraire,
    re are "regressing" in our quality life at a very fast pace... 
    
    Sorry if I offend anyone, it is not my intention. I am only very
    worried at the quality of life that we are giving to our children...I
    am just fed-up with so many shootings, deaths, spouse abuse, drugs,
    guns in school... (since when, do guns, (or condoms) belong in
    children's schools? the list could go on and on, and on...
    Ana

    
    This week's Newsweek has an exclusive interview with Michael Fay.
    He doesn't take a victim stance.  He does claim that he was not guilty
    of the crimes he was charged with.  He does admit to having a few
    street signs and bubble gum in his house, but that was the extent of
    it, he said.  He couldn't prove that he wasn't selling the gum, but he
    did admit to taking a few street signs.  
    
    His description of the interrogation is ghastly.  The questioning
    lasted several days and included being kept awake all night and beaten
    and placed in a cold room after being given a cold shower and hit on 
    the hands with a metal stick.  (This, mind you, was just the
    questioning by the police).  He was so traumatized by it that he was 
    hospitalized for acute depression and made his confession while being 
    treated for depression.  One of the boys who pleaded innocent received
    a harsher punishment than Fay...8 months in prison and 6 lashes with
    the cane (recently reduced to 4 lashes).  Fay's father talked him into
    pleading guilty while he was on medication for depression.  He doesn't
    even remember the conversations.  Fay's father was trying to get his
    son out of the interrogation process, one supposes.
    
    For anyone who has strong feelings either way, I suggest you read the
    article.                                           

    RE: .89
    
    Ana
    
    I guess that I can see your point that crime seems to be rising with
    the breakup of the family. However, your other comments get more to the
    point. That would be the economy. It appears that the crime problem is
    more proportional to the economical effects then to the instances of
    mothers being away from the home.
    
    What would be your suggestions to stop this crime increase in American
    society? Mine would be to get the economy on track. Increases in
    business, science and technology would produce well paying, exciting
    jobs. The present so called "expanding" economy is a political hoax.
    Jobs are plentiful but who can live on the pay?
    
    ...Tom

    Re:  Juries and acquittals
    
    Yes, I do question a system which fails to properly instruct a jury on
    how to make a wise decision, and I question a system which tries people
    in the court of public opinion prior to a proper trial.  More than
    a few publicized jury decisions have struck me as, plain and simple,
    wrong.  Either the law needs to change, or the system needs to change.
    
    More importantly, people's attitudes about dignified, respectful
    treatment of their peers needs to change.
    
    -rich
    Avastor Disk Engineering           SHR1-3/O13    DTN:  237-2124
    Work: [email protected]                      508-841-2124
    Home: [email protected]                URL http://www.pn.com

    to .91...
    Tom, in other countries people live "within" their means, and if there
    is not enough money for a car... they do without, if there is no home...
    then there is rent, if no money for dresses... there are fewer dresses.  
    The problem I see in this society is not the lack of things but the 
    opposite, too many clothes, too much wasted food...the second job is seldom
    needed for survival, but to add to what is already there... a better
    vacation, a newer car, some more labels clothes for the kids... (what
    is a dress without a good label, well visible? It is hard in this
    society not to "peer up with the Johnses"... there are many parents
    that dote stuff on their kids... without realizing that the best thing
    a parent can give to a kid is not a material thing, but his/her TIME in
    nurturing their young.... that is what makes a good adult, (not this or
    that brand name sweater or skirt...) 
    
    This is my own opinion based in what I have seen throughout 40 years of
    living in different countries including the US... no ofense to anybody
    in particular. 
    
    Ana

    
    re. Ana,
    
    Money buys more than just material things. It buys education. It
    buys experiences. It buys ideas. It buys safety. It buys options.
    If I don't work, sure, my family will still survive. But, what about
    college for my kid, what about lessons for my kid, what about museum
    and exhibition trips for my kid, what about living in a safe neighbor
    for my kid. I don't see how I could improve my kid's chance of
    survival/success by sitting home, especially while she is in school.
    What about retirement for myself? What about my own career after my
    kid leaves home? I do not expect people to give me a job as a
    consultant/engineer after staying home for years. I do not expect my kid to
    support me in my old age. And I sure do not expect the government
    to take care of me! To me, bring up a kid is a big part of my life,
    but it is still ONE part of my life, it is not the only part of my
    life.
    
    Eva
    

    <Money buys education, buys experiences, buys ideas, buys safety...
    
    I don't deny that. I've seen many well educated crazy, unstable human
    beings in this world... sure they are educated, but lonely too,
    educated, and unhappy, full of ideas, still, coo-ko. Safety? I don't
    get your point... may be you mean buy a gun to defend oneself? this is
    not my idea of "safety".  Safety to me, means not have the need to buy a
    gun in the first place! if I have to use a gun to defend myself... it
    would be safe for me fatal to the oponent, where is HIS safety?
    
    My real belief is that MONEY does NOT buy everything... we can give a
    lot MORE to our kids than MONEY ever can.

    
    re. 95
    
    I don't mean a gun, I mean a decent neighborhood for the kids to
    live in. 
    
    I never said money buys happiness. We cannot give people
    happiness either.
    
    
    Eva
     

    
    I had to put my two cents in. It's a comment on the not 67.95. 
    
    IMHO...I don't advocate shooting people, obviously. I was brought up the
    daughter to a policeman. We always had a gun in the house. We learned
    repect for the weapon. But my father would not have hesitated one
    minute to protect his family if we needed to be defended. If we needed
    to defended, *our* safety was the first and only priority, not the 
    ***OPONENTS***. Because it's not really an oponent is it? It's a
    perpertrator, a criminal or better yet a conscious blantant disregard
    for written law. An oponent would be in a game. A criminal would be
    in reality....******they give up ALL rights when they break the law***** 
    or even if they attempt to remove my rights to saftey or anything else. 
    When you consciously **disregard the law** you should be punished 
    according to the law. I don't believe in this Criminal Rights BS....
    sorry, I'm not using that BS to rob banks and make money, I work
    for a living, not commit crimes. Criminals give up their rights by
    choice, they consciously commit a criminal act. I also don't beleive in
    this "criminal breaks into my house with intend to cause harm or steal
    my personal possessions....I shoot him because he has a knife, he sues
    me because I assaulted him"..I don't think so...That isn't justice.
    That's a legal loophole...
    
    Just my two little cents..
    

    	Re last few -
    	
    	We cannot give people happiness, but we can give them the example
    of our own happiness. IMHO, it is of no use to "sit home with the kids"
    and give them time if you hate every minute of it - they'll pick up on
    that - and then eventually pick it up into their own state of being.
    
    	IMHO, it's best for them to see you happy, get a sense of your own
    happiness with yourself and everything (relationship, job, personal
    interests) so they pick _that_ up in their own state of being. Of course,
    "time" is important; if you're never around, how can they see you in
    your own happiness?
    
    	I just dont think time is the main effect factor for raising
    emotionally and spiritually healthy children. My mother deliberately
    comitted to not working while I was 0 - 18 years of age - so she could
    "be there for her child". I was hardly the model of emotional and
    spiritual health when I went off to school at age 18...there was
    something else in my experience which "took it away". 
    
    	I believe it was the sense of chronic unhappiness my parents had
    with themselves and what they were doing, on a personal individual
    basis - and the chronic sense of disgust they had with each other. This
    was fairly low-level - not talked about - yet prevalent during my
    entire formative years. Most of the time, the fire outside of the
    pan holding _that_ soup looked pretty good to me - cause it was such a 
    drag being inmersed in it for all that time.
    
    	Anyway, be careful with assumptions around the quality of "time",
    because it really is time AND a whole bunch of other conditions which
    is necessary. It takes tremendous emotional and spiritual health to be
    a parent - be successful in raising emotionally and spiritually healthy
    children. My parents "did the best they could" and all that - fact is,
    it wasnt good enough. I think that, more than anything, is the crux of
    the problem. The level of a lot of people's emotional and spiritual
    health just isnt "tremendous". I know mine isnt that - yet.
    
    	It's a truth then, when you work on your own happiness - which I
    believe is a natural result of working toward emotional and spiritual
    health - you literally heal the world. Since your children are necessarily
    the closest people to you and part of the world...it follows that the
    best thing you can do for them is to work on the emotional and
    spiritual basis of your own happiness. Things like "Money", "Posessions"
    and "Activities" are fleeting perpiheral distractions that fizzle out
    quickly in significance when compared to "I really get a deep core sense 
    that Mom and Dad feel happy about themselves and what their doing with
    their lives".
    
    	IMHO, of course.
    
    	Joe
    
    	Joe