[Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist social deconstruction

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

Dan Lusthaus schreef:

>Erik wrote:
>  
>
>>I don't think one example proves a lot and I hate conversasiotns where
>>    
>>
>only examples and counter examples are exchanged. An important question one
>has to answere is: what's the objective of punishment?Is it:
>
>Of course not. Why should reality or anything empirical intrude on one's
>fantasies?
>  
>
A fantasy would be to turn one example into a universal rule. Logic 
tells us that a universal proposition covers an unlimited number of 
cases, so the corroboration of an example to a rule is always 0.l

>  
>
>>    * revenge
>>    * honouring the public feeling of justice, or
>>    * prevention?
>>    
>>
>
>If you go back and reread what I wrote, the answer is that some people are
>too dangerous to be allowed to prey on others. "Revenge" is merely a label
>one gives to someone else's sense of justice when one doesn't approve or
>agree. To deny a society the right to establish justice would be perverse
>and injust.
>  
>
Revenge is derived from joy caused by the awareness of the suffering of 
an evildoer, in such a way that this joy is considered a compensation 
for the suffering of the victim. This is what's called 'getting even'.

>  
>
>>The Old Testament prescribes revenge,
>>    
>>
>
>Actually, that is the Christian myth (= deliberate misreading) of the Hebrew
>scriptures. It's a devious and yet transparent way for Christians to disown
>two incredibly brutal millennia while reassuring themselves that they are
>morally superior to their victims and each other. Which is why the Rabbinic
>tradition outlawed capital punishment -- based on its reading of the
>scriptures -- two thousand years ago (they set the bar so high, that in
>practical terms, virtually no human situation would fulfill the
>requirements). Rabbinic ethics center on balancing chesed (loving-kindness,
>mercy) with din (stern justice), the former considered the higher value;
>either extreme, when untempered by the other, leads to bad consequences.
>Middle Way.
>  
>
I'm happy to learn this.

>  
>
>>most judges nowadays appeal to a
>>feeling of justice expressed in the law and jurisprudence.
>>    
>>
>
>Judges, if they are doing their job, implement the law (which is usually
>written by others). If they don't, they are not judges but vigilantes.
>  
>
Never heared of hermeneutics in law? Sorry Dan, but this is a bit naïve.

>  
>
>>One
>>thing is certain however: the prison today is a crime university. (Read
>>Michel Foucalt's 'Discipline and punishment'). Most inmates are prone to
>>go back where to came from, even better prepared.
>>    
>>
>
>That generalism doesn't even rise to the status of an example or
>counterexample. There are lots of problems with Foucault's version of
>institutional history (driven, as it is, by an agenda grounded in a deep
>nostalgia for the lost wholeness of the Church). 
>
I know some experts on Foucault, but no one would suspect Foucault of 
having Catholic nostalgia. I suppose this is a reliable source you're 
quoting?

>In the American judicial
>system, the stress and resources were devoted to rehabilitation over
>"punishment" for several decades (1950s-70s), but the results were
>unsatisfactory and depressing. Recidivism didn't decline, actual
>rehabilitation was a rare event, and the crime rate soared. While some
>argued that more effective rehabilitative methods should be sought, others
>(who have dominated policy since) rejected that argument and insisted that
>prisons shouldn't "coddle" criminals. Whatever one thinks of the
>heartlessness of that theory, crime rates have dropped. Whether Europe has
>been following a similar or different trajectory, I don't know.
>  
>
I'm very suspicious of this kind of statistics, I saw other ones which 
were not very optimistic. I don't care of you coddle criminals or 
crusify them, more important is not to surrender to feelings of anger 
and hatred, simply because those emotions don't help one to act 
effectively. Further it's always best for a criminal not to be one. So 
we have to prevent crime. In Europe most countries have a moderate 
regime. Foucault showed that fysical punishment has been replaced by 
surveillence and control and even medicalisation. He doesn't say that's 
a bad thing, nor that this make us bettter people. Of course pedofiles 
and serial criminals have to be put away. In Holland we have special 
institutions for those kind of criminals. They're treated and some come 
out after 20 years or so. But more and more people appear to be 
incurable and they're stuck for life.

>Some people really are icchantikas.
>
>
>  
>

I'm not in a position to criticize the crime policy in the U.S. , but I 
wonder if some societies don't stimulate the growing of criminal 
personalities more then others (legalisation of weapons, consumer 
oriented, oversexed, violence oriented, anti-intellectualist, 
monotheïstic, etc.). But I would say this is a problem for sociologists. 
As a Buddhist I would say that no individual has a criminal nature 
(aatma, svabhaava) and therefore it's useless to develop hatred for 
something that doesn't exist.


-- 


Erik


www.xs4all.nl/~jehms
weblog http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/blogs/blog.php?uid=2950