Rethinking Criminal Justice in a Civilized Society

When someone is convicted of a crime in our society, the operative focus in sentencing is typically punishment/retribution and that focus is carried out within the prison setting.  The one slight exception to this regards the death penalty.  Many states no longer impose the death penalty regardless of the severity of the crime,

In a recent New Yorker piece, Jeffrey Toobin ends by declaring the death penalty  "an absurdity in a civilized society." That "no technology can render that process any less grotesque."  And thus he argues for the abolition of the death penalty.

While I am a card-carrying, certified Liberal, I beg to differ with Mr. Toobin and those who follow his thinking.  I believe that in any society, even the most civilized (and I question whether ours qualifies as that, but that's another matter), there is a proper place for the death penalty, carefully deliberated and administered as humanely as possible.

There are some acts that are so cruel, so inhumane, done with such total disregard for the value of human life, that there is no appropriate penalty other than the death penalty.  Not as a deterrent to such acts in the future, but because society needs to say that some acts are so beyond the pale that they deserve the ultimate penalty, death.  That is part of what makes a society civilized.  

While much attention is placed on the issue of the death penalty in our civilized society, very little attention is given to the nature of prison time served by a typical convict and how that meshes with the concept of a civilized society.  The typical prison is a dead zone where people languish in boredom and where the disposition to commit crime is actually increased with the result that we have a very high rate of recidivism, with the released person often committing even more serious crimes.

If the proper context for the debate on punishment is a civilized society, and I think that is the correct context, then I would argue that if a crime does not warrant the death penalty, then rehabilitation should be the predominant motivator, not retribution, not punishment.  That is another part of what defines a society as civilized, and we are clearly totally lacking in that.  

Our society should want to make the criminal whole in every sense of the word so that he or she not only does not commit crime when he is released but becomes a benefit to his immediate family and society.  We are all, after all, God’s children; if someone goes astray it is not because there is something inherently within him or her that is bad, but because he has been damaged growing up by the contact, the experiences, he has had with the larger culture and often even his immediate family.  This does not absolve someone of responsibility, but it should inform how the system, how a civilized society, interacts with someone who has committed a crime.

Our current system harms the individual and harms society.  It is a lose-lose situation.  The goal of rehabilitation is not only civilized, but it is in society’s best interest.  And it is possible.

The Destructive Impact of Our Us v Them Perspective

During this holiday season, I think it timely to address a fundamental problem in the development of human societies ... the us v them mentality.  People band together in groups ... whether formally or informally ... because they feel something in common and want to be part of a group, not alone, often to increase their security.  Unfortunately, most groups form their identity by differentiating themselves from others which quickly transforms into us v them, competition, and often conflict.  

We see the world as made up of some people like us, and a mass of people not like us who would exercise power over us to our disadvantage if they had the ability.  The impact of this dynamic is not surprising. And it has been the basis for the development of human societies for millennia, if not from the beginning of man.

Since all mankind ... regardless our race, color, religion, nationality ... descended from a common ancestor in Africa, how did this come to be?  It is probably a safe bet that the first society was a communal one, but at some point, someone in the group wasn’t happy and split off and formed another group, and then competition for resources began and conflict began.  You have the same pattern in animal societies ... they are communal within the group but often fiercely territorial and aggressive towards other like groups.

Although man has a brain and can think, as he has advanced technologically his basic brain patterns have not altered at all.  Man is today working with the same brain that first evolved 100,000 years ago.  And so he still sees himself in an inevitable security/conflict mode.

How sad, because we are all children of the universe, of God.  Regardless whether your higher power is a God responsive to prayer, a moral force or an amoral force, the divinity within you, or the force of the universe which has brought forth the miracle of the world and its species – we all are literally children of the same God, we all stem from an original source.

And we all have something else in common ... the suffering of mankind is universal.  There is no one, regardless how rich or how poor, who does not suffer because we are all afflicted with feelings of insecurity.

What a different world it would be if everyone felt that everyone else in the world was one with them and vice versa.  How different it would be if we followed the moral prescription of all religions to do unto others as you have them do unto you.  What if we gaged our every action by the impact it would have on others, and if others were in any way harmed we would cease or alter our actions?

There would be no war, there would be no poverty, there would be no lack of access to \quality education or quality medical care.  There would still be people who were richer or poorer, but the extent of inequality would be greatly reduced.

Who do I blame most for this continuing cancer on the soul of humanity?  The world’s major religions.  They are the force that has perpetuated more us v them feeling and violent conflict than any other force over the millennia.  Even when the conflict wasn’t religious, they have stepped up to support their nation states or communities in aggressive actions against others.

Yet the major religions are the principle holders of moral authority in the world.  They could, with a united voice, change this dynamic or at least begin the process of changing the dynamic.  They should be able to rise above their claims to exclusivity and embrace the equality of all religions as well as those who profess no religion..

I know that this will never happen.  Historical forces and our habit-energies would overwhelm any attempt to change this societal dynamic.  Nevertheless, this is what the world needs and I pray that a voice, or voices, rise to proclaim this truth and further peace on earth.

Hate Speech - The TIme Has Come to Regulate It

Hate speech is defined as “speech that attacks and is an incitement to hatred of a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.”  Hate speech is not a rational discussion of the pros and cons of a group’s values or actions.  It is targeted solely at the listener’s emotions.

There has always been a lot of hate speech in this country, but over the past few decades, it seems to be getting worse.  As in the past, hate speech is directed against various groups ... gays and lesbians, people of color, immigrants, pro-choice women and their doctors, Muslims ... with the object of either inciting the public to act against these groups, often through legislative action but also often through violence, or just denigrating their value as human beings.

Such speech has been deemed protected by the 1st Amendment’s right of free speech.  While that right is not absolute, the only limitations on speech approved by the U.S. Supreme Court have been incitement that created a clear and present danger of violence or illegal action, libel and slander, obscenity, “gag” orders to insure justice, or protecting consumers from false advertising, for example.

In each of these cases, someone was being harmed in a way that could not be practically countered in the “marketplace of ideas,” which is the function of free speech in a democracy.  While most European countries, and some others, banned hate speech after WWII because of the Nazi experience, the United States has not seen fit to do that.  The reasoning being that unless there was a clear and present danger, the hateful speech could be countered in the marketplace of ideas by other speech.

This reasoning may have had some validity in the pre-internet, pre-cable TV era.  But now it is a specious argument.  We live in an era where many people lead very polarized, insular lives.  Because of the advent of the internet and cable television, people now can and do listen only to news and pundits that agree with their point of view.  If they hear an opposing viewpoint, they dismiss it out of hand as being biased or ill-informed.

We also live in an age where information goes viral, which is to say that like a virus, the information spreads very quickly.  Given these two factors, together with the fact that guns are readily available and there seems to be less inhibition to using them against people, hate speech has a heightened  ability to cause a clear and present danger to the physical or mental well-being of an individual or group of individuals.  And it therefore should be banned.

Interestingly, the loudest opponents of such a law would be liberals, for whom the right of free speech is sacrosanct.  But as discussed, the right is not absolute, and such a law would not be a “slippery slope” leading to further restrictions on free speech.

Regarding those who create hate speech, they should not be able to disingenuously claim the protection of free speech.  The court has made clear that people are to be protected from a clear and present danger of violence.  In the case of much hate speech, it is clearly the intent of the speaker or writer to foment violence against individuals or groups based on an emotional hatred.  That one has no way of knowing whether someone will act on that incitement should not protect such speech.  By the time someone acts, it is too late.

And for those many instances in which hate speech deals with a legislative agenda, it should also be banned.  While there is certainly time for opposing viewpoints to be aired, the marketplace of ideas is not functioning very well in our current polarized internet/cable TV environment.  

But more fundamentally, hate speech has no place in a civilized society.  Just as a society has the right to protect consumers from false advertising and children from obscenity, society has the right and I would say the duty to protect people from hate speech.  Both the haters and those who are the object of hate suffer as a result of such speech.

The Self-Help Scam

The self-help industry is huge.  Although numbers are hard to come by, in 2008 Nielsen Bookscan reported that 13.5 millions self-help books were sold in the U.S.  The self-help industry is said to be worth around $11 billion annually, including seminars, DVDs, etc.

Obviously, lots of people are crying out for help.  They feel miserable or frustrated about their lives in various ways, whether it’s their relationships, work, family, or personal development.

And it’s no small wonder because we live in a culture which is extremely competitive and which is constantly sending us messages, whether through the media or through family and peers, that we need to be more than we are, we need to have more than we have.  We live in a culture which creates feelings of insecurity from almost day 1 after birth.  As insecure people, we cannot develop and maintain good relationships.  And we cannot be satisfied with anything we achieve; regardless how successful or powerful, we always want more in order to remain happy.  Our culture has created a collective monster.

This is the context within which the self-help industry thrives.  And it is the context in which it ultimately fails the people it supposedly is trying to help.  The problem is that as soon as you fall into the trap of feeling there is something about yourself that needs “fixing” or “improving,” there is no hope because you are buying into the culture’s hype.

And that is why, despite the tens of millions of people who read and are otherwise drawn to the advice of self-help gurus, nothing really changes in their lives or in the world.  Yes, a few “make it.”  But the vast majority get nowhere even if they faithfully follow the advice given.  If these books worked as advertised, the world would become far less dysfunctional and vast numbers of people would feel better about their lives.

No, the problem lies not with individuals, it lies with the culture and the way it impacts everyone in it.  No one can escape it.  We are all a product of our learned experience ... whether from family, peers, or the larger culture.  But it all comes back to the culture.

Our ego is the repository and protector of these learned experiences.  It drives our lives and controls our actions based on these learned experiences which at their core are based on insecurity.  As such it is the font of our neuroses that cause us so much fear, anxiety, anger, and general suffering.  It is the reason why few of us ever feel at peace or find true happiness.

Since you can’t change the culture, we have two options.  The one is to change ourselves in a way so that we have a better fit with the culture and thus do better in our interactions with it.  Succeed on its terms.  That is the basic tact of self-help books.  And it doesn’t work because our culture feeds upon and manipulates everyone in it.  And thus we can never find real happiness or peace going that route.

The other option is to change the way we interact with the culture ... to interact with it on our terms.  To realize with great clarity what it is and how it operates, how our learned experiences have impacted us and caused us endless suffering, and how we can step back from this manufactured ego and find our true selves ... strong, secure, happy, and at peace. Freeing ourselves from the cravings that our learned experience promotes ... that is the source of peace and contentment, happiness and yes, even joy.

And that, my friends, is the Buddhist path.  Ending our suffering not through the process of psychoanalysis or self-help improvement, but by understanding how our feelings and perceptions, while feeling very real, actually have no inherent reality and are just a product of our learned experience ... and learning that by freeing ourselves from this known, from our ego, we can discover again our true selves and see ourselves and the world around us as we and it really are, without the distorting filter of our learned experiences, our thinking mind.

What Has Man Wrought?

Throughout the ages, man in “civilized” societies has felt that he is superior to all other elements on this planet.  Man to put it mildly has been very full of himself when it comes to his place in the scheme of things.  Western man (which is to say followers of the Judeo-Christian tradition) even saw himself as being made in God’s image.

After all the millenia of hype, the question must be asked, has the advent of man on this planet been of benefit, either to the other elements of the planet or even to man?  What has man wrought?

Before the advent of civilized societies, the natural world functioned in a very symbiotic and pure fashion. There was nothing is this world that was despoiled.  Primitive man, up to and including the Native American Indians, had great respect for all the natural elements and lived in total harmony with them.

With the advent of civilized societies (at least Western ones; I cannot speak to the other early civilizations), and certainly since the industrial revolution, man has despoiled the environment, to a greater extent with each passing year.  “Progress” for mankind has meant degradation or extinction of the natural environment.

And what of man’s benefit to man?  At a minimum, that depends on which side of the power divide you’re standing.  

Some examples.  Starting with the growth of ancient civilizations, the powerful often dominated those they conquered by making them slaves.  Slavery as a business proposition had (and in some parts of the world still has) a long tradition that began before the start of carrying slaves to the new world.  Under the guise of “the white man’s burden” and “spreading God’s word,” European nations plundered and destroyed native civilizations around the world.  In our own country, the American government practiced what can only be called genocide against the Native American Indian.  Certainly, if man was benefiting man, it was only the strong benefiting themselves.

“O.K.,” you may say,  “all of this is true but look at the incredible progress that man has brought to mankind.”  Man has always touted the concept of progress, of an ever-improving life with each technological innovation.  Remember G.E.’s slogan, “Progress is Our Most Important Product” or DuPont’s, “Better Living Through Chemistry”?  The slogans are gone, but contemporary marketing makes the same case through manipulative images and ad copy.

There is no question that man is better off materialistically than he was in the past.  But is he happier?  Is he better off spiritually than he was hundreds of years ago?  I would argue that the answer is probably, “no.”  As he moved from the land to the city, man lost his connection to the land, his feeling of belonging and purpose.  He lost his roots and it has been getting worse with each generation.  Life may have been very hard, but there was a spirituality (not religiosity) to man’s life which provided a feeling of self-worth and an innocent happiness.  

Modern man, whether living in a major city or in the country, is totally a creature of modern culture.  He is manipulated as to what he thinks, what he wants, what he buys.  Whether it’s politics or business, it’s all about marketing, selling.  And because of our culture of competition and consumerism, we are manipulated to always want more and not be satisfied with what we have and who we are.  We have lots of stuff, but also lots of debt.  It is a system which fosters frustration, dissatisfaction, and depression.  

This is not to say that man (and of course in using this term I am including women and children) did not suffer from depression and frustration in earlier years.  But the breadth and depth of it in contemporary life is far greater.

Finally, there is the question of whether man has even benefited those closest to him ... his immediate family.  I cannot say what family life was like in ancient times.  But as man moved from primitive communal societies to “civilized” societies of a non-communal and later capitalist nature, man became an insecure animal, left to his own devises to fend for himself.  

As I argue in my book, Raising a Happy Child, insecure people raise insecure children and the cycle is never ending.  Thus we find ourselves today in a world filled with insecure people.  Regardless how powerful or rich someone may be, deep down that person is typically very insecure.  And whether in the family or at work, insecure people cannot develop strong, healthy relationships.  Certainly not ones based on unconditional love and trust.  Their insecurity has a powerful impact on how they view themselves and the world around them.  That is why our world is so dysfunctional, whether you look at family relationships, the political landscape, or the relationships between nations.

And so, the answer to what has man wrought is much degradation and misery.  We seem to be an evolutionary experiment gone awry.  Although we have advanced in many ways over the millenia, our brains (as opposed to our knowledge) have not advanced or evolved.  We are still functioning with a brain that nature developed for primitive man 150,000 years ago.  And that brain is not equipped to handle the changes that have occurred in human society over those years.  Our ability to think has unfortunately not made us better human beings.

Is there a way out?  A better way?  Yes.  In my book, Raising a Happy Child, as well as my various Buddhist books, I try to present a cohesive, positive answer for my fellow man.

The Ultimate Failure of Rick Warren’s The Purpose Driven Life

Rick Warren wrote an amazingly successful spiritual book, The Purpose Driven Life.  According to amazon.com, it has sold more hardback copies than any other non-fiction book in history and it is the most-translated book in the world, except for the Bible.  Recently a new edition was published.  

If so many tens of millions of people have read his book, where is the great change that should be occurring in the world?  The point is that it isn’t.  It’s like the Bible.  Untold millions of people have read and reread the Bible, many with great fervor, but there are precious few who truly walk in Christ’s shoes, who do what Jesus would do.  The same is true for Jews and those of other religions.  As the saying goes, they may talk the talk, but they don’t walk the walk.

What is going on here?  Why are there so many people who are reborn Christians or are similarly reconnected with other religions, and yet we have seen no increase in peace and love, in the lack of suffering in this world?  If anything, this reconnection to spiritual roots seems to have increased the divide among people, the us v them mentality, that is so endemic among the religious evangelical or ultra-orthodox.  Perhaps that’s because it’s much easier to focus on their love of God, their sense of community, and the form or rituals of religion rather than the essence of His teaching.

To examine the book’s ultimate failure in this regard, look for example at Day 16 of The Purpose Driven Life.  Warren notes that God expects us to love others, even those who may be difficult, and even those who are not members of “God’s family.”  He states that this is vital to our purpose here on earth, that without love our other actions or abilities don’t matter, noting that God has commanded us to love one another and that we must show it by our actions.

This is a beautiful thought.  I, and I’m sure many others, have written similarly about the transformative nature that the teaching, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” would have on the suffering in this world if only it were followed.  Yet despite the fact that it is the moral cornerstone of every major religion, its essence is uniformly dishonored, ignored by most of humanity, regardless whether religious or not, rich or poor, educated or not, a leader or a follower.

Why is this so?  The answer is simple ... our ego controls what we do, our every action.  The product of all our learned experiences ... whether from our family, our peers, or the larger culture that form our environment ... it is very powerful, entrenched in our minds.  Every feeling, perception, and judgmental thought is a consequence of that training, that conditioning.  It is the only “I” we know.   And it is from our ego that we usually divine our purpose, unfortunately. 

If we attempt to do something which is not in line with what our ego wants us to do, we find it almost impossible to make any progress.   And clearly, the messages of “love your neighbor as yourself” or “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” run counter to what most of us have learned from family, peers, and our culture.  Instead, it’s all about “me” ... doing whatever is necessary to get ahead and achieve one’s goals.  It’s about competition.  “It’s a dog eat dog world, and I’m not the one who’s going to be eaten.”  

So the answer to the question of why millions of people have read and sincerely believe in The Purpose Driven Life as well as the Bible and yet their actions towards themselves, their family, and the world around them have changed hardly at all, continuing to inflict suffering on themselves and others, is that Rick Warren’s book, as well as the Bible, does not confront the issue of how to surrender your ego to God.  

That's because he and the Bible treat our "temptations" as the voice of the Devil, and his solution is to resist the Devil by humbling yourself before God and quoting scripture to the Devil when you are tempted.  But while being born again may be very effective in freeing oneself from an addiction, like George W. Bush’s alcoholism ... something large and visible which causes damage to oneself ...  it often has little impact on reducing the hold of the seven deadly sins (lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride ... oddly, the list does not include anything about doing harm to others), and it has little or no impact on all the other aspects in which the ego manifests itself in one’s everyday life.

It’s just not that simple.  One must first acknowledge that all these forces, regardless where they originated ... family, peers, culture, the Devil ... have become part of us through our ego.  They are thus at the very core of our self-image, our concept of "I."  That acknowledgment is the starting point.

I can personally attest that even for someone who has practiced Zen Buddhism for almost 20 years and meditates every day, surrenders his ego to his true Buddha nature, and is free of all one’s hot buttons and fears, is a real challenge.  It requires constant vigilance and discipline.  For as soon as one is distracted and lets one’s guard down, the ego sees an opening and seizes the moment.  One is never totally free of it for it is a part of us.

That said, if one addresses the ego as Buddhist teaching does, one slowly evolves to a point where the negative impulses towards ourselves and others are replaced largely by feelings of love and compassion.  It frees us to recognize and perform what is our real purpose in life ... to offer others joy and help relieve the suffering of others.  

And by so doing, we experience joy ourselves.   Feeding our ego never brings us real joy because it always needs something more to be satisfied.  That is why in our culture one can never be rich enough, powerful enough, sexy enough, young enough, etc.  The messages we receive from almost every outlet of our culture feeds and strengthens this aspect of our ego.  

Listening to the sound of a different drummer, to your true self, is a huge challenge.  But it can be done.  For books, a blog, and an advice column on freeing oneself from one’s ego, go to my website, www.thepracticalbuddhist.com, by clicking on the Self in No Self book icon in the right margin.

Is The Use of Chemical Weapons Sufficient or Necessary to Justify Force?

President Obama’s plan to use military force against Syria’s government is a flawed policy decision.  The only way in which force is justified now is because chemical weapons have been introduced, which is to say that the use of chemical weapons automatically justifies the use of force.

I disagree.  In this particular instance, the Syrian government has for two years been waging a nasty war against both the rebels and the civilian population of the areas that support the rebels.  According to a UN report noted in the NY Times this past June, 92,901 civilian deaths have been documented, with the actual number likely being considerably higher.  Now about 100 have been killed in a chemical attack (apparently not the first one).  

If the use of military force was not justified before, it is not justified now.  Civil war is a nasty business no matter how you look at it.  Had the Syrian government not committed enough atrocities against civilians prior to the introduction of chemical weapons?  Haven’t countless other governments in civil wars committed atrocities against their people?

The question is where do you draw the line?   How do you make a decision to strike militarily?

We cannot be the world’s policeman.  We cannot strike militarily every time there is a civil war and the government uses brutal force against both the rebels and their civilian supporters.  There is no moral imperative to intervene nor is it in our national interest.

However, we should draw the line where a government is conducting ethnic cleansing or genocide, regardless of the technology used.  That does present a moral imperative.  That was the case in Bosnia, where we intervened.  That was the case in Rwanda, where we didn’t intervene.  That was the case in Dafur, where we also didn’t intervene.  And we should have in each of those cases, with or without the support of the international community or close allies.  That is not the case in Syria.

The White House talks about our credibility being at stake.  Our credibility in the world is certainly a very important commodity.  But if a policy we have is flawed and especially where it is not supported by the international community then to proceed in the face of such opposition is nothing but national ego.  It has nothing to do with credibility.

We should have a clear policy on military intervention in cases of civil strife and stick to it.  To my knowledge, we have no such policy.