punishment – Engaging Peace

Where it all begins, Part 2

Posted on July 24, 2017July 25, 2017 by kathiemm

By Kathie MM

As noted in my last post , if people want to move their countries from a preoccupation with war, hatred, power, threat, and punishment to the pursuit of peace, brotherly (and sisterly) love, social equality, justice, and reconciliation, the place to start is the home.

Suggestions for starting can be found in the work of Robert J. Burrowes and his “promise to children”:

“From today, I promise that I will try to no longer inflict this violence on you, including that which I call ‘punishment’ so that I can pretend that I am not using violence…

I also admit that we adults have done a bad job at looking after each other, including all of our children, and planet Earth, your home, and that you are going to have an increasingly difficult life as the natural world continues to break down. So I promise to participate in efforts being made to address all of these problems, such as that outlined in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’….

Most importantly of all, I promise that I will listen to you as best I can. See ‘Nisteling: The Art of Deep Listening’….

Oh, and finally, as best I can, I promise to love you and to respect you as a unique, beautiful and compassionate creation with a great deal to offer the world (as long as adults don’t get in your way)….”

After presenting his pledge to children, Burrowes asks, “As an adult, would you be willing to make this promise too? To whom would you make it?

He then comments, “There is no doubt that giving every child (or adult, for that matter) all of the space they need to feel, deeply, what they want to do, and to then let them do it (or to have the feelings they naturally have if someone or something prevents them from doing so) will have some dysfunctional outcomes in the short term.

This is because we have all been dysfunctionalized, to a greater or lesser extent, by the violence we have already suffered throughout our lives. But listening deeply to a child from birth (or starting today), and supporting them to act out their own Self-will, will lead to an infinitely better overall outcome than the system of emotional suppression, control and punishment of children which has generated the incredibly violent world in which we now find ourselves.”

Again, as I asked in my last post, what do you think about these ideas?

If you wish to join the worldwide movement to end all violence, including violence against children, you can sign online ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’.

What it’s really all about

Posted on August 1, 2016August 1, 2016 by kathiemm

The argument you get from the warlords, the arms industry, the right-wing extremists, the power-seekers is that some forms of torture are needed to fight terrorism, to save lives endangered by “ticking bombs.” Bull hoowey. If you want to understand why people torture, consider the components of this definition from Miriam Webster:

Torture is “the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure.” (emphasis added)

To punish. That’s a biggie, one we’ve discussed before on this blog. The monotheistic religions “of the Book” (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), as well as countless other religions from earlier centuries, have promulgated visions of Hell in which “sinners” (e.g., violators of cultural norms, rebels against authoritarian rulers) will be punished (tortured) by eternal burning and sometimes other horrors.

That preoccupation with punishment has a broad reach and is as American as apple pie. Parents who inflict intense pain on children (e.g., whipping, burning) for “not minding their manners,” for “giving lip” or “being sassy” are inflicting torture on their children—and were often tortured themselves while growing up. Both men and women often torture their partners physically or psychologically to punish them for infidelity and other “crimes.” And racism in this country has, for centuries, been associated with the torture and murder of people of color, both in the streets and in prisons, to punish them for their differentness.

To coerce. Okay, in today’s world “coercion” could be interpreted as requiring an admission regarding the location of a ticking bomb (although there is no evidence of such a location ever having been discovered this way) but for centuries coerced confessions involved, for example, admitting that one was or was not a “good” Catholic. Think Inquisition. We may well ask how effectively torture worked to protect Catholicism from infidels and purify the image of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

For sadistic pleasure: Heartbreakingly, torture for sadistic pleasure is widespread in the U.S. and elsewhere around the world where abuse of various forms is a part of everyday life. My guess is that every one of my readers has at some point in his or her life met someone who got pleasure from inflicting pain on some person or animal. Right?

Regardless of its purpose or motive, torture, as well as cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, is banned at all times, in all places by international law.

Shouldn’t people of conscience be acting to resist its use in their homes, their communities, their country, and wherever their efforts can reach? Time to stop excusing it?

4,520 Palestinian political prisoners

Posted on January 3, 2013January 2, 2013 by kathiemm

By guest author Dahlia Wasfi

In the early morning hours of December 12, 2012, Israeli forces raided the offices of three Palestinian civil society organizations in Ramallah in the West Bank, including the Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association.

"Freedom for Palestine" protesters — Photo by Peter used under CC Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

Addameer is a non-governmental institution that works to support Palestinian political prisoners held in Israeli and Palestinian jails. Israeli soldiers confiscated four computers, a hard drive, a video camera, and an unknown amount of files and documentation. Posters of prisoners and hunger strikers were ripped down from the walls and strewn on the floor.

Addameer’s last monthly report from November 1, 2012, listed 4,520 Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli prisons and detention centers, including 156 administrative detainees, 10 women, and shockingly, 164 children.

Addameer was likely targeted by occupation forces because of its efforts to document Israel’s violations of the rights of prisoners.

These violations include:

Systematic torture and ill-treatment
Unjust solitary confinement and isolation
Collective punishment
Medical negligence

Violations of the human rights of prisoners and detainees—many of whom are held indefinitely and without charge—have driven many of those behind bars to go on hunger strike.

Like Bobby Sands and his fellow imprisoned Irish Republicans who united in hunger strike against the UK government, Palestinian political prisoners are on hunger strike demanding respect for their human rights. Some prisoners are also striking for the broader cause of ending the illegal occupation of Palestine.

Two cases that have received international attention were the hunger strikes of Khader Adnan, who protested his detention without charge or trial, and Mahmoud Sarsak, who began his hunger strike after his detention was renewed for the sixth time, without charge or trial.

Israeli officials agreed to release Adnan on the 66th day of his strike. Sarsak—a gifted soccer player who was detained in 2009 while en route from his home in Gaza to play in the West Bank–was released after 96 days without food (See Truthout article).

Thousands more, however, continue to languish in Israeli jails. Addameer reports that Israel continues to arrest an average of 11 to 20 Palestinians every day, totaling around 7,000 new detainees each year. Arbitrary administrative detention without charge or trial is an unacceptable practice, as is the harassment of Addameer’s human rights workers.

The United States should suspend aid to the Israeli military until the time that compliance with international humanitarian law becomes Israeli policy.

Dr. Dahlia Wasfi

Blind justice–or blind to justice?

Posted on September 24, 2012September 24, 2012 by kathiemm

Americans are expected to pledge allegiance to a flag that symbolizes “liberty and justice for all.” But, as one of our readers asked recently, “What is justice?”

One common distinction is between retributive justice and restorative justice:

Retributive justice:

Focuses on punishment for perceived transgressions
Is imposed unilaterally on a weaker party by a stronger party
Argues that the severity of the punishment should be proportional to the severity of the offense—e.g., an eye for an eye
Is viewed as having a strong basis in Western values, particularly those of men

Restorative justice:

Rejects the notion that punishment of an offender adequately restores justice
Views transgressions as bilateral or multilateral conflicts involving perpetrators, victims, and their communities
Recommends bringing together all parties to exchange stories and move toward apology and forgiveness.

Depending on our family and community values, we are exposed to varying levels of these forms of justice and develop ideas regarding which form is best. For example, in families:

Authoritarian parents expect their children to be obedient and to follow strict rules and punish them if they don’t—consistent with retributive justice beliefs
Authoritative parents are more democratic, more responsive to their children’s needs and questions, and favor understanding and forgiveness over punishment—consistent with restorative justice beliefs

And in nations:

The U.S. incarcerates the largest number of people, including the most women in the world
Under Nelson Mandela, South Africa created a Truth and Reconciliation Commission “to enable South Africans to come to terms with their past on a morally accepted basis and to advance the cause of reconciliation.”
The video above shows how the Rwandan government has approached the issue of justice in the aftermath of that country’s genocide

Which type of justice is embraced by each society? On what basis is one approach more just than the other? Which do you favor? Why?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology