Violence begets violence

[Seteleechete]

Someone killed your lover/friend/ect, you retaliate in kind, his friend/lover/ect. retaliates, someone retaliates for you, ad infinitum. How true is this adage? If you were caught in this loop would you continue it? Do you consider retaliation based on this principle a good/justified thing? Do you consider retaliatory actions more appropriate than appeasing ones?

(sometimes, probably, usually and depends are my answers)...

 

[Hadoblado]

It's not ad infinitum. There are many ways to break a blood feud. Kill them and leave the country for instance. The feud is more likely to perpetuate in the circumstance that two power structures are in conflict.

I consider retaliation to have some utility, but if vengeance doesn't serve you, you shouldn't serve it. If you see your act as perpetuating a cycle by which you will in turn be harmed, you should have a serious think about alternatives.

Personal vengeance is petty.

 

[Seteleechete]

Personal vengeance is petty.

Many acts of self-satisfaction could be considered "petty" for an outsider but they still bring the feeling of accomplishment/gratification. They are often not pointless actions for the individual in question.

 

[Hadoblado]

Sure, you can convince yourself of any action if you see it as an end in itself. But it's not. All you're doing is causing misery, at no benefit to yourself. Fulfilling the most base animal instinct to assert yourself against your wrongdoer. A dog bites the hand that bleeds it. A person would have to be devoid of full faculty to cause themselves and others harm in preference to moving out of reach.

Retaliation serves to assert control. If control remains contested you've wasted time and resources on causing yourself further harm. Lunacy.

It is this that causes conflict to cease. When it costs all parties involved with no end in sight, people make peace.

 

[EditorOne]

Speaking generally, this is why some prefer the concept of "justice" rather than "vengeance," with appropriate dispassionate institutions to make it happen. It's why gratuitous violence is treated as a crime against everyone, answerable to everyone, rather than a personal affront.

 

[Turnevies]

I don't believe in justice actually. There is in my view only pragmatic punishment, to make sure no one will try to wrong you anymore.

 

[Reluctantly]

fyi, vengeance is a form of justice.

And I have a hard time believing that anyone thinking vengeance is wrong has ever had people in their lives seriously hurt them. It's easy to ignore small things, but when someone does something that scars you, it's almost a slap in the face to say you don't deserve any kind of personal satisfaction in retribution. It's a form of self-respect to stand up for yourself.

I mean "justice", what a joke. Yeah, someone can torture, beat, or rape someone and then get put on trial only to get off on a technicality. Justice served. Not really. I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't agree with people "assuming" someone did something without actually knowing because then you just have vigilantes hurting random people. But if you actually know what someone did and the punishment is fair, there's really nothing wrong with vengeance, especially when the court system doesn't give the victim a chance to weigh in on punishment. I mean shouldn't the victim get 'some' satisfaction in the punishment? Otherwise, who is feeling good from this? Everyone else that feels the criminal won't hurt them because they are locked up somewhere and punished? I mean silly, it's damn silly. The law doesn't care about people on a personal level. It's a complete joke.

 

[Yellow]

I prefer the concept of vengeance over a justice system. Formal criminal justice systems are designed to punish those who break laws, which were designed to be broken in the first place. Laws are reactive descriptions of things that we know people will do, but "shouldn't". The "justice" reactions to broken laws are largely aimed at punishing the offender, which I think it ass-backwards.

If we know the law will be broken, and we know that victims of the crime will suffer, then why not put some focus on alleviating the pain of the victim? Vengeance at least attempts to mitigate the damage an offender can create, and gives some closure to the victim. "Justice" is more concerned with controlling the population than mitigating damage.

I am a pacifist, but that's for slightly different reasons. Yes, violence begets violence, and hate begets hate, but better a feud than a federal execution, in my opinion.

I'm sorry, I'm a little drunk. It's a drinking holiday today in my country,

 

[Pyropyro]

Hell no. It's easy to talk shite about about lack of justice and killing for vengeance when you're not living it.

Consider our lovely local practice of Rido. These feuds kill people by the thousands and displace even thousands more.

You want an alternative to the justice system then by all means immigrate to our southern islands. Let's see how long you last in a vengeance fueled bloodfest.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Yup if you cant trust individuals not to harm you in the first place, how could you ever trust people to dole out vengeance in an equitable manner.

I guess a reasonable compromise for a constructive society could be to bring back dueling or gladiator games. In participating all parties agree to adhere to the rules:
Defendant names the game, Plaintiff decides the prize, Outcomes are final .

 

[Kuu]

It's a form of self-respect to stand up for yourself.

Is vengeance the only way to stand up for yourself? Personally I find this profoundly short-sighted.

Like the OP points out, your (perhaps justified) act of retribution might provide you a sense of balance for a wrongdoing, but what about the people in the sidelines that suffer the collateral damage? It's not just 2 people involved, really, but their entire social networks that feel the repercussions of any action, and therefore snowball into a cycle of violence with no apparent end.

Otherwise, who is feeling good from this? Everyone else that feels the criminal won't hurt them because they are locked up somewhere and punished? I mean silly, it's damn silly. The law doesn't care about people on a personal level. It's a complete joke.

The law isn't meant to provide good feelings of personal satisfaction. It is there to attempt to maintain order by having a systematic method to deal with disagreements.

 

[Pyropyro]

Yup if you cant trust individuals not to harm you in the first place, how could you ever trust people to dole out vengeance in an equitable manner.

I guess a reasonable compromise for a constructive society could be to bring back dueling or gladiator games. In participating all parties agree to adhere to the rules:
Defendant names the game, Plaintiff decides the prize, Outcomes are final .

Trial by combat would be awesome. You get your petty vengeance, the audience satiates their petty bloodlust and the rest of society can go on with their lives. Sounds like a win-win to me.

 

[redbaron]

Adversarial court system doesn't exactly help in serving justice.

 

[Yellow]

@Pyro - you make a good point about the feuds. Consider my mind changed a bit.

 

[Pyropyro]

@Pyro - you make a good point about the feuds. Consider my mind changed a bit.

As long as one life or said life's associated properties is saved by making my country as a case study then I guess I've met my objective.

I do agree that there must be changes done in your justice system. We don't want Pharma bros and their ilk running around freely.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Vengeance achieves nothing. If your loved one was killed then you should instead invest energy into making sure that no more people you love would die, or into building new positive relations.

I really don't get it, why would one hurt an innocent person just because they are affiliated with the offender. Killing/pacifying the offender to make sure they can't be a threat in the future and to have them repay the debt is a more reasonable choice.

Retaliation or slaughter in defence when you haven't lost what you're trying to protect is another thing and should be exercised depending on the specifics of the situation.

 

[Sinny91]

Trial by combat would be awesome. You get your petty vengeance, the audience satiates their petty bloodlust and the rest of society can go on with their lives. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Lol, I knew there were reasons why I liked you so much.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

Is vengeance the only way to stand up for yourself? Personally I find this profoundly short-sighted.

Like the OP points out, your (perhaps justified) act of retribution might provide you a sense of balance for a wrongdoing, but what about the people in the sidelines that suffer the collateral damage? It's not just 2 people involved, really, but their entire social networks that feel the repercussions of any action, and therefore snowball into a cycle of violence with no apparent end.



The law isn't meant to provide good feelings of personal satisfaction. It is there to attempt to maintain order by having a systematic method to deal with disagreements.

i think reluctantly has been clear in that he's talking about very specific cases where someone's life is fucked over forevermore and justice has not been served
for example: the recent stanford swimmer case who raped an intoxicated girl and was let off easily and given very short sentence because, and i quote judge, "A prison sentence would have a severe impact on him, I think he will not be a danger to others.". in addition to his dad basically saying "awww my son is sad and wont eat steak anymore :c" and describing his crime as, and i quote, "20 minutes of action".
the fact that this pile of filth has access to education, while others dont, that they're in the upper echelons of society and can buy "justice"...and we're talking about a case with 4 eye witnesses btw. can we even imagine the distress, anguish and anger the victim is going through? why should she or anyone else care "about the people in the sidelines that suffer the collateral damage" like his dad or the judge or his lawyer. like who gives a shit. getting vengeance will benefit society. why not cut his d off? this is a case were even eye witnesses were present and yet the rapist was still let off. rape victims are already afraid to report rape, i can only imagine how seeing cases like this will only discourage them from seeking "justice" even more.
i can think of many other examples, but you get the point

 

[EditorOne]

The reason justice is preferable is simply that it prevents an eternal feud.

That the justice system doesn't always work doesn't mean personal vengeance is automatically better. You might be momentarily satisfied, but going through life waiting for something to happen to your family as a result of the vengeance you took strikes me as a Tony Soprano kind of life.

The current justice system here in the United States does provide for victims of a crime, or relatives of a victim of a crime, to speak up at parole hearings if they aren't satisfied the time served so far is sufficient punishment.

Nothing is perfect. Nothing works all the time.

In addition to everything else, I believe vengeance is corrosive to the person deploying it. A few people greatly wronged me over the years, acts that hurt me and my family. Several merited careful consideration of vengeance. Each time I held back, eventually reaching the point of understanding that no matter how good it might feel to slice someone up into little pieces with a dull knife and feed them to pigs, later I'd feel worse than if I'd done nothing.

 

[Reluctantly]

Like the OP points out, your (perhaps justified) act of retribution might provide you a sense of balance for a wrongdoing, but what about the people in the sidelines that suffer the collateral damage? It's not just 2 people involved, really, but their entire social networks that feel the repercussions of any action, and therefore snowball into a cycle of violence with no apparent end.

That's moot because even with the traditional court system, someone suffers collateral damage, depending on what the court decides. I mean you don't think families having someone sent to prison isn't hard on them in some way? Or someone coming forward to admit being raped doesn't have a hard time when that person is let off for one reason or another?

And don't get me wrong either, I'm only talking about victim-crimes requiring some form of vengeance on the victim's part. A victim-less crime like not paying all your taxes doesn't warrant vengeance. The victim deserves some kind of input on the punishment, even if it's to say there should be no punishment (just labeling someone a rapist socially could be enough for someone for example). Vengeance doesn't always mean harsh or violent or emotionally rash and I'm not saying the victim gets to do whatever, just that they get input on the form of punishment. Ideally, the victim should get to sort their feelings on the matter and come up with something that gives them a sense of closure, while still allowing the perpetrator a chance at rehabilitation.

The law isn't meant to provide good feelings of personal satisfaction. It is there to attempt to maintain order by having a systematic method to deal with disagreements.

And honestly that's a large part of the problem. Human beings aren't robots. Coldly and dispassionately dealing with the human race might maintain order, but it doesn't even being to solve their conflicts or even attempt to resolve them. What happens to your society when people grow up realizing that they can be wronged and how they feel about it doesn't matter to anyone?

 

[Reluctantly]

The current justice system here in the United States does provide for victims of a crime, or relatives of a victim of a crime, to speak up at parole hearings if they aren't satisfied the time served so far is sufficient punishment.

See that just baffles me. If someone's not satisfied with the punishment, the solution is to add more time? Pretty sure there's more options than that. I personally think sending someone to prison is horrible for many reasons. Their life is effectively over; prison is violent and dangerous and you might die; you're more likely to re-offend after getting out because you're engaged with criminals 24-7; you're treated like a piece of shit with no rights; and you're forced to do criminal things to get by; all this just makes people sociopathic, if they aren't already.

I'd much rather come up with a punishment that's humiliating or socially isolating so they at least have to deal with their wrongdoing, while still getting to live some kind of life; they can still be rehabilitated. But sometimes hurting their bank account or even getting the choice to destroy something they love (not another living thing, lol) is more apt. It would depend on the individual.

Also, vengeance doesn't imply violence. I think you all are getting this word twisted.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I'd much rather come up with a punishment that's humiliating or socially isolating so they at least have to deal with their wrongdoing, while still getting to live some kind of life; they can still be rehabilitated. But sometimes hurting their bank account or even getting the choice to destroy something they love (not another living thing, lol) is more apt. It would depend on the individual.

How's humiliation or isolation any conducive to rehabilitation? You're setting two contradictory goals for yourself. Also that's what prisons and permanent jailing/asylum terms already are, there's a strong preference for never releasing that individual even to the point of locking them away at mental health facilities after they have served their terms. When they are released, they can never get rid of their criminal label and are ostracised because of what they did.

Financial reimbursement and forced labour service is a good option to go along with punishment by isolation.

How destroying something that individual loves changes the situation for the better? If anything you've just removed the incentive for their future compliance or motivation to try. For what? To satisfy a basic grievance of the victim that should instead be addressed at a therapy and with positive reinforcements? Also this doesn't lessen the victim's grief in the long-term at all.

 

[Reluctantly]

How's humiliation or isolation any conducive to rehabilitation? You're setting two contradictory goals for yourself. Also that's what prisons and permanent jailing/asylum terms already are, there's a strong preference for never releasing that individual even to the point of locking them away at mental health facilities after they have served their terms. When they are released, they can never get rid of their criminal label and are ostracised because of what they did.

Financial reimbursement and forced labour service is a good option to go along with punishment by isolation.

How destroying something that individual loves changes the situation for the better? If anything you've just removed the incentive for their future compliance or motivation to try. For what? To satisfy a basic grievance of the victim that should instead be addressed at a therapy and with positive reinforcements? Also this doesn't lessen the victim's grief in the long-term at all.

I was just making a point that the input from the victim doesn't have to mean violence or prison time. You can argue technicalities based on what I said, but that's all it was meant for. Not to be rude, but any arguments beside the point I intended, I don't really care for, as it's not what I'm even talking about.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I was just making a point that the input from the victim doesn't have to mean violence or prison time. You can argue technicalities based on what I said, but that's all it was meant for. Not to be rude, but any arguments beside the point I intended, I don't really care for, as it's not what I'm even talking about.

This is a very general kind of response, you didn't suggest any solution so I felt free to make assumptions on the part of it. It was an extension to what has been said. I'm not sure why you didn't choose to ignore what you now called was beside your point.

I've said that prisons are isolating and humiliating during and after the incarceration. It would appear you are against the prison system yourself.
The bit "destroying something they love" just sounded edgy and dark without much substance.

My point was the validity of humiliation, causing grief and isolation should be questioned as methods for resocialisation.

 

[Pyropyro]

We just got an extrajudicial killing of a pickpocket/bag snatcher.

You see, this is what happens when a society gets violence happy when it comes to dealing justice. They don't stop at murder, they go for even the pettiest of offenses.

SPOILER WARNING: It's a corpse.

Spoiler

[bimgx=250]https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qH73qbpwKFQ/V4I5Oa3g_vI/AAAAAAAAdJk/aRF9BIEPm2YHLs6FgiS-9LdaEnTB2lTgQCLcB/s1600/snatcher-dead-edsa.jpg[/bimgx]

 

[kekman]

another person would view that fear of collateral damage coming in his way of having a somewhat of a catharsis by avenging there feud.but then again it depends on the specific individual,but so would it depending on an individual in the light that would he want to avenge his loss,should a person put a majorities needs ahead of his own?

 

[Nibbler]

Someone killed your lover/friend/ect, you retaliate in kind, his friend/lover/ect. retaliates, someone retaliates for you, ad infinitum. How true is this adage? If you were caught in this loop would you continue it? Do you consider retaliation based on this principle a good/justified thing? Do you consider retaliatory actions more appropriate than appeasing ones?

(sometimes, probably, usually and depends are my answers)...

This is all hypothetical... (authorities! watching this forum!)

If someone killed the love of my life AND I decided to retaliate, I would do it in such a way that the guilty party will know it's me, AND it will be final, AND it will be away from any witnesses to pick up the cycle.

... AND ... it will not be right away, but some time after...

Already in my life, I'm sensitive to cycles. So I would not enter one if I could prevent it. My approach would be "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. You got your action; I get my reaction. But there will not be an equal and opposite reaction to a reaction."

ps. I see discussion of rehabilitation above. If I were to engage in retribution, rehab would not be on the table. The person picked me/my loved one to start a vicious cycle with. That cycle ends with one brute force volley. End of.

This is why for *my case*, it's better for everyone that the authorities handle punishment.

(Maybe when I'm older, my answer will be very different. Wiser.)

 

[bvanevery]

And I have a hard time believing that anyone thinking vengeance is wrong has ever had people in their lives seriously hurt them. It's easy to ignore small things, but when someone does something that scars you, it's almost a slap in the face to say you don't deserve any kind of personal satisfaction in retribution. It's a form of self-respect to stand up for yourself.

"Self-respect" is a dangerous trap of egoistic self-entitlement that can have serious consequences for YOU and your LOVED ONES. A common example is road rage. You'd better think twice before you try to go all ballistic on someone chewing them out. What if they pull out a gun and blow you away? What if you think that's no problem, you'll have pulled your own gun faster and blown them away? Then their family or gang burns your house down, shoots your family when you're not there to protect them, blows up your car with you in it....

You have to walk a line between balancing your agency and desires in the world, with what is actually effective and causal in the world. Or as my sifu used to say, "People die for stupid stuff all the time." Don't be that person.

Someone else also said, he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.

(Maybe when I'm older, my answer will be very different. Wiser.)

And maybe you'll be wise enough not to write anything on the internet which will incriminate you in a court of law. This stuff is forever. Better start getting used to that drill.

 

[bvanevery]

Someone killed your lover/friend/ect, you retaliate in kind, his friend/lover/ect. retaliates, someone retaliates for you, ad infinitum. How true is this adage?

Systems of public violence can oscillate indefinitely. Consider Israel vs. Palestine for instance. In the USA we've got a surge of violence between white police and black suspects who often end up dead victims. Now white police are being killed randomly as well. It's not clear to me why that's going to subside.

Systems of public violence can also resolve themselves in favor of a victor (WW II), or kill everyone (WW III).

 

[Nofriends]

Violence begets peace, just drop a few atom bombs on nuclear depositories globally, etc.

Violence may also beget peace if you eradicate incivility, unethicality, primitivity and immorality through forced public witnessing and government sanctioning of the most barbaric forms of torture.
Public witnessing would only become necessary by the age of 21 and only those 21 and over would be subject to the torture, years prior would be for younger generations to prepare for and acclimatize to the new system of society.

Things such as freedom of speech and ideology would not be impinged upon, and misdemeanors would be forgiven. In extreme cases individuals would temporarily be subject to slavery.
Transgressions committed prior to 21 would nullify the exception of extreme circumstances.
The genes and circumstances which are risk factors for immorality would be documented but not made known, the state would treat rules as absolute, the public would not know of the extreme circumstances exception nor the deterministic aspect which would prevent torture, the individual would instead be taken to a dungeon and excommunicated, they would be informed this would happen at birth, but if they were to tell anyone the entire bloodline would be tortured to death or you could introduce a technology which meant that if they were about to utter it this invisible gadget would prevent them from talking.

 

[bvanevery]

Violence may also beget peace if you eradicate incivility, unethicality, primitivity and immorality through forced public witnessing and government sanctioning of the most barbaric forms of torture.
Public witnessing would only become necessary by the age of 21 and only those 21 and over would be subject to the torture, years prior would be for younger generations to prepare for and acclimatize to the new system of society.

You used the word 'may' but what evidence do you actually have of the efficacy of this? Public executions used to be quite the spectacle in many places and they can be pretty graphic, for instance someone kicking if a noose doesn't immediately break their neck. This eventually led to bans on cruel and unusual punishment, and also the end of executions as a public entertainment spectacle. I'm curious why you think you know something about these techniques, that the evolution of the jurisprudence was somehow misguided.

Really it sounds to me more like you'd bring back state terror. "Do what we say, or we'll do this to you."

In extreme cases individuals would temporarily be subject to slavery.

What could possibly go wrong with that? I don't suppose you've heard of the prison industrial complex.

but if they were to tell anyone the entire bloodline would be tortured to death

Ok now I think you're just writing dystopian sci fi.

 

[Grayman]

Violence begets peace, just drop a few atom bombs on nuclear depositories globally, etc.

Violence may also beget peace if you eradicate incivility, unethicality, primitivity and immorality through forced public witnessing and government sanctioning of the most barbaric forms of torture.
Public witnessing would only become necessary by the age of 21 and only those 21 and over would be subject to the torture, years prior would be for younger generations to prepare for and acclimatize to the new system of society.

Things such as freedom of speech and ideology would not be impinged upon, and misdemeanors would be forgiven. In extreme cases individuals would temporarily be subject to slavery.
Transgressions committed prior to 21 would nullify the exception of extreme circumstances.
The genes and circumstances which are risk factors for immorality would be documented but not made known, the state would treat rules as absolute, the public would not know of the extreme circumstances exception nor the deterministic aspect which would prevent torture, the individual would instead be taken to a dungeon and excommunicated, they would be informed this would happen at birth, but if they were to tell anyone the entire bloodline would be tortured to death or you could introduce a technology which meant that if they were about to utter it this invisible gadget would prevent them from talking.

It should be required for children to watch in order to be fully successful. If children get used to public executions that are graphic in nature they will be less likely to view it as detestable as adults.

 

[dang]

If every psychopath in the world were to be assassinated, the world would be a far more peaceful place. One must distinguish between senseless and strategic violence. If you remove the cancer, the body can heal and be healthy. If you remove the most violent people in our world, the world will become safer and more peaceful. Killing a serial killer like Jeffrey Dahmer prevents many future deaths. I believe that violence can be very ethical and necessary at times. This thread makes me think of John Wick. By the end of the movie, he gets revenge and no longer needs to engage in violence. The cycle of violence ends eventually and results in a stable situation. Along with many funerals. Ruling out violence is foolish in my opinion. Non violence is a good strategy as well, but sometimes it is not effective enough. I think vengeance can be ethical and noble even. Some people deserve to be punished harshly. Jeffrey Dahmer was murdered in prison. Good riddance. I have no problem with that at all.

 

[bvanevery]

I think this is an appeal to neat categories of violence and doesn't match the facts on the ground.

 

[Grayman]

I think this is an appeal to neat categories of violence and doesn't match the facts on the ground.

Are you inferring that he is autistic?

 

[bvanevery]

Are you inferring that he is autistic?

Huh? No. That's a complete non-sequitur, and how do you manage to bring such a concept into what is being discussed here?

 

[Grayman]

Huh? No. That's a complete non-sequitur, and how do you manage to bring such a concept into what is being discussed here?

I don't know what this means "neat categories of violence " sounds like you are saying that his whole argument is based on a need to categorize over any actual reasoning.

If so, it seems deserving of a sarcastic poke. So I poke you ->

 

[bvanevery]

I don't know what this means "neat categories of violence " sounds like you are saying that his whole argument is based on a need to categorize over any actual reasoning.

I am saying he has framed a very specific kind of violence where decisions about who's at fault and who should be punished are fairly easy to make. Whereas in the real world what more typically happens, is 2 people get angry, do not have emotional control, and they start swinging. Then maybe one ends up dead and someone else wants vengeance. And on it goes.

Also people precipitate their own violent situations because of their fears. Martin-Zimmerman is a really good example of that. I never believed that guy was a racist, but I sure believe that he was angry about "criminals / thugs", not sure what exact words he used, and had a mind to go vigilante about it. He took it upon himself to go get in someone's face about something he thought was going on, because he'd seen a lot of things go on before. But I don't remember anything about this trial that said this guy was doing anything wrong. He had bought some skittles or something. Zimmerman gets into it with him because he's fearful and angry. Martin doesn't like this guy talking sh*t to him. Lots of people don't. They get into a fight somehow. We're never really going to know exactly what happened between them, there weren't any good witnesses. Maybe Martin was doing way too good a job beating this guy's ass, taking his rage out on him. Maybe it wasn't that way at all. All we really know is, we can't prove Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So he walks.