Misconceptions

Once again I was caught in a car alone with my favorite right-winger, God bless 'em. But this time I feel we made progress. We got to the heart of one of the basic misconceptions that have infected his mind.

I told him off the subject we were talking about that states with the death penalty almost across the board have fewer murders and violent crime in general than states that have the death penalty. He said it went against reason. He said that throughout history the most brutal dictatorships have been and are very effective.

I told him that countries without the death penalty without exception have less crime than our own --but he still couldn't believe it. Here's a link for the States.

This is one perfect example of the difference between the reality-based community and the idiology based community. The simple, easy to understand model in the right-wing mind says that the tougher the penalty ==> less likely the crime. But there's that pesky reality butting in with the fact that, hey Canada has no death penalty and only a tiny fraction of our violent crime rate. This is true almost across the board with other countries and with states in our own country.

But how can this be? Being nicer to criminals makes for less crime? It reminds me of a Stephen Colbert joke when he was addressing the president:

"We all know, ladies and gentlemen, that reality has a distinct liberal bias."

Could it be that the less brutal approach is actually more effective? Apparently so in this case.

Here are some more examples: In war it is well known that if you wound an enemy, you take an average of three people off the battlefield --the one you wounded and two more to haul him off and treat him. If you kill him you only remove one. This, not some bleeding-heart concern for human life, was the main reason exploding bullets were banned by the Geneva convention. Once again being nicer can win you the fight.

Now let's talk about torture. If it gives our soldiers an edge to be able to use it, then why are so many generals and war veterans against us using it? Is it because Michael Moore and Hilary Clinton put something in their soup? It has been proven that when an enemy combatant believes he is going to be tortured or killed, he is much less likely to surrender or let himself be captured alive. This means more suicide bombs, and an enemy gauranteed to fight to the bitter end.

If they know they will be treated humanely and with dignity, then two things happen. 1. they are more likely to surrender peacefully which is a home run on the battlefield. It's the best case scenario. And 2. When captured, humans tend to develop a bond with their captors. This is called Stockholm Syndrome and it is a long-time proven scientific fact. You are then more likely to get reliable information from your captives.

Torture victims on the other hand will say anything to stop the torture --so information from them is generally worthless. When John Mckaine was captured, he gave his captors the names of players on his favorite football team.

So if I'm fighting your army and I adhear to the Geneva convention and you don't, I'll win --all other things being equal-- because I'll get better information from more-likely-to-surrender soldiers and I'll lose fewer men on the battlefield. Victory doesn't go to the meanest combatant with the "ugliest face" but to the one with the wisdom to do what is fair and right even in the face of adversity. Especially in the face of adversity.

Maybe when Christ said, "love your enemies," and "turn the other cheek," he wasn't giving us a recipie for losing. Maybe he was giving us an effective strategy in global conflict. And perhaps when he said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone..." he wasn't trying to increase adultery cases in his area.

There are many dead who deserve life. Can you give it to them? --Gandalf

The meanest approach to a situation is not the most effective. The most well-behaved kids I know were never spanked. The most sexually repressive societies tend to have the most haneous deviant behavior. The more you tighten your grip the more sand slips through your fingers --but this is a much harder, more mature approach to grasp.

Maybe in Iraq, we are like the monkey holding on to the beans in the jar. If only we would let go, we could pull our arm out, but the intuitive approach is to hold on tighter. There's also the chinese finger puzzle. The Rightie solution would be to pull hard enough to break the puzzle or our fingers --when all we have to do is relax, let our fingers go together, and the puzzle falls off effortlessly.