569. Differentiating Between Instinctive And Cognitive Transgressions
In entry 568 I pointed out the importance of the liability principle in restraining known hazardous persons from ever harming another victim. But I am not sure, if I made it sufficiently clear, that the objective of this is the protection of individual victims only.
It is important to distinguish between instinctive transgressions and cognitive transgressions. Under the myth of the free will and the religious bias towards tolerating harm to victims as a god's will, this distinction is omitted in the legal system of many countries. It is time to acknowledge, that people's excessive instinctivity has to be dealt with to their personal disadvantage and not to that of innocent others.
Instinctive transgressions are those harming acts to individual persons, which are done by those (predominantly men) lacking sufficient cognitive control over their sexual and aggressive hierarchy and ingroup/outgroup instincts. They are the dangerous beasts.
In entry 568 I pointed out the importance of the liability principle in restraining known hazardous persons from ever harming another victim. But I am not sure, if I made it sufficiently clear, that the objective of this is the protection of individual victims only.
It is important to distinguish between instinctive transgressions and cognitive transgressions. Under the myth of the free will and the religious bias towards tolerating harm to victims as a god's will, this distinction is omitted in the legal system of many countries. It is time to acknowledge, that people's excessive instinctivity has to be dealt with to their personal disadvantage and not to that of innocent others.
Instinctive transgressions are those harming acts to individual persons, which are done by those (predominantly men) lacking sufficient cognitive control over their sexual and aggressive hierarchy and ingroup/outgroup instincts. They are the dangerous beasts.
Cognitive transgressions cause material damage to abstract entities or the general welfare of society, which cannot be accepted or tolerated, but which are not directly tragic to individual victims.
Criminals, who steal or do any kind of financial fraud against companies or the government are acting by a deliberate decision based upon a thinking process. If punishment results in a change of their behavior, then punishment is a reasonable consequence. In the worst case of a recidivism, the damage is limited to be material but there are no traumatized, mutilated or dead victims. Therefore risking their recidivism can be justified.
The same is true with people, who cause harm by carelessness as is drunk driving, which they would never do deliberately. They can also learn to change their behavior. The shock of their guilt is often enough punishment by itself.
It is known, that prisoners often commit atrocities to each other. Beasts are dangerous to harm anyone in their reach, no matter if in freedom or in jail. The distinction between instinctive and cognitive transgressions requires a distinction between types of prison.
The instinctive beasts should be locked away in prisons apart from those, where the cognitive criminals are supported to improve.
If a psychopathic murderer kills a brutal rapist, it is good riddance. If he kills a fraudulent accountant, it is a tragedy.
