I am a woman born 1949 and my quest is to find a mindmate
to grow old together as a mutually devoted couple
in a relationship based upon the
egalitarian rational commitment paradigm
bonded by intrinsic commitment
as each other's safe haven and secure basis.

The purpose of this blog is to enable the right man
to recognize us as reciprocal mindmates and
to encourage him to contact me:

The entries directly concerning,
who could be my mindmate,
are mainly at the beginning.
If this is your predominant interest,
I suggest to read this blog in the same order
as it was written, following the numbers.

I am German, therefore my English is sometimes faulty.

Maybe you have stumbled upon this blog not as a potential match.
Please wait a short moment before zapping.

Do you know anybody, who could be my mindmate?
Your neighbour, brother, uncle, cousin, colleague, friend?
If so, please tell him to look at this blog.
While you have no reason to do this for me,
a stranger, maybe you can make someone happy, for whom you care.

Do you have your own webpage or blog,
which someone like my mindmate to be found probably reads?
If so, please mention my quest and add a link to this blog.

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

569. Differentiating Between Instinctive And Cognitive Transgressions

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.   

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.