690. Can Women Be Protected By Electronic Tagging And Monitoring The Known Beasts?

690.  Can Women Be Protected By Electronic Tagging And Monitoring The Known Beasts?

Abuse happens, whenever a victim is available and a (usually not-partnered) man

• is in the state of dishomeostasis, which causes his perceiving an urge to use a female body as a toilet for his body waste.
• has the attitude, that women exist for the purpose to be abused, independent of the women's own wishes and experience.

Abuse can be either violent or by payment, deceit and manipulation, the choice depending upon the abuser's ability for self-control and his subjective estimation of the probability of unpleasant consequences as are legal or social punishment.  

Women have brains to at least attempt to avoid deceit and manipulation, and not all blatant female stupidity can be blamed on men.   But women have no chance against violence of someone stronger than themselves and they need to be protected.  

Violent abuse can be caused or facilitated by not expecting any risk of being punished.   In this case a man with sufficient self-control refrains from further acts of violence after having learned a lesson by the first punishment.  

But there are those, who repeat violent abuse in spite of being sentenced and imprisoned several times.  This indicates their behavior as being completely determined by strong urges and by the lack of sufficient self-control.   These beasts are too dangerous to be ever let out again.  In too rare cases, here in Germany they are indeed kept in Sicherheitsverwahrung (preventive detention).   Unfortunately by some flaw in legal proceedings, some of these beasts where recently set free:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131025091830.htm
 

"Criminologists at the University of Tübingen will lead research into the effectiveness of electronic monitoring of criminal offenders in Germany."

"Some 60 offenders in Germany are monitored using the electronic tag around one ankle."

"Electronic tagging is used on those convicted of serious violent or sexual offences who have served their prison sentence but have had to be released from preventative detention. The monitoring devices are used as part of the supervision of their conduct and are meant to prevent former offenders from relapsing into criminal behavior. The tags must be worn at all times and may not be manipulated. Some of the tagged offenders are not permitted to enter or to leave certain areas. Electronic monitoring was introduced in Germany in 2011 in response to a European Court of Human Rights decision, which held that certain forms of preventative detention contravened human rights law. Electronic tagging is now used to maintain a watch on offenders who prior to 2011 would have been kept in preventative custody."

This is absurd and an outrage to women, whose safety is at stake.   Women and their own human rights to be protected from harm are sacrificed in favor of the human rights of beasts, who have proven not to meet the standards of behavior which would justify to call them human.  
Nobody would put an electronic tag around a lion's ankle and expect the lion to refrain from killing prey.  These criminals are as much beasts as are lions.   As a woman, I prefer not to meet neither lions nor violent abusers without a strong fence or wall between them and me.  

I do hope that the study comes to the conclusion, that such dangerous beasts are just not fit to be allowed to be free.  

515. Responsibility And Liability Without The Myth Of The Free Will

515.  Responsibility And Liability Without The Myth Of The Free Will

Discarding the concept of the free will does not imply to accept, condone or excuse harmful behavior.   It only means a different approach how to protect people from being harmed.    Not harming others is a moral issue, no matter if there is a free will or not.  It requires to redefine the moral quality of behavior from the perception and experience of the target, recipient or victim.   The harm suffered by a victim does not depend on the ability of the transgressor to control his behavior or not.   The need to be protected from harm is independent from how this is done.

People's possibilities to harm others are drastically restricted by legal systems, and subtly also by social norms.     The myth of the free will limits the success of these protective methods for the innocent.   Without the myth of the free will, a person's inability to act responsibly is not a suitable and rational justification to release this person from all liability resulting from his actions.


Responsibility is the cognitive ability to behave deliberately without harming others.   The myth of the free will considers the ability to act responsibly as a part of human sanity.   Harming is legally punished for the purpose to enable the transgressor to learn how to apply his free will for not repeating the harm in the future.  
Only those declared as insane are not punished, as they are considered to have no free will to learn and to control themselves.  

As a consequence of this paradigm, the suffering of victims is considered the unavoidable collateral damage of the learning process of those, who are supposed as having merely strayed but have a free will to decide to change.    The focus is on the transgressors, the victims are considered the objects of their learning.  

The free will myth leading to dealing with a person lacking the ability to act morally by first allowing them to do harm and then punishing them is an inappropriate and cruel mistake.    It burdens too much suffering upon too many innocent victims by being too lenient with the transgressors.    Any person, who for the first time commits a crime causing serious physical or traumatic injuries to the victim, no matter if it is assault, robbery, rape, gets free after a few years.   Only when he has repeated harming innocent victims several times, is he considered as dangerous enough to be locked away for good.   

This is an outrage to the innocent second and further victims of known transgressors.   No punishment can ever undo and heal the damage to the victims.    Punishment may even impede those with lacking morals from changing their behavior.    They experience their time in prison as paying for the benefits of the crime.   Having paid is their reason to feel not or less guilty.  


Without the free will, the concept of universal responsibility has to be replaced by the concept of unrestricted liability.    Liability focuses upon the harm done by someone independent of the reasons for, causes and triggers of any behavior.   The focus is upon protecting the innocent from becoming victims, no matter, how this is accomplished and no matter the consequences for those, who are not able to refrain from harming.  

Responsibility does not require a free will, as it can be motivated by a cognitive calculation of preventing dishomeostasis and of expecting future stimulation of the pleasure center.    Responsible behavior can be the best behavior for the own long-term needs as already explained in entry 514.  

Under the liability paradigm of protecting the innocent, those able to act responsibly are the lucky ones, whose brain allows them to live without being externally restricted.    The others are less lucky, they need to be externally restricted from becoming the cause of harm. 

The ability to behave morally as experienced by the targets, to live without harming is a talent and a disposition, that people are either lucky enough to have wired in their brain or they are unfortunate enough to lack it. 

It is not in any way different from intelligence.    Logically, it should also not be dealt with differently.  
Most people take the benefits of intelligence for granted without even wondering about any injustice, when an intelligent person receives a lot of expensive formal education and reaches high positions of power in a factory.  He earns a lot more for a rewarding job than does the person lacking intelligence, who is given no choice but to do a dull repetitive job at the assembly line.  

Less intelligence is usually accepted as a justification for less quality of life, even though those with less intelligence are only detrimental to themselves.   But the lack of the ability to behave morally is even more detrimental, because suffering is imposed upon innocent victims, and the transgressors often get away with it.   It is time to accept the fact, that the inability to act morally is at least as much a justification if not much more than is intelligence for limiting and restricting the quality of life.   

Intelligence can be at least roughly measured and noticed by limited achievements, thus mistakes by wrong decision can be often prevented.  
Morals are more difficult to assess.  Unfortunately for the victims of first crimes, it is impossible or very difficult to predict the first occurrence of someone seriously harming another.  The first victim cannot be protected.   But after the first crime has been proven beyond doubt, the danger is known.   The second victim of the same criminal is not only a victim of him, but also a victim of a society, which fails to protect the innocent. 

I am not defending or justifying the inequality of chances.   Only when two needs are in conflict, then the needs of the innocent should have priority over the needs of the person known already as a potential danger.    The need to remain unharmed should have priority over the need to have a freedom, which includes the freedom to harm at the next occasion.   

448. The Impact Of Christianity On Western Culture

The Impact Of Christianity On Western Culture

My wish is to live in a society, where apistia, egalitarianism and Epicurus' principle of not harming and not to be harmed were the basis of a life in cooperation, justice, security, consideration and responsibility.    Only there is no such society.  
Unfortunately people can free themselves from the childhood christian indoctrination and brainwashing, while they continue to be implicitly influenced by the secondary religious thinking.

1.  The acceptance of and tolerance for suffering
Christianity claims that people get rewarded and compensated in the afterlife for the sufferings before their death.   As a consequence, christians are motivated and feel justified to irrational behaviors:
1.1.  They are prone to endure suffering without feeling outrage, protest or rebellion.
1.2.  They Inflict suffering upon others without feeling guilty.  
1.3.  Sometimes they consider inflicting suffering as beneficial for the vicitms due to creating their alleged entitlement to be rewarded after death.    

2.  The value of life
Life is considered as a gift from the god, belonging to him and being at his disposition only.   The individual is not considered as having an own right to subjectively evaluate if life is worth living or not. 
2.1.  Abortion is not socially accepted and/or forbidden by law.
2.2.  People are not considered to have the unrestricted right over their own life including the evaluation of the quality of life.  They are not allowed the option to decide, if it is worth living or not.  Terminally ill persons are not given the right and help to end their sufferings.  
2.3.  But taking lives in favor of any cause serving higher goals than the individual is accepted, as is in forcing men to be soldiers and women to risk their lives in child birth.

3.  Injustice combined with the acceptance of suffering
3.1.  Forgiving is considered a positive behavior, even without the transgressor's remorse, insight or amends.  Transgressors feel entitled to be forgiven.   Victims are morally coerced to forgive.  They are brainwashed to believe that forgiving benefits themselves.  This kind of forgiving is dangerous, because the transgressor is indirectly condoned for his evil and is prone to repeat damaging others as a consequence of getting off the hook too easily.   
3.2.  The legal system does not focus on protecting the innocent from becoming victims of transgressions.   According to christianity, only the god is entitled to do justice.   This god is presented as someone more in favor of the repentant sinner than of the innocent, who never hurts another person.   

Evil is an imbalance between the transgressor and the god.   Gaining benefits by doing evil is considered as a deal between the god and the transgressor.  The evil is a debt to the god, until the price is paid, the account balanced, and god and transgressor are even again.   The christian sins, pay for his sin by rituals, prayers, sacrifices.  As soon as he feels forgiven by the god, he can be oblivious of the victim.   The victim is insignificant.  

The law focuses on the breach of rules and evil is something paid for by the penalty, by which it then is legally undone.   The victim of physical violence like rape, assault, robbery is often traumatized and damaged irreversibly.  The culprit goes to jail for a few years, is only limited in his freedom, gets maybe even the benefits of training for a job.    After the release, he is considered as having paid his debt to society.   For him, it is over, while the victim still suffers.    The suffering of the victims is often much worse than the legal penalty for the culprit. 

The culprit is enabled to damage another victim.    This is considered the next victim's bad luck and unavoidable fate.   Nobody really sees the outrage of the lack of protection for the innocent.   

4.  Inequality
Inequality is a part of the teaching of the bible.   Atrocities to outgroup members are not only accepted but commanded as service to the god.  Women are not accepted as equals, but as wombs serving to supply more lives to the god as due to him.   Slavery is accepted too.  
4.1.  As a consequence, while discrimination by explicit behavior is often outlawed, subtle and implicit discrimination is prevalent, condoned and tolerated. 
4.2.  A god being the top being and the clerical hierarchies serving him are the model for the general acceptance of hierarchies of power and access to resources.   Forming such hierarchies is done by ruthless, cruel and devastating competition, which has general social acceptance.

5.  Restricting rules
When the rules of specific religious behavior are fixed as laws, they also restrict the life of non-religious persons.   An example is the law in Germany forbiding shops to open on Sundays as being holy.   Laws against blasphemy are another example.  

419. Epicurean Or Christian Legal Paradigm

Epicurean Or Christian Legal Paradigm

In Christian societies, the legal paradigm is based upon the belief, that real justice is not the task of society, but it is their god's job in the afterlife.   This belief favors the transgressors occasion to become recidivists. 
Their previous and future victims are at a disadvantage.

• Christian faith postpones the reward for sufferings to the afterlife.   This serves as a justification to expose people to sufferings and to unnecessary risks of suffering without their consent and against their will.   They are not given a choice, if they want to suffer and be rewarded or not.
• Christian faith requires victims to forgive without justice or amends.  They are not only supposed to yield doing justice to their god, they are even scared to be punished themselves in the afterlife if they refuse to forgive.     
• Christian faith requires the victims to accept their fate as their god's will.    Therefore society does not take legal precaution to protect the innocent from becoming victims. 
• Christian faith enables transgressors to have the delusion, that their god has forgiven them.  As a consequence, they do not earn the forgiving of the victims and make no amends.    

The legal paradigm of a society, where justice is truly not biased by religion, should focus on the Epicurean principle of not harming and of a basic right of not being harmed.  Such a legal system should focus on the protection of the innocent.   Persons, who have proven to be dangerous to others by having harmed them personally by crimes like murder, rape, robbery, assault etc, should be locked away forever, not as punishment, but to protect the innocent from becoming victims.

   
Punishment for the evil doer after a crime cannot undo the damage to the victim.  Society's primary duty is prevention and protection, punishment is not a substitute.   Every time, when a victim gets seriously harmed and traumatized by a recidivist, who has been released from jail, this is an outrage.  This crime on the victim has indirectly been committed by the society, that fails to protect the innocent.   

It is a very drastic thing to do to lock someone away for a lifetime.   But comparing this with the plight of the victims, who are damaged, mutilated, traumatized also for a lifetime, the suffering of someone, who has proven to be dangerous is more justified than the suffering of an innocent victim.    The evil doer had a choice, the victim has none.  
There is the legal principle to rather release a criminal than to lock away someone, who is innocent of the crime he is accused of.    This also is an implicit legal choice between two kinds of sufferings.   The unfortunate person innocently in jail suffers less than the victim, who is seriously and irreversibly harmed by the recidivist criminal, because he has been wrongly acquitted.     

In an ideal society, every person can be at any place and at any time of the day or night, without being in danger of becoming a crime victim.     

This is another hen or egg question:    Is the delusion of a god's justice in the afterlife a rationalization to cope with the innate easiness of harming others without a bad conscience due to animal instinctive urges, or do people harm others without a bad conscience as a consequence of the Christian delusion?  

68. Breeding Supplies Potential Time Bombs

Breeding Supplies Potential Time Bombs

In entry 66, I derived the word brat from BRood And peT, and in this sense I am bratfree.   That means my personal choice not to be a caretaker for any being, that requires being fed, sheltered and cleaned without the availability of the reward and benefit of mature and intellectual communication.   And I am looking for a bratfree mindmate.   Of course, my refusal to be a caretaker of brats is no refusal to care for a mindmate, when he gets sick and frail.   

But I am indifferent to other people's children.   They neither disturb nor attract me.    They are just a part of the social environment.   As a consequence of the overpopulation of the globe, people should breed as little as possible.

I am on some childfree forums, and some people there are militantly against children, and resent, that their taxes are used for the upbringing of children.    The latter is a dangerous attitude.   Breeders supply society with potential time bombs.    Without prevention, later on the juvenile delinquents and lifelong criminals could rob, mug, break in and even kill.  I could be the victim, as anybody else could be too.  
Once a breeder has done, what he could not refrain from, the society should do its best to make sure, that the raw material, called baby, will be converted into a valuable member of society, who will never do harm to others and take care of himself without taking advantage of others.  
It is much better to invest the tax money as early as possible into providing kindergarten facilities, good schools, social workers, education advice, rather then spending it later on prisons, correction institutions and a huge police force.   

28. How To Keep the Prisons Empty

How To Keep the Prisons Empty

Life starts, when it can exist independently outside the womb.   Until then, an embryo is just a bunch of biological matter, and if not wanted, there is no rational difference between an embryo and a tumor as something to be removed.   

Having something unwantedly growing in the womb is not a justification to require, demand or coerce a person to raise it.

Given the availability of contraception, the availability of unlimited abortion during the first three months and the availability of a legal way of depositing unwanted children anonymously for adoption, it is justified to protect children from the moment of their birth on.    But these are the rational requirements to allow a woman to prevent the situation to have the raising of an unwanted child forced upon her.  

The deity delusion includes the fatal claim, that every life is very precious, because it is a gift of the deity.   If the life is unhappy or if it becomes a hazard to others is of no importance to the deity.    Rationally seen, considering a newborn as having the same value as an adult is a depreciation of the sacrifices of the caregivers.   

Statistics have clearly shown, that unwanted children are a high risk to become criminals, the population of jails consists in a high proportion of unwanted children.    They are at risk, if they are raised by unwilling caregivers, but also when they grow up in orphanages.   

Therefore, there should not be unwanted children.   Every unwanted child is one too many. The decision for or against an abortion is unfortunately distorted many times by the delusion of depriving the deity of her gift.   But rationally seen, an abortion does not make a change, it merely reinstates the baseline, which is the empty womb, just as it was before the pregnancy.   To get pregnant again, if a child is wanted later, is usually easier than to even get an abortion.    Without the deity delusion, an abortion could therefore be the standard procedure, not only, when the pregnancy is not wanted, but even, when there is any doubt.   Dealing with an unwanted child is so much more problematic then getting pregnant again.

Since there is the abortion pill, it is a simple way to do it, if the pill would be sold freely.    It is scandalous, that this pill is controlled under the financial and political power of those, whose own judgment is disabled by the deity delusion.

Thus, abortion is the first step in the prevention of crime.   

A newborn baby is only a form of raw material.    What converts it into an healthy, independent, decent citizen is the investment of time and money by the caregivers.   

There is no way to prevent people from producing more raw material than is good.  

But the focus of society should be on the quality of the children and not on the quantity, and that is the second step of prevention.

It is obvious that good education from early on in kindergarten and school is important, but this is not sufficient.   The focus should be on the parents.    There is a training and a licence required for nearly everything, driving is an example.    Driving lessons are to protect others from being injured by an unable driver.  

People, who want to raise children, should get some training too, instead of being allowed to raise children to become a hazard to others. 

The first step could be obligatory courses at high school, not only in how to handle babies, but also in communication and other aspects of education.    During pregnancy, there could be a course offered, which ends with a licence of basic parental training, which could then be accompanied by regular additional courses in accordance with the age of the child.  

Since nobody can stop people from breeding like rabbits, the only way to make them undergo parenting training, are some substantial incentives.    The incentive could be a monthly payments from the government and a reward, when the child reaches a given age, maybe 21, and has not become a criminal and a burden to society.  

That reward could be a sum for the child towards further education, starting a business, buying a house, and an additional sum to the retirement pay of the parents.    

The money saved on institutions for unwanted children, juvenile delinquents, jails and the damage done by the criminals would be sufficient to pay the parental training and incentives.   

27. Criminals and Innocents

Criminals and Innocents

Religious brainwashing makes the religious majority believe, that for suffering on earth there will be compensation in the afterlife and that the full punishment for the evil also is postponed and left to the deity in afterlife.   Christians are supposed to forgive as their own requirement to reward.  

Therefore society fails to protect the innocent well enough.  There is too much leniency, once someone has given evidence, that he is dangerous.  It is absurd, that quite often, the brutal criminal gets a few years in prison, and gets out back into a content, normal life, and leaves his own deed emotionally behind him.   He has been punished by the law, so for him, it is over.  The victim suffers forever, and the next victim is prone to pass his path.   

It is not acceptable that becoming a victim is considered a risk of life.   Nobody should be allowed to run free and be a hazard, once he is known to be dangerous.   The innocent deserve safety and freedom of movement everywhere at any time of the day and night.   The country should be the innoncents' country. 

For centuries, there was massive injustice in some societies, when for example there were free people with privileges, that were denied to the slaves.   But to my knowledge, there was never a society, where important privileges were reserved to the innocent, while evildoers and criminals were forfeiting them.    As far as I know, even the criminals, who were transported to Australia were allowed back after completing their term.

There should be two levels of citizenship.   The full citizenship with all human rights and the attribution of human dignity should be the privilege of the innocent, of those, who have never done serious, especially physical harm to others.   They should have a status of being called truly human.   As soon as someone does any cruel act to someone else, he should loose once and for all that status and be reduced to a limited citizenship of status of a asocial and dangerous, who is deprived of some civilian rights. 

 

He should be controlled in his movements, his mail, telephone data etc should be monitored.    There should be a sign on his door warning people, maybe a RFID or some other chip planted into him, so that everybody near him can know that he is dangerous.   He should loose the right to vote.  Every restriction should be applied, that contributes to the prevention of his doing any more harm to others.    Since he has already inflicted harm and suffering upon another, he is the one to suffer from restrictions to prevent more pain to others. 

In short, the innocent should be protected from him, no matter, what disadvantages this brings to him.   He had known, what damage he has no right to inflict upon others, and he had done it knowingly.   He has to live with the consequences.    Leniency cannot be justified, when it brings danger to innocent persons.    What somebody has done once, is as a possibility in him, there is a probability, that he might do it again.   He is the danger, because he made himself a danger.

  

It is not a question of punishing for the sake of punishing.    Punishing does not undo the damage and suffering of the victims, prevention is much more important, so that nobody becomes another victim.   

If someone is dangerous enough, then he need to be locked away for ever.    Lions are locked in cages in the zoo, so that they cannot hurt anybody.   Dangerous people need to be locked away too, if nothing less severe is not enough to protect others.   

Taxpayers' money is wasted on rehabilitation for the purpose of releasing those dangerous persons.   The money would be much better spent on all methods of prevention, but that will be another posting about how to keep the prisons empty.