253
this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2024
253 points (98.1% liked)
Not The Onion
12344 readers
550 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Some people are just really lacking in impulse control. I imagine they are also more likely to end up in front of a judge for the same reasons.
This is why Hell is such a stupid concept.
There's a literal "moral privilege" in that it's much, much easier to live life in a good way depending on physical structures in your brain.
You'd be surprised at the rates of TBI in incarcerated violent criminals.
Turns out damaging people's impulse control pathways leads to crime!
Just yesterday I was walking past an old person on the sidewalk and had an intrusive thought about pushing them out into the street, followed by a thought of "man I'm really grateful that I have a functioning impulse control - it must be hell to go through life where thoughts like that could turn into terrible consequences because there's no mechanism catching errant impulses").
While this guy should definitely not be out in public where he'd likely continue to harm people, I think we generally underappreciated just how little separates all of us from behaving just like him, and overestimate how much of his behavior is because of choice as opposed to circumstance.
We shouldn't try to be so punitive with criminal justice. A functioning society does need to keep violent people separated from potential victims, but we really don't need to be such dicks about it.
TBI, lead exposure, malnutrition… gotta try to be kind.
Interesting we have more sympathy for those who impulsively, say, eat non-food items, versus lash out violently.
Something I don’t know: is there any reason to be more sympathetic to someone who self harms (say cuts themselves) than someone who harms others as a result of mental illness?
We say “died by suicide” instead of “committed suicide” to speak closer to the reality of a situation, to acknowledge how awful it is when pain exceeds resources available for coping with that pain. We necessarily view murder as abhorrent, and I won’t defend murderers at large, but I question if some percentage of those who kill were mentally ill to the point they deserve exactly equal sympathy to others who were just as ill but whose illness manifested without violence.
deleted by creator
Thought provoking. Thanks for taking the time!
I agree 100%.
This is a description of fundamental attribution error to a T. Simplifying human beings actions into a representation of their character rather than looking at the circumstances and conditions that resulted in making the decision to begin with. We overestimate our inherent differences, in order to distance ourselves from unsavoury behaviour and boost our own self esteem.
And there is no place for profit in keeping people safe (both the offenders and society at large).
Also the circumstances you were born in affects you as a person.