The Arrogant Ape - a rant about society and crime, amongst other things!

Some observations on society and my theory of current high crime levels. I have tried to get my ideas down clearly, but not sure how well I managed! Comments welcome, but you are also welcome to disregard this post entirely!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reading the news recently, I was depressed by the slew of torture, violence, rape and murder, and the apparent lack of repentance by the perpetrators. It occurred to me that for all our high ambitions, acts of charity, arts and beliefs, Human Beings are really little more than animals, and in fact are often worse – what other species has invented both sadism and guilt?

True, some animals do, on occasion, hurt other animals for reasons that have nothing to do with food, but they are not then burdened with guilt. I remember reading an article many years back on crow society and being amazed at how a crow was pecked to death by the group for what seemed to me to be a minor infringement of their rules. I realise now, of course, that this is simply nature’s way of ensuring co-operation within a group for the good of the species, and works on multiple levels. At the most basic level, the offending individual is not going to offend again, and on top of that any genetic component to his/her offending is removed from the gene pool. It also serves as an example to younger members of the group what the punishment is for the offence and deters them from doing the same. Sucks for the individual, but is beneficial for the group, and in nature the survival of the species is always more important than the survival of the individual.

So far so good. Until recently, Homo Sapiens had a similar method of dealing with wrongdoers; think of the biblical example of ‘an eye for an eye’. This is perhaps a little more sophisticated than the typical animal punishment of death, and introduces another human concept, that of fairness and proportional punishment. Of course, the death penalty remained a viable option for more serious or repeat offences. While modern sensibilities might balk at this, it is, in essence, the natural way of dealing with offenders in a way that ensures the survival of the species. Unfortunately, with the increased brain power that led to the development of morals came the ability to prevaricate. These two are the main thrust of what makes us Human, and while they are in many ways the source of our greatness, they are also likely to be the reason for our downfall.

At this point, I am reminded of another part of the Bible, this time the story of Adam and Eve eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, after which they began to feel shame and learned to lie to cover up their guilt. It is only after they are cast out of their idyllic existence that they produce children who learn different skills and find different ways to survive, showing the eternal flexibility and creativity of humanity.

While we think of lying as being essentially bad, the ability to lie is closely tied in with abstract thought – the ability to imagine what might be, and this led to our rich artistic ability, since all art is essentially a lie – paintings are not the real thing but only a representation of it, and may not even exist in reality. Books of fiction are by their very nature untrue, as are plays, songs and poems. Even factual works are, in a way, lies since they are not, in fact, the thing they are talking about but only a representation of it.

Abstract thought also paved the way for the development of non-concrete ideas such as morality, fairness and mercy. As a species, we developed a strict moral code, the essentials of which are fairly universal and revolve around the survival of the group – don’t kill other humans, (unless they pose a danger to the survival of the group) don’t take other people’s stuff, (because that might cause a fight leading to death…) don’t sleep with close family members, (because that can lead to nasty genetic abnormalities – bad for the species) and be grateful for what you have. (Because life is essentially unfair, and if you are unhappy with what you have you will covet other people’s stuff and maybe try to take it, leading to fighting.) There are of course lots of other rules, but these summarise the basic rules that seem to be fairly universal across most cultures – with a few exceptions – some royal lines have ignored the incest one for example, and look at the consequences of that!

Recently, the code of conduct and the mass of rules have become more and more complicated as the world has become more populous. Unfortunately, society has also become more individualistic, often favouring the individual over the group. The reasons for this are convoluted, but I believe part of the explanation lies in the population explosion in towns and cities. In such a large group, it is impossible to feel a connection with every other individual, and so the group that you feel the need to protect is reduced to oneself and immediate family, with perhaps a few close friends. (Think of gang culture in this context…) In this way, it becomes easier to see why the rules are no longer seen as being agreed on by the majority, but rather as being dictated by a distant authority outside of one’s own group. As such, it is easier to ignore the ones that seem irrelevant, or that don’t tie in with the moral beliefs of the individual or small group.

At the same time, a good deal of abstract thought has been applied to the area of morality, and this is where we humans have really suckered ourselves. In our arrogance, we believe ourselves to be better than animals, and expect everyone to avoid their animal instincts in order to protect the survival of Homo Sapiens as a whole. We came up with the notion of Human Rights, with all the noblest intentions in the world – mostly to try to remove the abuse of power and associated sadism that is a human phenomenon worldwide. Included in this concept is the belief that it is wrong to kill other humans, and so the death sentence was abolished. (In ‘more developed’ countries, that is.) That is all well and good, but is seen as unfair by the majority who are, shall we say, less cerebral about such things, so another punishment had to be devised that would provide the same net effect, and so life imprisonment was used as an alternative. Most people would think of this as a fair compromise, as it allows the criminal their right to life, while simultaneously removing them and their genes from society. It is also something pretty unpleasant, which can be held up as an example to youngsters of what will happen if they cross the line. It didn’t stop there, however, and the punishments available became less and less effective. Prisons used to be very unpleasant places, with just the bare essentials of life. The ‘Rights Brigade’ stepped in and transformed that, so now prisons (at least in more developed countries) are reasonably comfortable places. Prisoners are given all sorts of luxuries such as televisions, hot running water, a balanced diet and adequate leisure time, which are denied to innocent civilians in developing countries through pure poverty. On top of this, sentences are getting shorter with a ‘life’ sentence no longer meaning “imprisonment for the remainder of the person’s life” but rather an ever shorter block of time, of which half can be removed for good behaviour.

Add to these somewhat insignificant punishments the uniquely human ability to lie, along with the easy availability of escape to another part of the world, and your chance of spending a significantly long time in prison is reduced to the point of irrelevance, and the deterrent against criminal behaviour is practically nil. When we go back to the idea that the protected group has reverted to small groups within the larger mass of humanity in cities and towns, it is easy to see why there is a lack of respect for anyone considered an outsider, and why crimes against other humans have become so prevalent. In the past, small insider groups would have been separated geographically from each other, so loss of life through fighting would have been minimised through a lack of contact. In the world today, such physical barriers are either lacking entirely or far more easily overcome, with obvious consequences.

Based on this theory, I believe that the powers that be in the UK and other supposedly ‘civilised’ countries need to overcome their arrogance and accept Homo Sapiens for what it really is – an advanced animal, with the same ‘group protection’ instincts as many other animals. While the concept of guilt is useful as a punishment for some individuals, others do not have the same negative connotations in their culture and so do not see it as a relevant deterrent from their pursuit of animalistic desires, such as group protection and greed. Since different groups and cultures have to live together in such close proximity, the concept of allowing groups to be self-governed will not work, and so law enforcers need a form of punishment that will be seen as a deterrent by all the groups living in one geographic area. As animals, the biggest deterrent of all is fear – if you are not afraid of the consequences, there is nothing to stop you doing the deed. People may talk about respect, but when it comes to respecting laws, this is entirely based on fear of the consequences.

I am not advocating a return to the death penalty, or even the more cruel and unusual punishments people have come up with over the years. I realise there is the potential for abuse by those in power, especially in totalitarian states. That aside, I believe that in a properly democratic country, prison should be a far more unpleasant place, with only a basic level of rights afforded to prisoners. That means prisoners should only be entitled to: adequate shelter; adequate food and exercise to maintain a basic level of health; adequate sanitation facilities to prevent disease and adequate protection from abuse, either by other prisoners or those in power. Additionally, sentences should be long enough to serve their original purpose, that of removing the offender from society for long enough that re-offending is not an option when they are released, and providing a sufficiently unpleasant example to others to prevent them offending in the first place.

Of course, this is all just wishful thinking, since a true democracy cannot easily exist in such a large population; there are too many differences of opinion! As a result, we elect a small group of people to represent the majority. While I am sure many politicians begin with high ideals and the intention to do the best they can ‘for the people’, it is too easy to give in to the human desire for power, after which laws and rules become imposed to protect the interests of the lawmakers and their ‘in group’ rather than that of the entire population. In a democracy, the best we can do to prevent this is to change those in power often, so that at least the majority of laws are aimed at protecting the majority, and the powerful are not allowed to turn into entrenched and power hungry dictators!

Disclaimer: This is by no means a well thought out, researched, academic type essay - nor is it meant to be. All facts and references are drawn straight out of the depths of my often flakey memory, and cannot be guaranteed to be correct. While you are welcome to use these ideas in (properly refrenced) academic type essays, I would not suggest doing so unless you have research and references to back them up, in which case I would appreciate hearing about them!