Much has been said and written about the moral aspects of the proposed revival of the death penalty (or lack thereof).

These moral dimensions are important, and need to be discussed even more now that a death penalty bill has been approved on second reading in the House of Representatives. The indecent haste will continue until it is rammed into law, and this could happen very soon.

What I want to tackle is the deterrence argument being used to support capital punishment. Put simply, the argument is that once you execute people for the heinous crimes that are named in the bill, you will strike fear in the hearts of the criminals and would-be criminals, and they will think twice, thrice, many times, before breaking the law. Crime rates would then drop.

But this argument is based on a lack of understanding of what is involved with fear and deterrence, which have been the subject of research by social scientists, natural scientists, and even medical professionals for decades now, and which has been used to back the abolition of the death penalty in many countries. (In the Philippines, then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo abolished the death penalty based more on her personal religious views.)

Powerful but fleeting

Fear is powerful indeed, a very primitive emotion found throughout the animal kingdom, and that includes humans. Fear evolved early in animals as an instinctive protective mechanism, pushing animals to avoid danger and minimize risks.

But among humans, the processing of fear involves other brain functions. Instinctive responses remain, as when we jump when we see a snake, or when we avoid walking through a dark alley. Note that even at this primitive level, there will be variations among individuals. As parents know all too well, we see differences even among our children. Walang takotno fearwe sigh about a particular child, sometimes said with anxiety because we worry about the kind of extreme risks the child may take, but sometimes also said with pride because we see this fearlessness as an asset.

We know, too, that fear is taught. Overprotective parents can end up raising children who become too fearful of the world because they are taught that it is fraught with danger. A healthier approach is to teach children to take calculated risks, to temper but not suppress their fears.

Finally, fear is learned. We are conditioned into avoiding certain situations, places, creatures like snakes and spiders and cockroaches and people, because of unpleasant experiences. Think of the people we avoid because we have been emotionally battered by them.

The anatomy of fear is complicated in humans because we are rational beings, and I use the term here in a more general way to mean that we reason, sometimes excessively. We respond to our fears no longer based on instinct alone but also with this reasoning, as we argue with each other, and with ourselves, about risks and dangers.

Were usually able to do this well, but sometimes the fears become excessive, creating chronic anxiety and preventing us from functioning well. Psychologists and psychiatrists then come into the picture, helping to process what are now called anxiety disorders and phobias.

But generally, fear runs through our lives as quick, fleeting reactions, which is why the idea of controlling crime by instilling fear just doesnt work. Fear tactics can work only in the short term.

Lets be specific and look now at the death penalty, fear and deterrence.

War on drugs

The restoration of the death penalty is part of the ongoing war on drugs (note how plunder, originally in the list of capital crimes, was removed). But the complicated anatomy of fear becomes even more convoluted when it comes to the use of drugs.

Fear is not processed as fear alone. People think of costs and benefits. Will I be caught, and if I am caught, what will I lose? On the other hand, drugs offer pleasure in many forms, from escaping problems to euphoria.

For the death penalty to work, people have to see evidence that crime does not pay, and this comes about in terms of seeing criminals being apprehended, brought to court, convicted, and the punishment being meted out. We know all too well that at each stage in this continuum, we run into problems: not enough law enforcers, corruption among so-called enforcers, and the courts.

Besides this, the evidence from other countries is that people will avoid crimes if they see justice meted out, and this justice does not have to be the death penalty.

There is also the issue of a fear threshold: What does it take to instill fear? In the Philippines, it takes a lot because our culture is largely fear-based. We are a hala and lagot society, threatening our children constantly with punishment, invoking Tatay, the police, or God (even, lately, President Duterte) as potential punishers. Yet Filipinos learn early enough, even as children, that you can get away with crimeparents drive through traffic lights when there are no traffic enforcers, or even when there are traffic enforcers, because they carry the calling cards of generals and governors.

People know of the many arrests going on, but note that it is mainly the poor being apprehended. There are occasional reports of the high and mighty getting arrested, and their disappearance from the news is interpreted by people as their getting off the hook. Ive seen even the poor carrying a sense of impunity because they know someone who knows someone powerful.

If theres anything that shows why the fear of the death penalty will not work in the war on drugs, its, well, the war on drugs itself. More than 7,000 alleged drug pushers and users have been killed so far, mostly extrajudicially, brutally, in their homes, in front of family and friends. Yet we continue to see people using and selling drugs. Ive lost track, too, of the news reports of relatives, usually wives or mothers of drug dependents, trying to smuggle drugs into prisons to their loved ones.

The extrajudicial killings are far more gruesome than capital punishment, and take place every day. They cast fear, no doubt, with so many correlated stimulithe dark night, the knocking (more often banging) on the doors, but all these do not deter drug-related crimes. Part of conditioning theory is that when you keep trying to reinforce a certain stimuluspositive or negativeyou reach the point of extinction. It no longer works. That is happening today, especially in our poor communities where people have been so brutalized for so long, way before the war on drugs.

Fear is pervasive, but it has not and will not deter crime.

Capital punishment will only provide a new public spectacle, one that might even be, horror of horrors, entertaining.

mtan@inquirer.com.ph

See more here:
Anatomy of fear - Inquirer.net

Most people missed it a couple weeks ago, but I didnt.

BREAKING: Trump administration considers mobilizing as many as 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants, read the near breathless tweet from the Associated Press.

Quickly following the tweet was a full AP story, which stated in no uncertain terms, The Trump administration considered a proposal to mobilize as many as 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants.

What does that sound like to you? Trump nationalizing the Guard and sending out roving troops, accosting people and demanding papers? Me too.

Turns out, when you read the actual memo, there was no proposal for Trump to nationalize the Guard, nor turn them into some kind of Soviet-style secret police.

Rather, the memo contained recommendations regarding 287(g) enforcement, which is a long standing policy that permits states to use their National Guard units, in addition to existing authorization for state and local law enforcement, for immigration enforcement actions they are already permitted to engage in.

287(g) enforcement, incidentally, was one of the main features of President Bill Clintons Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Yes, that Bill Clinton.

In short, the memo was weighing how to make it easier for states to utilize that provision of existing immigration law for enforcement.

It was not, as the AP said in its original shoddy report, Trump weighs mobilizing 100,000 National Guard troops to deport 2 million immigrants.

That wasnt the only problem.

Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly speaks at the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Mexico City on Feb. 23. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is at his right. Carlos Barria | Reuters

The original story stated unequivocally without verifying it that the memo in question was authored by Homeland Secretary Secretary John Kelly. The AP inferred this because Kellys name was on the memos From line.

That statement, however, was wrong. DHS issued a statement after the story was published stating in no uncertain terms that the memo was not, in fact, from Kelly, but was a very early draft that was not seriously considered and never brought to Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly for approval.

Given how government departments work, this is almost certainly true.

Not only was the memo apparently not from Kelly, but DHS also said in its statement that the memo was a very early, pre-decisional draft, and was never seriously considered by the Department.

So, lets review.

A rather uncontroversial memo is written by, presumably, a low-level employee. That memo is never seriously considered by DHS, John Kelly, and certainly not by President Trump.

AP then prints that Trump himself is considering the mobilization of 100,000 National Guard troops to rove the countryside, arrest illegal immigrants, and deport them.

The rest is history. The story set off an immediate firestorm of insane reactions, from accusations that the administration was eager to set up concentration camps, to rantings about fascism, to (of course) comparisons with Nazi Germany.

This is the very essence of conservative mistrust of the press, encapsulated in one story. And believe me, there are plenty more.

It is not my contention that all journalists are biased and corrupt. Quite the contrary. But to deny that media bias is real is incredibly naive.

I believe that the media is in denial about this fact because they dont understand how preconceived bias can infect coverage, and warp it unfairly. Bias is far more subtle and insidious than the presidents conceptualization of fake news, and it doesnt have to affect all journalists to be a huge problem.

What do I mean?

Bias can be as simple as blatantly misrepresenting facts, as the AP did. It is twisting reality to fit the preconceived perspective of the writer, even if they themselves dont even realize what theyre doing.

It is encapsulated by an uncomfortable number of reporters with barely concealed, obvious political biases employed to write straight news, who later seamlessly move into the political sector to work for politicians.

It happens in the use of imagery, such as a recent story here in Maine about a conflict of interest created by a Democratic lawmaker, accompanied by an image of Republican leadership.

It is having to sit and watch reporters, including one blatant Maine example, that pretend to be objective while simultaneously subjecting us to what can only be deemed outright political advocacy, time and time and time again.

Those of us on the right have seen this so often, for so many decades, that it has reached a boiling point for us. We are sick of the bias, intentional or unintentional, and sick of the manipulation.

Is it any wonder that only 32 percent of Americans have trust in the media? I dont think it is.

Go here to read the rest:
Anatomy of a fake news story - Bangor Daily News