A punishment ideally serves two purposes. It should be a deterrent, so that people will be afraid to break the law. And it has to have a corrective function, making people feel sorry for doing evil so that they will want to be good. To accomplish this, the perpetrator must be made to experience the pain and loss he inflicted on others, and then he can feel remorseful. If the punishment is too lenient, it doesn't serve as a deterrence, for it makes crime pay. On the other hand, it can't be too severe or it won't serve a corrective function. If the punishment is substantially worse than what the perpetrator did to his victim, then he becomes an even bigger victim, and victims dont' feel remorse. Victims want revenge.

Can you imagine a justice system based on "turning the other cheek"? If someone causes you damage, would you go to a court whose policy is to let offenders go free? Of course not! You would want the perpetrator to suffer the way he made you suffer (or to compensate you monetarily).

Nor would you wouldn't want to go to a court that punishes too harshly. For instance, how would you feel about having your hand chopped off as punishment for shoplifting. Sure, the punishment will make you regret having stolen and you certainly wouldn't want to do it again. But you wouldn't feel REMORSE over your theft; you would HATE the system that treated you so cruelly. And don't think such inordinate punishments are a thing of the past, or only happen in corrupt dictatorships. Thousands of people are languishing in US jails for such crimes as possession of small quantities of marijuana. While fear of incarceration may serve the purpose of scaring people away from marijuana use, the perpetrators finish their sentences not with an appreciation of the evil of their ways but of the evil of the system that punishes them so unfairly.

So the Bible instructs that a punishment should fit the crime; neither too harsh nor too lenient.

To read previous newsletters... »

Since warfare is a return to the laws of the jungle, winning wars requires the principle that works in the jungle, namely, hitting back many times harder than they are hitting us. If we succeed in doing this, then the enemy surrenders and we dictate the terms of peace.

I repeat that unfortunately I can't say turning the other cheek is the solution to terrorism. The US is trying to hit the terrorists back ten times harder than they hit us, but this is not a simple matter because terrorists target civilians while we try to avoid targeting civilians. Furthermore, the war against terrorism is not like a "civilized" war against an enemy that abides by the Geneva Convention; such a war COULD be won by hitting back ten times harder. Terrorism is like a beast that grows more heads the more you cut off. And it is phenomenally cheap. Terrorist organizations financed with a few million dollars can take on countries with armies that cost trillions.

So how can we defeat terrorism? I'm not optimistic. I may address this question in a future newsletter (as though anyone in power will actually listen to me!) if I decide it's worth the effort.

I started first grade in 1958 and completed college in 1974. I learned my grammar well. What I was taught, and what has been practiced throughout history, is that when using a pronoun to refer to an individual of unspecified gender (someone who could be either male or female), the masculine form "he" or "him" is used. This rule is used by all languages in the world. It was never meant to discriminate against women. It was simply a convention that was universally adopted because it is cumbersome and awkward to have to say "he or she" and "him or her" whenever referring to people of unspecified gender. For instance, one would say, "If someone is hungry, he should eat," rather than saying "If someone is hungry, he or she should eat." It is understood that the "someone" could be either a male or a female.

I was taught this rule by women teachers, and throughout all my childhood I never heard a woman suggest that the rule offended her.

The feminist movement tackled the status quo, and fortunately succeeded in righting many of society's injustices towards women (and there may be more room to continue in this direction). Political movements, as beneficial as they may be, sometimes go too far, and my personal opinion is that grammar has been one of those instances. Forcing people to say "he or she" and "him or her" does nothing to improve the objective condition of women in life. Women throughout human history have been intelligent enough to know when "he" and "him" referred to them and resilient enough not to be upset by it. If anything, using the masculine form to refer to all people unites men and women, while the cumbersome "he or she" and "him and her" differentiates between them.

I found a great example of deceptive use of research in the July/August issue of Psychotherapy Networker (an excellent magazine for people in the psychotherapy fields). It has an article named "TV Violence: a Longer Legacy." Researchers who tracked 329 kids for fifteen years found that those who'd watched the most television violence became the most aggressive 20- year-olds. This is presented as proof that watching the violence MADE them aggressive. However, this shows nothing more than simple correlation: that particularly aggressive people also watched an inordinate amount of violence. It can't prove that WATCHING the violence MADE them aggressive. People who love to cook are also those most likely to watch lots of cooking shows on television. It doesn't mean that watching the shows made them cook.

The article says nothing about what happened to those who were more balanced in their television viewing. Were those who watched a moderate amount of violence mildly aggressive? And did those who watched no violence display no aggression in life?

It may, indeed, be true that watching an exorbitant amount of violence on television may encourage aggressive behavior among individuals who have a strong proclivity towards aggression. In fact, I would be surprised if it DIDN'T have such an effect. But if violence in general is going down while violence in the media is going up, there must be some beneficial effect that more than compensates for the increased aggression in some individuals. It is possible that for the great majority of people, viewing a moderate amount of violence on television actually REDUCES their likelihood of becoming aggressive in real life. Perhaps by showing them how horrible violence is, it encourages them to act more peacefully. Think about your own reaction. When you see a violent incident on television, do you think, "I can't wait to do that, too"? Or do you think, "Oh, my! How horrible it is to hurt people?"

Can you remember the last time you read about researchers exploring the BENEFITS of violent entertainment on society as a whole? Not likely. Because such efforts don't fit many researchers' agendas.

Read more about society's mistaken attitudes towards aggression. »

So if you're looking for a laugh and some education, see Life of Brian. But be warned: it is rated R (mostly for language), so it may not be for you.