I am, of course, upset about the rioting in England. I am worried for the people there. I really hope this is resolved soon and with very little violence
( Read more... )
*nods* I think it's a mix. Some of the rioters think they have nothing to lose. Some think the system is unfair and that this is the only way to be heard. Some of them just joined in, because they figured with so many people rioting, they could loot with little consequence. I don't have a lot of sympathy for the last category, but when civil order breaks down bad things happen.
However, for people who feel they have little hope of a future or that the system is unfairly against them, I don't think telling them that the system will harshly punish them for acting out will help. And I really don't want to see these riots escalating to a more violent outburst. Right now it seems to mainly be at the property damage level, but that could change. If too much force is used, especially if it is used too indiscriminately, I really worry this could turn into something far more dangerous. I don't think anyone wants that. But people tend to have problems imagining the mentality of someone who could be driven to riot, so they assume that they have more to protect than they do, and that the sorts of deterrents that would work on them should work.
I am reminded of things like stand-offs. It's been a while, but I think I sort of remember the details of the Waco situation. When you have a bunch of people who don't trust the system and are willing to use violence, the difficulty is defusing the situation without causing them to turn massively violent. I think it's something like that, where it could go either way. Things could settle down or they could turn more violent. And pushing too hard will push toward extreme measures from some of the rioters. Even if many of them don't want that, it doesn't take that large a percentage for a situation to become really, really bad.
Yeah, if they already think the system is unfair and this is how to get heard, being severely punished for it just doesn't sound like a deterrent. We see this all the time in so many of the misguided attempts at law - people who are otherwise law-abiding citizens making laws that would deter *them* from "misbehaving" without understanding what makes a person "misbehave" in the first place - because they aren't people who "misbehave".
tacit wrote an interesting piece on rule-making that I can't find right now. It was about a government office that had no waiting room. People *had* to visit this office because it's a government office and there's no way around it (DMV maybe?). But since there was no lobby, people waited outside because they just couldn't fit inside.
Except there were no chairs outside. So people sat on the low wall encircling a planter filled with trees and other plants. So the owners of the property started putting up signs that said "no sitting on the wall". It didn't stop people, of course, so they had to resort to harsher and harsher penalties, including broken glass and stuff on top of the wall.
For some reason, it never occurred to anyone to just put some benches outside. People just seem incapable of putting themselves in someone else's position. They think that because *they* would never do something that's against the rules, that making a rule can stop people, without understanding what kind of situation might make a person break that rule in the first place.
However, for people who feel they have little hope of a future or that the system is unfairly against them, I don't think telling them that the system will harshly punish them for acting out will help. And I really don't want to see these riots escalating to a more violent outburst. Right now it seems to mainly be at the property damage level, but that could change. If too much force is used, especially if it is used too indiscriminately, I really worry this could turn into something far more dangerous. I don't think anyone wants that. But people tend to have problems imagining the mentality of someone who could be driven to riot, so they assume that they have more to protect than they do, and that the sorts of deterrents that would work on them should work.
I am reminded of things like stand-offs. It's been a while, but I think I sort of remember the details of the Waco situation. When you have a bunch of people who don't trust the system and are willing to use violence, the difficulty is defusing the situation without causing them to turn massively violent. I think it's something like that, where it could go either way. Things could settle down or they could turn more violent. And pushing too hard will push toward extreme measures from some of the rioters. Even if many of them don't want that, it doesn't take that large a percentage for a situation to become really, really bad.
Reply
tacit wrote an interesting piece on rule-making that I can't find right now. It was about a government office that had no waiting room. People *had* to visit this office because it's a government office and there's no way around it (DMV maybe?). But since there was no lobby, people waited outside because they just couldn't fit inside.
Except there were no chairs outside. So people sat on the low wall encircling a planter filled with trees and other plants. So the owners of the property started putting up signs that said "no sitting on the wall". It didn't stop people, of course, so they had to resort to harsher and harsher penalties, including broken glass and stuff on top of the wall.
For some reason, it never occurred to anyone to just put some benches outside. People just seem incapable of putting themselves in someone else's position. They think that because *they* would never do something that's against the rules, that making a rule can stop people, without understanding what kind of situation might make a person break that rule in the first place.
Reply
Leave a comment