Dr James Gilligan on violence

Those who were around, say 3 years ago would remember me opening a thread about prisons and the morality of them.

Most people went on to say they're necessary and I remember virtually everyone I talked to about the horrors or prisons laughing at me.

My father has a degree in criminology and used to work as a safety warden, it's about as close to a policeman as you can get, and I'd remember him telling me about how locking people up with others doesn't work, and it's completely true.

We've been treating violent offenders as evil people, doing whatever we can to torture them, killing them in some places of the world and it doesn't work.

Anyway. Everything you need to know about James Gilligan is here: http://www.apbspeakers.com/speaker/james-gilligan

Here's an article he wrote: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2267/is_4_70/ai_112943739/

And here's a video of the man himself of how to solve violence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0GYqFR_9Lw

It's so obvious, yet, everyone believes the lie that anyone who does anything destructive is an evil person, as we see it on the news all the time.

I suggest reading that article and watching other videos by him. I may also revive my prison thread.

did I recommend Skinner's work on prisons later in his life when you last posted on the issue?

I'm not sure, if so, I'm sorry I haven't read it.

you would like it

Skinner is a weirdo, but had a lot of interesting ideas

Originally posted by inimalist
you would like it

Skinner is a weirdo, but had a lot of interesting ideas

would you raise your child in a small box?

No, if I had a child, I think I'd treat it like my best friend and would always stay in close proximity with it.

I recall laughing off a lot of your ideas. I even remember this one. In most cases, I actually came to agree with you bit by bit as I became more educated. This one definitely has my vote.

Originally posted by Quark_666
I recall laughing off a lot of your ideas. I even remember this one. In most cases, I actually came to agree with you bit by bit as I became more educated. This one definitely has my vote.

Last edited has had it's time.

Edit: Quote's too long.

This guy figured out that taunting and humiliating people has a tenancy to make them violent toward you?

😬 How is this new information?

Originally posted by TacDavey
This guy figured out that taunting and humiliating people has a tenancy to make them violent toward you?

😬 How is this new information?

The point is babies aren't born violent (unless some prenatal syndrome causes them to be), it's learnt by the human as a means of survival. Even people with "violent genes" don't necessarily become genetic and those without "violent genes" do.

Also, Gilligan is offering real solutions to stop violence, not throw em in a cell and hope they calm down for 20 years.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Not a tendency (I think that's what you meant), a root cause, which is different.

The point is babies aren't born violent (unless some prenatal syndrome causes them to be), it's learnt by the human as a means of survival. Even people with "violent genes" don't necessarily become genetic and those without "violent genes" do.

Also, Gilligan is offering real solutions to stop violence, not throw em in a cell and hope they calm down for 20 years.

Well, it isn't that different. The basic idea is that taunting people makes people angry and angry people are more likely to punch you in the face.

I missed the solution. Knowing that humiliation leads to violence, how does he propose to stop people from being violent?

I argee that prisons are what alot of people advoid going to by hearing so many horrible stories about them. But if they want to lock all the bad people together what do you expected?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Well, it isn't that different. The basic idea is that taunting people makes people angry and angry people are more likely to punch you in the face.

I missed the solution. Knowing that humiliation leads to violence, how does he propose to stop people from being violent?

Originally posted by Quark_666
I think the inability to control emotions (root cause or tendency, whatever) such as anger is usually a form of weakness, not of evil. This is also not new information, as you will no doubt notice. It is, in fact, so old that one would wonder why Lord XYZ's thread wasn't a topic of discussion two centuries ago. It has yet to be "popularized. Personally, I think it's because people prefer to satisfy their sense of anger against criminals rather than simply treat the root problem. If so, it makes the general population guilty of the same "emotion over logic" attitude as the prison population.

But what is this "treatment" you are talking about? You can't very well get people to stop humiliating or taunting each other. And what are we suppose to do with them after they commit murder?

Originally posted by TacDavey
But what is this "treatment" you are talking about? You can't very well get people to stop humiliating or taunting each other. And what are we suppose to do with them after they commit murder?

Quark is right, none of this is new, but Gilligan has strong evidence to support this position. In England we had a Geordie called Raul Maut a few months ago that broke free from jail. This guy was a former bouncer, came from domestic violence, 6'6, huge guy with a gun and scared even the police, and had a vendetta against society. His best friend was a alcoholic mentally unstable former footballer. If his childhood was violent, and his job was violent, then it's natural to assume he would turn that abuse outward against his environment.

Gilligan's subjects were the same. When a person is so deprived of human compassion they become hard criminals.

But are the genes the ones causing the violence? I don't think so. These types of people turn up everywhere, the only connection is the unequal environment, and the more inequality in the country, the greater the populous.

Originally posted by lord xyz
There are actually rehabilitation clinics in the world. Norway's prisons are like that, and Gilligan talks about a programme where some violent people have been sent to a non-violent society to learn non-violent ways.

Quark is right, none of this is new, but Gilligan has strong evidence to support this position. In England we had a Geordie called Raul Maut a few months ago that broke free from jail. This guy was a former bouncer, came from domestic violence, 6'6, huge guy with a gun and scared even the police, and had a vendetta against society. His best friend was a alcoholic mentally unstable former footballer. If his childhood was violent, and his job was violent, then it's natural to assume he would turn that abuse outward against his environment.

Gilligan's subjects were the same. When a person is so deprived of human compassion they become hard criminals.

But are the genes the ones causing the violence? I don't think so. These types of people turn up everywhere, the only connection is the unequal environment, and the more inequality in the country, the greater the populous.

So we send them to a "non-violent" society? What does that mean? We have a camp or something set up where everyone is nice? We would have to at least have guards posted to keep them there, and that is still a "violent" environment, at least potentially.

Originally posted by TacDavey
So we send them to a "non-violent" society? What does that mean? We have a camp or something set up where everyone is nice? We would have to at least have guards posted to keep them there, and that is still a "violent" environment, at least potentially.

Originally posted by TacDavey
So we send them to a "non-violent" society? What does that mean? We have a camp or something set up where everyone is nice? We would have to at least have guards posted to keep them there, and that is still a "violent" environment, at least potentially.

have you seen The Wire?

Originally posted by Quark_666
It means we place them in an environment that makes reform easier, rather than harder. I'm honestly confused at how you are confused.

I see the thought process, I'm wondering what this "environment that makes reform easier" is. There are already programs out there that try to "reach out" to criminals in prison. It sounds like the idea is to not send criminals to prison, so where?

Originally posted by inimalist
have you seen The Wire?

No, I haven't.