March 2007 - Posts
Vorige aflewering (Deel III)
[Die storie so ver: Die skrywers voer aan (met bewyse) dat ons "gewetes " deur kondisionering geskep word. Hierdeur word ons geneigdheid om die samelewing se reëls te oortree, aan bande gelê. Indien ons dus misdadigers (wie se gewete swak gekondisioneer is) kan herkondisioneer, kan ons die pleging van misdaad verminder.
Misdadigers kan in gevangenisse geherkondisioneer word byvoorbeeld deur 'n puntestelsel waar goeie gedrag beloon word. Die skrywers wys ook daarop dat persoonlikheid 'n rol by misdadigheid speel. Party mense kan ook makliker as ander gekondisioneer word. So word introverte makliker gekondisioneer as ekstroverte. Onbestendige emosies is 'n relevante faktor en selfs oorerflikheid speel 'n rol.
Bewyse vir die rol van oorerflikheid word gevind in die studie van identiese tweelinge. Die artikel vervolg dan met ander bewyse vir oorerflikheid ...]
"The other line of evidence comes from studies of adopted children. Children adopted early in life receive their genetic baggage from their true parents, and their environment from their adoptive parents. The question now arises: which of the two is the stronger in determining criminal behaviour as they grow up?
The answer, again judging by several studies done in different countries, seems to be that the genetic component is much the more important . Adopted children tend to behave very much as their true parents did, rather than as their adoptive brought them up to behave.
Here too environment can be shown to be less important than heredity, although of course it would be foolish to stress heredity to the exclusion of environment. Both are important and both play a part in causing anti-social behaviour.
We can now see why it has been found so difficult in the past to change human behaviour, manipulate motivation and conduct, and to persuade criminals to become law-abiding citizens. There is a strong genetic factor, working through a rather primitive part of the brain (the paleocortex) which speaks a language quite different from, and alien to, the language of reason appreciated by the neocortex.
What we have tried, usually, has been to communicate with the criminal as if he were a rational being capable of appreciating appeals to reason. This approach has failed, just as better housing and social conditions have failed, just as psychoanalytic appeals to the subconscious have failed. If we want to succed we will have to learn to speak the language of the paleocortex, and discover how to apply the laws of conditioning to the problems posed by criminality.
This is a daunting task, but a beginning has been made, and success, even if limited, has already been achieved. The point we want to make here has often been misunderstood. People tend to jump to the conclusion that the theory of conditioning we have described justifies savage correction. It doesn't.
A great deal is know about the effects of punishment, and what stands out above anything else is that severe punishment may make things worse rather than better. It is only when relatively mild punishments or rewards are administered under closely controlled conditions that the desired results are obtained. The conditioning theory gives no justification for particularly harsh treatment of criminals, although it does not justify mollycoddling either.
Another of Solomon's findings from the puppy experiment may be of interest and indeed of practical importance. Conditioning the puppies to to develop a strong "conscience" was far more successful if the experimenter was also the person who, before the experiment, had fed them and looked after them. In other words, a previous personal bond between man and animal made the conditioning process much more effective.
This suggests that the effective incalculation of a "conscience" in humans must be the task of the parents rather than anyone else, and that any punishment handed out must be handed out against a general background of love and affection if it is to have the desired result.
From the point of view of preventing delinquency and crime it is vitally important that this message is brought home to parents generally. In this era of permissiveness many parents evade their duty to transmit the social message of their culture to their children; it is only by re-educating parents to accept and perform this duty that we can prevent our whole civilisation from deteriorating even further.
In advising parents, teachers and others in authority about the need to establish a "conscience" in children by a process of conditioning, it is important to bear in mind one final finding of Solomon's.
He found that the timing of the slap with the folded newspaper was extremely important in determing how the puppies would behave later on. If the slap occurred as the puppy approached the boiled horsemeat and before it started eating, it had the effect of a deterrent. The puppies learned not to approach the meat and eat it, which is of course what the "conscience" training was supposed to accomplish.
However if the slap came after they had begun to eat, the result was dramatically different. Left to themselves, the puppies approached and ate the meat, but thereafter showed strong evidence of guilt (by slinking into corners and behaving as if they were aware of having done something naughty).
In other words, untimely or wrongly applied conditioning can lead to guilt feelings rather than avoidance of anti-social behaviour, and this of course is not the desired result.
There is little point in making people feel guilty once the anti-social act has been performed; the aim must be to prevent performance of the act in the first place.
There is one further personality trait which is extremely important in relation to anti-social behaviour and criminality. This trait consists essentially of hostile, aggressive and selfish types of conduct, associated with a lack of consideration and care for other's rights and privileges, placing personal gratification before all else.
This trait, which might be called "tough-mindedness" has also been found to be strongly heritable. As one might expect, males show it far more frequently, and to a much stronger degree, than females.
This accords well with the fact that most crimes are committed by males, that males are much more aggressive than females and also much more impersonal in their social relations.
Tough behaviour is probably related o the amount of male hormone characteristic of a person. When present to an extreme degree tough-mindedness leads to psychopatic behaviour and even to psychotic (mainly schizophrenic) disorders.
Tough-mindedness is particularly related to crimes of violence - muggings, sexual crimes and bodily harm - are the criminal acts most often associated with this personality trait.
And it is crimes of violence which are particularly destructive to society. They are increasing more than any other sort of crime, particularly in the Western world. Here again it seems likely that permissivess has been the crucial factor, with parents and others failing to restrain children from acting tough.
Tough-mindedness is also important from the treatment point of view because it has been shown many times that tough-minded individuals are much less receptive to any method of treatment. The more tough-minded he is, the more difficult it is to alter his behaviour.
The only known way of affecting the tough-minded person is by way of strict conditioning programmes or by administering anti-psychotic drugs which temeporarily make them amenable to treatment.
Unfortunately some types of drug have a feminising effect; male patients who take them over any period of time may start growing breasts, etc.
Whether society is justified in using drugs for the purpose of reducing a prisoner's tough-mindedness to make him more amenable to a course of conditioning or psychoteraphy is an ethical question which we cannot discuss here; it must be left to experts in the fields of ethics and political science.
One last point: it would be a gross simplification to say that any generalisation ever applies to all prisoners. There is a whole range of crimes which can be committed by persons of different personality structure.
As we have already said, prisoners high on tough-mindedness are much more likely to have committed crimes of violence. But murder within the family, the most common kind of murder in the Western world outside America, is usually associated with introversion. Potential murderers tend to be rather mild, introverted people who allow resentment and hatred to grow until an explosion occurs which leads to murder.
Confidence tricksters, on the other hand, are extremely extraverted, but low on tough-mindedness. This again makes sense, because a confidence trickster relies on making a good impression, and abnormal behaviour would not impress his "clients" favourably.
Treatment must always depend on the personality of the prisoner; none of the methods discussed here would be suitable for all criminals.
However, all the evidence so far suggests that while the traditional methods are almost completely ineffective, modern psychology holds out a promise that effective methods can be worked out for manipulating attitudes and behaviours in a direction favourable to the survival of society.
More than that we cannot claim at the moment, but we feel certain that if society were to invest in research along the lines we have suggested, its investment would be amply repaid. The rehabilitation of criminals is not an impossible task, but one well within psychologists' means."
[Gepubliseer in Scope, 20 November 1981, p104. Daar is nie 'n bietjie ironie hier nie want Scope (en Personality) was beskou as Trojaanse perde van permissiwiteit in ons vorige Calvinistiese fase - in retrospek veel makker egter as die golwe wat nou om ons slaan. Die artikel is versier in die betrokke Scope met foto's van kaal meisies, vasgewoel met toue. ]
Vorige aflewering (Deel II)
[Die storie so ver: Dit word gepostuleer dat ons gewete gekondisioneer word deur die loop van veral ons jeug. Ons ouers, onderwysers, ons eweknieë en almal met wie ons in kontak kom, dra hiertoe by. 'n Eksperiment met klein hondjies en kinders verskaf grafiese bewys dat sodanige kondisionering moontlik is. Die toename in misdaad in die Weste suggereer dat permissiwiteit tot gevolg het dat minder kondisionering geskied om mense se anti-sosiale gedrag aan bande te lê. Ook vir hierdie stelling is bewyse komende van meer "verligte" skole beskikbaar. Hierdie gevolgtrekkings impliseer dat misdadigers hervorm kan word deur herkondisionering van hul gewete....]
"There are many ways in which re-conditioning can be done, and one of them is the so-called "token economy". This was originally introduced by the an English penologist whose work was done over a century ago, Maconochie of Norfolk Island.
Norfolk Island was a penal colony off the coast of Australia, to which all of Britain's worst offenders were sent. When Maconochie arrived there he discovered that the treatment of the prisoners were inhumane, cruel and bestial; Norfolk Island, far from having an reforming influence, produced a high degree of recidivism.
Maconochie introduced a system of points which prisoners could earn by working hard, by not fighting, and by generally behaving in a socialised manner; punishment was the withdrawal of points.
Very soon the effect of this regime was very noticeable; prisoners began behaving much better than when they had been brutally punished. Equally noticeable were the after-effects.
Manonochie succeeded in incalculating in his prisoners concepts of socialised behaviour which lasted well beyond their stay in prison.
In more recent years token economies of this kind have been tried out by American psychologists with many different groups, mainly juvenile delinquents. Research into outcomes is of course difficult, and many more years of follow-up will be required before we know the full outcome of these trials.
Nevertheless it can already be said that token economies, properly implemented, can reduce the recidivism rate of young offenders by something like 50% over a period of three years after they are released from custody. This is of course nothing like a complete 100% success.
Even so, if the decrease could be extended over the whole prison population the saving in money alone would repay the cost of the enterprise thousands of times over.
Recent research has tended to move away form treating criminals in institutions like Borstals or prisons, for the simple reason that in institutions other wrongdoers are strong influences against reconditioning procedures. In such settings all attempts at reconditioning tend to reinforce and even strengthen the criminal inclination of the inmates.
The picture we have painted so far lacks certain important features. The first of these is related to the problem of personality. It has often been suggested that criminals are characterised by particular personality profiles. There is now solid evidence to support this view.
Secondly, different people have different predispositions to form conditioned responses quickly and strongly. Pavlov observed this in his dogs; some dogs formed the association between bell and salivation after only five exposures to the bell-food connection, whereas others took 100, or even 200 or 300 exposures before forming the conditioned response.
Theory suggests, and experiments demonstrate, that introverted humans form conditioned responses much more readily than do extraverts. People who are sociable, impulsive, happy-go-lucky and generally outgoing in their behaviour find it rather more difficult to form conditioned responses, whereas people who are shy, retiring and who think before they act form conditioned responses readily and strongly.
Extraverts are more difficult to condition, and consequently, other things being equal, are more likely to indulge in anti-social behaviour. There are many studies which have shown that this is so, the subjects of these studies including school children, adolescents and adults.
Other personality traits shared by criminals and by people who indulge in anti-social behaviour are strong emotionality, or what is technically called neuroticism, ie over-responsiveness of the limbic system (based in the paleocortex) which controls the expression of the emotions. It is not necessary to go into detail here in order to make the point that anti-social behaviour is strongly associated with certain personality types.
This association is found not only in Western European countries and in the United States; similar relationships have been found in Communist countries like Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and in Third World countries like India. In other words, the association is not culturally determined but is of universal validity.
Is criminality inherited? Evidence suggests strongly that criminality, like intelligence has a genetic component.
One line of evidence comes from studies of identical and fraternal twins. As identical twins share 100% heredity, as against an average of 50% for fraternal twins, one would expect identical twins to show greater similarity in behaviour than fraternal twins if heredity is at the root of criminal behaviour.
There are now some 10 studies of this sort, carried out in many different countries. And the universal finding is that identical twins show concordance about four times as frequently as fraternal twins do. In other words, the brother of a criminal twin is four times as likely to be a criminal himself if he is an identical rather than merely a fraternal twin.
Deel IV
Vorige aflewering. (Deel I)
[Die storie so ver: Die skrywers (pa en seun Eysenck) argumenteer dat die rede waarom mense misdaad pleeg (of so min mense misdaad pleeg) gesoek kan word in die "gewete". Die "gewete" volgens hulle is iets wat deur Pavlov-tipe kondisionering tot stand gebring word. Ter toeligting van hierdie stelling verduidelik hulle verder....]
"Consider the events that take place when a young child grows up. He naturally misbehaves, is selfish and anti-social and dishonest. Whenever he behaves in such a fashion, he is punished by his parents, his teachers, his peers, or whoever else happens to be around.
Such a punishment, whatever it is - standing in the corner, going to bed without supper - is painful and disagreeable. Punishment - the pain, anxiety and fear which the punishment causes in the child, coupled with the intention of carrying out some anti-social activity, is what we commonly call "conscience", and it effectively prevents most people from indulging in anti-social and criminal activities, even though these might be undetectable and very much to their advantage.
To many people this account may seem to endow conditioning with a far greater force than seems credible, and they may reject the teory on these grounds. However, there is experimental evidence to suggest that conditioned responses are extremely powerful in producing socialised behaviour.
We have, for example , the work of Solomon and his colleaques, which was carried out both with very young children and with puppies. Here we will merely recount briefly their work with puppies, but their results with young children were equally impressive.
The puppies, starved for one whole day, are brought into a room which contains the experimenter, a plate full of boiled horsemeat (which the puppies like very much) and a plate full of commercial dog food (which the puppies don't like very much).
The experimenter holds a folded newspaper and whenever the puppies try to eat the horsemeat, the eating of which he has decided is an anti-social activity that must be discouraged, he slaps the puppy over the rump with the folded newspaper.
Note that this "punishment" is exceedingly mild, and does not really hurt the dog or cause it any degree of pain; it simply signifies the displeasure of the experimenter. After a few attempts to eat the boiled horsemeat the dog goes and eats the commercial dog food, in a rather disgruntled fashion.
That concludes the experiment for the day, and it is repeated the day after, and the day after that, until the end of the week.
The next stage of the experiment begins at the start of the following week. This time the experimenter is absent when the 24-hour-hungry puppies are brought into the room; instead he surveys the scene through a one- way glass screen. The boiled horsemeat is there for the dogs to eat if they want to, and there also is a very small portion of commercial dog food.
The interest of course is in what the puppies will do now that they are free of the presence of the experimenter, and apparently free to disregard the "socialising" influences set up by the experimenter. In other words, will the condiitioned "conscience" make the dog act counter to his desires and instincts?
The answer is that for most of the puppies this was indeed the case; they circled the boiled horsemeat and looked at it yearningly but ate the commercial dog food and left the horsemeat untouched. A few succumbed to temptation, but the great majority did not.
After half an hour the puppies were taken back to their kennel, starved for another 24 hours, then brought out again, and the same procedure was repeated. This time a few more decided to eat the boiled horsemeat, but the majority still resisted the temptation.
To cut a long story short, it seemed that many of the puppies would rather have died of starvation than act counter to the conditioned "conscience" implanted in them by the experiment.
But note that the very mild "punishment", the unconditioned stimulus, set up a sufficiently strong conditioned response for many of the puppies to prefer death to the simple act of doing what their newly acquired "conscience " forbade. Much the same result was obtained with young childern, so we cannot dismiss the experiment as only applicable to animals.
This of course is only one illustration of the "conscience " theory. There is an enormous mass of experimental material to indicate that this theory is, if not 100% correct, then at least along the right lines.
It suggests two things. One is that the reason we have seen such a tremendous increase in crime since World War II may simply be that the general climate of "permissiveness" has reduced the number of "conditioning " experiences children receive at the hands of parents and teachers.
In other words, the amount of social conditioning has decreased. This would automatically reduce the strength of the child's "conscience", and make him more likely than his pre-war counterparts to indulge in anti-social or criminal activities.
There seems to be no doubt that schools where greater "permissiveness" is practised have a higher delinquency and criminal record among their pupils than schools where the admosphere is more formal, "old-fashioned", and less permissive.
The second point about the "conscience" theory is that it can be related to the treatment of criminals, whether children, juveniles or adults. It suggests ways in which their anti-social and criminal conduct might be changed, so that they become socialised human beings with a proper "conscience".
What is needed is not psychoanalytic treatment of non-existing complexes and neuroses, nor verbal appeals to reason and the "better nature" of the wrong-doers. What is needed is simply a supply of what has been lacking in their upbringing, namely a suitable number of occasions for conditioning to take place."
[Deel III]
Artikels oor die onderwerp is die geur van die maand. Word dit nie maar net aangedryf deur 'n perverse poging om die Sokkerbekertoernooi te verongeluk nie?
My persoonlike mening is dat die toernooi 'n gulde geleentheid bied om die owerhede tot dade aan te vuur. Anders sal ons maar ly onder 'n stille diplomasie beleid op daardie gebied ook.
Hierdie skakel gaan mettertyd waarskynlik verdwyn maar die webwerf laat my nie toe om dit te spoeg en plak nie. So lees maar gou.
'n Paar opmerkings. Dit word kaalvuis oor die polisiemag gesê (die skrywer, Paul Weavers, haal Johan Burger, 'n misdaaddeskundige aan):
"Throwing cash and manpower at the problem [ie misdaad] won't help because positions have been filled with unqualified people in a drive to implement BEE. Many qualified people form the backbone of the police force, but this backbone is being eroded by the irresponsible policy of trying to rush equity."
Daar word in die artikel op gewys dat die misdaadprobleem hoofsaaklik stedelik van aard is. Ook word melding gemaak van die intog van onwettige immegrante se bydrae tot misdaad. 'n Mens wonder egter of dit werklik so 'n groot probleem is, want die onlangse persentasie buitelanders van die gevangenisbevolking is maar sowat 3,5% (5618 uit 160 712).
'n Teleurstellende aspek van die artikel is die nie-kritiese napratery van armoede as misdaad-oorsaak:
"Only when living standards for the majority improve and poverty and unemployment levels reduce, will the air of desperation start to dissipate, and with it the current intensity of crime incidence. People need hope."
Hier is nog meer bewys dat die verband tussen misdaad en armoede glad nie so eenvoudig is nie.
Die skrywer (Anton Barnard) toon dat die per capita misdaadsyfer vir Limpopo vir moord, verkragting en huisbraak die laagste in die land is - dit terwyl dit die armste provinsie in die land is.
Hy spekuleer ook dat daar 'n sterk verband tussen die betekenisvolle teenwoordigheid van verskillende rasse in 'n provinsie en misdaad is. Hy wys daarop dat waar die inwoners van 'n provinsie meer homogeen swart is, die misdaad ook laer is. Soos hy dan ook sê: Miskien was apartheid wat die rasse uitmekaar gehou het en swart tradisies probeer bewaar het, nie so 'n swak idee nie.
'n Verdere spekulasie (want die feitlike basis daarvoor is maar dun) is dat verskille in welvaart dan een van die groot beweegredes vir die spesifieke misdade sou wees. 'n Meer wetenskaplike benadering sal wees om die Gini-indeks vir die streke bereken en dit dan met die betrokke misdaadsyfers te vergelyk. Sien bv die skakel na die Amerikaanse proefskrif in wording, in my Gini-blog, wat 'n soortgelyke benadering beoog.
Ek is ook nie so seker dat hoë huisbraaksyfers in "ryk" streke misdaadsyfers in die algemeen in terme van welvaart verduidelik nie. Dit is tog die aanname wat gemaak word of lees ek die artikel verkeerd? 'n Mens sal bv moet kyk of moord wel arm op ryk is en nie dalk arm op arm nie. Moord van arm op arm se verband met armoede word tog seker nie baie duidelik deur verskille in welvaart verklaar nie? Dieselfde met verkragting want het dit hoegenaamd iets met verskille in welvaart te doen?
In geheel gesien is die tendense wat uit die syfers blyk so deurmekaar dat dit moeilik is om enige hoofdryfveer te identifiseer.
Daar is 'n klomp teorieë oor wat mense motiveer om misdade te pleeg.
Maar voordat ek dieper hierin delf moet dit gemeld word dat misdadigheid deur die gemeenskap self geskep word. Misdadigheid is dus hoofsaaklik 'n relatiewe term in die sin dat gemeenskappe self bepaal wat misdaad vir daardie betrokke gemeenskap is. So (as voorbeeld) het die apartheidsregering 'n klomp misdade geskep (misdade wat bv verband hou met instromingsbeheer, geslagsverhoudings oor die kleurgrens, werksreservering vir sekere rassegroepe en baie meer).
Die huidige regering skep weer misdade wat verband hou met regstellende aksie, die instelling van 'n verskeidenheid belastings en ter onderskraging van 'n horde nuwe regte soos stemreg, vryheid van spraak, gelykheid en so meer.
Daar is miskien 'n harde kern van misdade waarvan die relatiwiteit minder prominent is soos geweldsmisdade. Hierdie misdade word oor 'n wye spektrum van gemeenskappe aangetref en is minder onderhewig aan die gesag van die dag se willekeur.
In kort dus: In 'n groot mate bepaal elke gemeenskap sy misdade en skep sy eie misdadigers. Party skrywers argumenteer dat 'n ondersoek na die skepping van misdade deur die gemeenskap eintlik die kernstudie is wat onderneem behoort te word.
Wat bepaal egter of mense die vereistes van die gemeenskap sal gehoorsaam? Gehoorsaamheid hang tog seker af van die vraag in hoe 'n mate daar eensgesindheid oor die misdade heers. Hier speel die houding van die gemeenskap ten opsigte van die misdade en ook die tipe gesagsinstelling 'n rol ( bv demokrasie, monargie, diktatorskap). Waar die gemeenskap deur middel van bv 'n demokrasie betrokke is by die skepping van misdaadomskrywings, is die kanse dat die meerderheid hul daaraan gebonde sal voel tog seker groter?
Ek het egter nie lus (dis een van die voordele om jou eie blog te bedryf!) om te delf in staatsleer en die legitimiteit van gesagsinstellings nie. Vir die doeleindes hiervan word dus aangeneem dat die gemeenskap as 'n geheel in 'n groot mate die bestaande misdaadomskrywings aanvaar (of dan ten minste die meer algemene soos moord, roof, verkragting, aanranding) en die pleging van die betrokke dade afkeur en formeel probeer verhoed.
Die vraag is dus: Onder toestande van groot eenstemmigheid omtrent die laakbaarheid van die handelinge, wat veroorsaak dat individue in daardie gemeenskap steeds bv moor, aanrand, verkrag, roof en steel?
Een van die denkrigtings wat baie lank hooggety gevier het, was dat sommige mense misdadigers gebore word. 'n Voorstander van hierdie tipe siening was die Italiaanse antropoloog, C Lombroso, wat so ver gegaan het om fisiese abnormaliteite (bv groot kakebene, plat neuse) aan te stip as tekenend van misdadigheid.
Aan die ander kant van die skaal is daar diegene wat die oorsprong van misdadigheid uitsluitlik toeskryf aan omgewingsinvloede soos armoede, gebroke huwelike, verbrokkeling van kulturele instellings - hier het ons dus die klassiek "nature versus nurture" debat.
'n Interessante variasie van hierdie verskillende teorieë word gevind in 'n boek deur Hans & Michael Eysenck (pa en seun!) met die titel Mind Watching.
Ek gaan 'n verkorte weergawe daarvan in my volgende paar blogs plaas. Die bron van die verkorte weergawe is ietwat ongewoon gegewe die aard van die onderwerp en ek verberg dit tot aan die einde van die aanhalings.
"Crime and Punishment
by Hans and Michael Eysenck
Ever since Charles Darwin, in On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection (1859) published his theory of evolution, and established that human beings share a common ancestry with the lowliest of animals, all students of the human sciences have had to take into account our inheritance from our animal ancestors. It applies as much to the human brain, the seat of reason and sensation, as to any other part of our physical and psychological structure.
The human brain is clearly divided into three parts - they can be distinguished quite easily when the brain is dissected, even without a microscope. Each part descends from a different stage in evolutionary history.
At the bottom is the brain stem and lower part of the brain, the "reptile brain". It is the most ancient from the point of evolution, and descends to us from our reptile ancestors.
Superimposed on this, and enveloping it, is the paleocortex, a brain structure which developed later and which govern the expression of the emotions.
Superimposed upon both these structures, and enveloping them in turn, is the neocortex, the grey matter that above all else distinguishes man from his animal relatives. It is the neocortex which enables him to reason logically, use language, and break the bounds of biological evolution.
Man inherits more than genes; he inherits the complex cultures he creates as well.
Of course there is some degree of intercommunication between the three parts of the brain; nevertheless, they all have their separate functions, and no attempt to account for human nature can be successful unless it allows for these differences.
The growth of the neocortex has made possible reasoning and language; but because they derive from a "separate" later structure, reasoning and language have little power over the limbic system of the paleocortex, and the emotions which it governs.
However, the limbic system has also a language; but it is the language of conditioning.
Most people will be familiar with Pavlov's famous experiment, in which he conditioned dogs to salivate to the sound of a bell by paring the bell with food on a number of occasions. After a certain number of pairings the dogs salivated to the sound of the bell, even though no food was forthcoming.
The importance of Pavlov's experiment is often forgotten. It was important because it showed that emotions and physical reactions can be conditioned in the same way. This is what makes conditioning theory relevant to the manipulation of human behaviour.
Conditioning is particularly relevant to the treatment of criminal conduct, but let us briefly mention two alternative theories first, neither of which, in our considered opinion, really account for criminal behaviour.
The first of these is the theory - which links criminality with with factors such as poverty, inequality of wealth, capitalism, poor housing, and so on. During the past thirty years or so all these factors have been growing weaker in the major European countries and in the United States. There is greater equality, better housing, and a higher standard of living.
So crime should have decreased. In fact the evidence is conclusive that it has increased, in some cases many-fold. This seems to disprove the notion that it is economic deprivation which causes crime.
The second theory says that criminal behaviour is caused by infantile complexes and is curable by psychoanalytic treatment.
Two studies contradict this hypothesis. The first is the Cambridge-Somerville study in which a large number of potentially criminal youths were divided at random into two groups.
The experimental group received a great deal of psychoanalytic guidance and treatment; the control group received no such treatment. The hope was that the psychoanalytic treatment would act as a preventitive.
But after the groups had been followed up over a period of 30 years, the outcome proved to be the opposite of what the theory predicted. The group that had received psychoanalytic treatment committed, if anything, more crimes than that which had not.
Along similar lines, Grendon Underwood Prison in Britain was created to give prisoners treatment along psychoanalytic lines. Ricidivism (a return to crime) at Grendon was compared with that of a typical old-fashioned prison (Oxford). Recidivism was exactly equal for the psychoanalysed group and the unpsychoanalysed group.
There is a lot more evidence to show that psychoanalytic treatment is irrelevant in reducing criminal conduct.
The conditioning theory of criminality, however, accords much better with the facts.
The first point to be made is that moral conduct is not the result of rational decisions, and is not influenced very much by rational considerations.
Very few of those who commit crimes are caught and punished; that is a widely known fact. Anyone who organises his life along purely rational lines might choose a life of crime as more likely to advance him materially than a blameless life full of virtue.
The real question then, is: why do relatively few people commit crimes when the rewards are so immediate and so obvious and the probability of punishment so remote?
The answer we suggest lies in the concept of "conscience", conceived not as a religious mechanism implanted by God, but rather as a conditioned response implanted by a long period of "Pavlovian" conditioning."
[klik hier vir die volgende aflewering]
Die amptelike statistiek wys dat misdaad in SA sedert 2001 met rasse skrede afgeneem het. Dit is eintlik angswekkend om te kyk waar ons gaan draai het. In net 7 van die 27 kategorieë het misdaad die afgelope paar jaar toegeneem. Die toenames is meestal nie dramaties nie.
Soos ek vantevore opgemerk het, vra 'n mens jouself as armoede of inkomsteverskille dan so 'n groot rol speel in misdaad, hoe op aarde is dit moontlik om die afname te verklaar want soortgelyke dramatiese verandering het nie in welvaart plaasgevind nie? Indien die afnames wel plaasgevind het, sal dit bewys dat polisiëring 'n reuse-rol speel in die voorkoms van misdaad.
Ongelukkig is hierdie rooskleurige statistiek nie die einde van die storie nie, want navorsing toon dat die misdaadvlakke veel hoër is wat die polisie-statistiek aantoon (alhoewel die vlakke van misdaad die afgelope 4 jaar baie dieselfde gebly het). Boonop is die publiek se vertroue in die polisie baie laag.
Hier is 'n opsomming van amptelike statistiek wat ek gemaak (en vertaal het) van die polisie-webwerf.
Soort misdaad Tendens 2001/2002 2005/2006
Syfers is per 100 000 van die bevolking in alle gevalle.
Moord afgeneem 47,8 39,5
Verkragting afgeneem 121,1 117,1
Poging tot moord afgeneem 69,8 43,9
Ernstige aanranding afgeneem 589,1 484
Aanranding gewoon afgeneem 584,3 485,3
Roof Verswarend afgeneem 260,5 255,3
(sluit voertuigkapings, bankroof, kontant- in- transit, huisroof, besigheidsroof, in - sien die webwerf vir onderafdelings)
Roof Gewoon afgeneem 201,3 159,4
Onsedelike aanranding toegeneem 17,1 20,9
Ontvoering
("Kidnapping") afgeneem 9,9 4,9
Vroueroof toegeneem 7,0 7,1
("Abduction" - Die onderskeid met blote ontvoering is dat abduction die ontvoering van 'n minderjarige meisie is met seksuele oogmerke)
Kindermishandeling toegeneem 5,9 10,3
Strafbare Manslag toegeneem 24,4 26,5
Openbare Geweld toegeneem 2 2,2
Brandstigting afgeneem 19,5 16,3
Skade aan eiendom afgeneem 324,5 307,7
Crimen Injuria afgeneem 135,9 94,9
Inbraak by huise afgeneem 675,3 559,9
Inbraak by besighede afgeneem 194,4 116
Diefstal van Voertuie afgeneem 216,1 183,3
Diefstal uit Voertuie afgeneem 444,6 296,6
Veediefstal afgeneem 92,9 61,3
Onwettige vuurwapenbesit afgeneem 34,6 28,7]
Verdowingmiddel- toegeneem 118 204,1
verwante misdade
Dronkbestuur toegeneem 54,8 70,6
Ander diefstal afgeneem 1 286,7 922,7
Handelsdiefstal afgeneem 130,4 115,6
Winkeldiefstal afgeneem 152,6 137,5
Ek het nie beoog dat die blog 'n eentonige versameling van statistiek moet wees nie, maar 'n statistiese basis lyk onafwendbaar as 'n mens sin probeer maak uit die misdaadsituasie.
Ek skryf my opinies soos die gier my pak en dus is daar geen plan of padkaart vir die weg vorentoe nie. Daar is egter 'n hele paar dinge wat gesê kan word oor die gevangenisbevolking en vir die nabye toekoms is dit my bron van inspirasie.
Miskien is my voordrag te prekerig en daarvoor teken ek apologie aan. Ek haat preke. Om die basis te lê vir sinvolle gesprekke is dit egter nodig om die feite te gaan soek (en daar preek ek al weer).
Adobe Reader is nodig is vir party van die webwerwe hieronder genoem.
Die gemiddelde daaglikse Suid-Afrikaanse gevangenisbevolking in 1971/1972 was 91 253 [Midgley et al: Crime and Punishment in South Africa, McGraw-hill, 1975, p17].
Die jongste statistiek toon dat op die laaste dag van Januarie 2007 daar 160 712 gevangenes was. Die tipe statistiek verskil effens van die 1971/72 syfers (sien frases onderstreep) maar behoort naasteby vergelykbaar te wees.
In 1970 was die totale bevolking 21,4 miljoen [Midgley op cit, p10].
Die huidige geskatte bevolking is sowat 47,3 miljoen.
Die bevolking het dus met 'n faktor van 2,21 vermeerder en indien die gevangenisbevolking in dieselfde verhouding sou toegeneem het, moet dit nou 201 694 gewees het!
Ons het dus in verhouding sowat 40 000 tronkvoëls minder as wat ons sou gehad het as die 1970 verhouding van bevolking tot gevangenes dieselfde sou gebly het.
'n Mens sou verwag het dat gegewe hierdie relatiewe vermindering in tronkbevolking, die geriewe teen nou voldoende sou gewees het om die gevangenes te huisves. Dit blyk egter dat die tronke steeds sowat 139,46 % oorbevolk is.
Daar was dus nie groot haas om die oorbevolking reg te stel nie.
Suid-Afrika het egter steeds 'n gevangenisbevolking van 339,77 per 100 000 ( 417 per 100 000 in ongeveer 1970 - Midgley op cit, p 19) en gegewe die afskaffing van statutêre misdrywe soos instromingsbeheer, ontug, politieke misdrywe en dies meer is dit verstommend dat dit nog so hoog is. Aan die ander kant is die regering weer druk besig om nuwe misdrywe te skep soos die wat verband hou met verpligte swart bemagtiging, nuwe belastings, anti-diskriminasie, haatspraak , water, die omgewing, vuurwapens en 'n horde ander tegniese oortredings.
Ons gevangenisbevolking is egter steeds ligjare minder as die van die VSA (686 per 100 000). Interessante statistiek die vir Afrika :
"[I]n Africa the median rate for western and central African countries is 50 whereas for southern African countries it is 362;"
" However, more than three-fifths of countries (62.5%) have rates below 150 per 100,000. (The United Kingdom’s rate of 139 per 100,000 of the national population places it above the midpoint in the World List; it is now the highest among countries of the European Union.)"
'n Mens kan jou miskien verder verlekker in die rasse aspek van inkerkering in die VSA. Hulle sukkel maar met hul swart mense en die gevangenisbevolking vir swartes daar is 'n reuse 1547 per 100 000.
[Baie erger as selfs gedurende die bloeityd van apartheid hier in SA - in 1971/1972 sowat 473 swartes/ 800 kleurlinge per 100 000 van eie groep -Midgley op cit p10 en p18 - my berekeninge].
Die tronkbevolking het wêreldwyd sedert die 1990's toegeneem en 'n baie groot deel daarvan is verhoorafwagtendes. Die helfte van die wêreld se gevangenes word in die VSA, Rusland en China gevind!
'n Mens moet egter erken dat ten minste die per capita moordsyfers vir die VSA, Rusland en China minder is as die vir Suid-Afrika, wat miskien daarop dui dat dit help om skelms in die tronk te prop.
Die Gini-indeks of -koëffisiënt meet ongelyke verspreiding. Dit kan gebruik word om die inkomste ongelykheid in 'n gemeenskap te bepaal. Byvoorbeeld, 'n syfer van 0 sal aandui dat almal se inkomste gelyk is. 'n 1 weer sal aandui dat een persoon al die inkomste het en die res van die bevolking niks. Tussen-in kan natuurlik 'n wye reeks van gevalle aangedui word. Indien die inligting uitgedruk word as 'n persentasie (bv 0.5 word uitgedruk as 50%), staan dit bekend as die Gini-indeks (die 0.5 word genoem die Gini-koëffisiënt ).
Dit kan geargumenteer word dat relatiewe verskille in inkomste in sosiale lae in die samelewing (wat gemeet kan word in terme van die Gini-indeks), verband hou met misdaad. Anders as by sogenaamde absolute armoede argumenteer 'n mens dus bv dat ek steel, nie omdat ek honger is nie, maar omdat my buurman meer as ek het. Hierdie verklaring vir misdaad is dus bloot die underdog se drang om te floreer soos die res van die "rykes". Die arme misdadiger, aldus hierdie siening, word dus getreiter deur die groot ongelykheid in die samelewing en probeer bykom by die welvarendes, op 'n ongeoorloofde wyse.
Hier is 'n lys van Gini-indekste vir verskeie lande en die moorde per capita vir daardie lande:
Gini-indeks Moorde/1000
Namibië 74.3 0.05
Botswana 63 0.14
Colombia 58.6 0.62
Suid-Afrika: 57.8 0.49
Mexiko 49.5 0.13
Venezuela 44.1 0.32
VSA 40.8 0.04
Rusland 39.9 0.20
Jamaica 37.9 0.32
VK 36 0.01
Hierdie tabel is saamgestel uit die webwerwe hierbo en syfers is in sommige gevalle afgerond.
As daar 'n eenvoudige reëlmatige verband tussen die Gini-indeks (gerangskik vir die lande hierbo, van erge sosiale ongelykheid na groter gelykheid) en moord is, moet moord in die tabel van bo na onder afneem. Dit gebeur egter nie.
Miskien is daar iemand wat 'n statistiese ontleding van hierdie syfers kan doen wat 'n verband tussen Gini en moorde kan aantoon, maar vir my lyk dit na 'n taamlike bont spul. Miskien, as 'n mens al die lande van die wêreld vergelyk, is daar 'n verklaarbare neiging - dan egter moet die uitsonderings nog verduidelik word.
Miskien is daar 'n meer definitiewe patroon tussen Gini en ander tipe misdaad (bv diefstal) of miskien kan 'n mens binne 'n land 'n patroon tussen misdaad en sekere gebiede (met verskillende Gini's) aantoon. Dit is so iets wat hierdie beoogde tesis in gedagte het.