Crime and culture: Death penalty effects

In order to solve conflict, human beings used several means But there is one specially controversial, old and drastic: Death penalty. While crimen are an universal issue, punishment and law (or social norms) change from culture to culture.

Within small social groups social sanction and pressure is enough to solve conflicts, while violence is often more commonly used to solve conflict among groups than inside them. Usually conflicts between two groups will be solve by blood payment, where offences are collective rather than individual, and people try vengance death by death, leading to an escalation of violence. But in dense populations with formal organization, as a State, conflict between individuals are much more common. That is the main reason for conflicts where solve by some authority and formal codes (although it is not always the case). In these situations the most common penalty is death

Best explanation for that is in those societies there is little specialization, the possibility of organizing prison is not a real option. Hammurabi's code is great example (famous "eye for an eye") used to applied death penalty in any case of death. But an extreme case is Draconian code in ancient Atenas, where every crime was punished with death, even the little ones. Other examples are given by stoning for adultery (which is still in use) is a kind of collective death penalty. But in societies where specialization is more intensive is less likely its uses. However, is commonly practiced in many part of the world and even in modern societies.

Death penalty map: Red, country with death penalty; Organge: with but has not been used since a long time; yellow: with but just for special occations (as in war times); blue: fully abolished.

Social response and polemic

When a social system becomes more rational and specific, punishment becomes diverse and allows specifity of sentences (with aggravating and mitigating). Furthermore emergence of humanism (human enhancement) in some societies have contributed to decrease the use of death penalty. However death penalty remains as a popular method and is in the eye of storm if is possible abolish it or not.

According to criminologist, social response to serious crimes awake emotional and punitive reactions on people. People often claim for maximum punishment or as a way to finished a problem it seen has no solution. The main argument is individualist and emotional: "if were your son, what would do you do?" or "There is no possible rehab for such a kind of people, just death left". But Can a penal system be based on emotional response?

Arguments pro and con are many, specially from a moral point of view as if is right takes someone's life in the name of justice or is just simply vendetta. However I am going to focus here on some practical issues.

1 -Punishment, Retribution, Treatment, Prevent.

According to penology science, the main funtion of a penalty is restitution of law, in order to accomplish it has to fill these 4 concepts:

Punishment: death penalty is pretty effective. There is less escape probabilities. Is easy too apply in many context.

Retribution: When a crime has victims, retribution can calm emotional frustration damage, but generaly speaking, death is not retribution (nothing is coming back) and further, it can increase damage. Death is not going to bring someone back to life. Instead people close to criminals are going to lose someone.

Treatment: No rehab to criminals through death. Unless, ofcourse, you have some esoteric-or-religious beliefs. Good karma.

Prevent: It is possible, but not conclusive data exist to prove it. But ofcourse, a dead criminal is a criminal with 0 probabilities to does it again (Unless, esoteric again, does it from the beyond). However data about it is confuse, because an alternative penalty is life imprisonment and has same effect. In the same scenario is about deterrence.

2 -Deterrence murder and other crimes

Most intituive pro death penalty argument is its deter effect in who commit  crimes. In USA the discution is specific on homicides (probably because USA has the highest murder rate in the developed world).

Following some studies (M. Summers, 2007; Paul H. Rubin, 2006; Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Joanna Shepherd, 2003) we can find a statistic correlation between executions and murders decrease (some even try to count how many lifes are safe by every execution). But in the other hand, articles as John J. Donahue ("Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate" in the Stanford Law Review, 2005) found that those kind of studies fail, making spurious statistic correlations and shows how other factors are more important in murder numbers than executions. Other studies confirm that (Jeffrey A. Fagan, 2006) and remark there is no conclusive data or possible correlation between rate murders and executions, with rigorous studies and bigger data samples (Tomislav Kovandzic, 2009; John Lamperti, 2010). Even there is no conclusive data that prove death penalty deter any criminal rate (Daniel S. and John V. Pepper, 2012).

This seems to be a widespread view among criminologists. Following the sociologist Michael L. Radelet (2009), 88,1% of specialists think that death penalty doesn't deter murders, or not more than life imprisonment. Even there is many that belief that produce contrary effect. Death penalty increase murders rate.

USA Murder rates by State. The average murder rate is lower in no-death penalty states.

An argument given by pro possitions - Based in rational choice theory- is that a criminal will avoid commit crimes when he calculates his Cost/benefit (and death penalty could be considered total loss). However, if we extend this argument based on data, we realize that murders aren't often calculated. On the contrary, runaway or elution does it, which can increase violence. A murderer will try to avoid his punishment, as it cannot be worst, nothing will stop him to commit other crimes (as other murders) to runaway from justice, meanwhile if the punishment is imprisonment, there is a chance to reduce sentence or at less not make it even longer, if he surrender to justice .

3 -Legitimacy of violence

Other possible explanation is "legitimization of violence". According to the anthropologists Carol and Melvin Embar, one culture could stimulate violent behavior among individuals following how the whole society performs. One society that goes to war frecuently, will have higher crime and violence rates. This could be the case for USA, as we said, has the highest murders and violence rates among developed countries. Analysts had said that personal ownership of firearms and american government foreing policy, that has been in constant wars since independence, have done this to the country. But How this effect works?

Basically, State is an importan legitimacy source and a reference to their citizens. When a State use death penalty is sending the message that kill is a legitimate way to solve conflicts. A State performs with the example given and claim for itself a right that forbids to its citizens. Such contradiction is even worst if the source of that legitimity are its own citizens (when they vote), as is the USA case.

4 -Economic cost: Death penalty vs life imprisonment.

A final consequence is the cost of having the application of the death penalty. In general the decision to take a life is increasingly controversial and therefore the trials in which this penalty is usually given are very long to avoid errors, as it is an irreversible sentence. It also encourages the parties to carry trials until the last stages of appeal. The result is an expensive trial.

A study by Judge A. Alarcon and Academic P. Mitchell (2011 ) in California showed trials that resulted in death sentences since 1978 have cost the state more than four billion dollars. According to the authors, the abolition of the death could save more than 170 million per year. While the Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice (2008) determined that the actual cost of the system was 137 million annually, while the replacement of the sentences to life imprisonment would mean a cost of 11.5 million per year. Cheap, isn't it?

Sources:

Marchiori, Hilda, 2004, "Criminología: teorías y pensamientos"
Brown, Esbensen y Geis, 2013, "Criminology: Explain crime and its context"
Ember y Ember, 1994, "War, Socialization and interpensonal violence"
deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000983
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

Culture and Environment: the myth of environmentalist ancestor II

On a previous article I told you how ancient people caused great impact on environment of New Zealand (of course modern european settlers caused a much bigger) and in the rest of the world. But large ancient civilizations does as well. That impact was so huge that they put a lot of pressure on their lifestyles and sometimes created a collapse of their civilizations

Cannibalism And War

One of biggest ecological devastation stories that ends in social devastation is about mesoamerican civilizations. it is believed that Olmec civilization collapsed because a drought and other ecological reasons. But the most sad is aztec's history. Very often related to a high developed society and technology (irrigation, astronomy, maths) with a structured empire.

Cannibalism is a documented practice all over the world and we could find some patterns on it. Is pretty common that cannibalism as cutural practice is related to religion-ritual practices. Sometimes a kin from who we are trying to consume their vital force. Sometime is an enemy, a prisioner offered to the gods and their thirst of blood. This last one is the main reason for aztecs, who used to go to war to get prisioners to sacrifice to gods, specially in bad times as poor harvest.

However, cannibalism is usually practice as something casual, in Aztec empire was daily. As described by Marvin Harris, it was hundreds of thousands of sacrifices documented in the number of human skulls found in Tenochtitlan, the Aztec capital. Harris wonders what motivates such carnage. On the one hand there is an especially strong ecological predation in the Mesoamerican region which became in poor crops. The sacrifice was a way to implore the gods for better crops . But it also adds a more practical explanation.

Based on the Harner's study, Harris explains that mesoamerica lacked in domesticated animal species that provide protein to the diet. The products of hunting and domesticated turkeys were exclusive of elite, so the sacrifices served to distribute proteins to population and avoid political and social collapse.

Cannibalism is often a part of the myth of the agressive savage, usually related to war, famine and the moral vacuum (although false as well). However, we see it has also been practiced in high civilizations product of human impact on the ecosystem itself, especially in populous societies.

How does some communities do to control impact of population on environment? On next article

Migration: Cultural contact

Certainly I was writing a more complete article about migration, but I can't just pas this wonderful chart up. The chart represent global migration and it was developed by geographers Guy J. Abel and Nikola Sander. It is a clear example of our inter-conected world and culture relations, and remark the importance of cultural diversity understanding. But be aware, migration isn't a new phenomena, big migrations had happened through all human history, and one of big migrations happened during XV and XX by europeans.

This Chart is unique in the way that represent migration. Degrees on the circle represent total mobile population while lines are population flow. Two things to put out of your mind, migrants are not necessarily poor people and many are students getting degrees or profesionals and businessmen looking for new business and markets.

First general observations

Two things. The biggest population flow is between South Asia and Middle East, probably because huge investment on energy in that place. Second, biggest flow among two countries is Mexico-USA, this cause of labor and economic relations. This is very important to get understanding of global economy and it base on internationalization of labor relations and social cost.

Here interactive Chart, play with it!

Full paper in Science here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6178/1520.full

Culture and environment: the myth of environmental ancestor

With the spread of environmentalist movement, becoming stronger because the powerful threat of global warming, is pretty common to hear about the idea of ancient people that lived in total harmony with nature and their traditional culture and ancient wisdom were much better adapted and had no harm to the environment.

The most common reference to those myths used to be Chief Seattle's letter to President of the United States at the time. The letter warns about harm to nature has important consequenses, like "The earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. All things are connected like the blood that unites us all. Man did not weave the web of life; he is merely a strand of it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself". Heartbreaking but sadly false (It was actually written by Ted Perry, Hollywood writer. Not because it wasn't an ecological true). And not just because of the author of the letter, but where could they learn that lesson.

Human Impact in ancient environment

The humankind has spread all over the world, adapting himself to every environment that has faced. Mountains, jungles, oceans, "polar cold" and even space. But in each one has made an impact.

The very faraway islands of New Zealand are great places to check this out. Because their positions on the world map, those islands have been one of the last places that humans have colonized. The first polynesian people arrived just 1000 years ago which, for archeological record, is the same as yesterday.

Human settlement map by genetics studies(that match with archeological record). When first humans arrived to NZ, in Europe Carolingian Empire had fallen, Vikings had reached America, toltecs had reached their maximum civilization point and Reindeer had extinct in Scotland

This people originated Maori culture (very famous around the world because of haka, war dance used by All Blacks, national rugby team of New Zealand). Maori used to practice gather-hunting and horticulture as well. Their beliefs are animist (which means they give soul to nature and natural forces), and that is why people relate them with environmental beliefs.

Despite being a coast away in the ocean, Maori culture is also away to be the realm of utopia. As it happened on the rest of the world, where hunt-gathering populations killed big fauna (as optimal foraging theory said, are the most efficient to hunt, means more calories by less work/hour) Maoris hunted several species to the point of extinct them.

Map that shows native forest extension in 1000 (when Maoris arrived), in 1840 (when europeans arrived) and now

In NZ, Maoris extinguished by direct action (hunt or habitat destruction) or indirect action (introducing of other species as rats and dogs): 40 species of birds, 1 of bat, 3 o 4 of frogs, several lizards. Among those animal we found Moa, big fauna, big non-flying bird, bigger than ostrich (some times 3 meters/ 10 feet tall). Also Haast's Eagle, an eagle so big that used to hunt Moas.

Those are not the only islands where such a thing has happened. In Madagascar were extinguished giant land turtle, elephant bird, giant lemur, pygmy hippo, among others. Same has happened in Great Britain with elephants, lions, reindeer, beavers, bison. In Hawaii, giant geese. In Chipre, elephants and deers. In caribbean islands giant rodents and colossal owl. For instance, in Eastern Island the damage was so huge that they cut off all trees and hunted all animals. The ecological impact was so brutal that conflicts started among human populations and war and even cannibalism had happened. (on next article).

Sources:

http://envirohistorynz.com/2009/12/15/impacts-of-the-maori-on-the-environment/
http://frentepopulardejudea-nenya.blogspot.com/2011/11/haciendo-el-indio-la-falsa-carta-del.html
Cohen M.K. 1994. Demographics and human expansion.
Harris M. 1986 Canibals and Kings

Culture Science IV: Neuroscience

The neurosciences are actually a complicated set of disciplines. From neurobiology to cognitive psychology. But, the element that unite them is the brain. All study the brain, either to unravel its physical- chemical processes to discover certain behavioral traits. It's not weird that they was found in front with the culture. This science has had a popular boom thanks to technological advances, especially from fMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) that lets you see what we had no idea before, inside a brain while it works.

The Brain Shape Culture

To understand culture we must first know how brain works. We know for example, which is made as a complex network of neurons that transmit electrical signals to various specialized areas in the cerebral cortex or other subparts. We also know that is divided into hemispheres that control different functions of our personality, but let's see what appear to be key to understanding how culture works:

1 - Visual Perception: By estimations, our visual capacity occupies over 30% of the brain cortex, is a central and complex element. The human brain receives from the eye a incomplete image, stained and inverse, is the brain that is responsible to rebuild those signals into a readable image and makes it auto-completing the information it receives with the previously stored information. This feature is essential because allows us to identify faces and read visual aspects about the others, as markers of social status all at once. First impressions count.
 

2 - Memory: Two memories exist: short and long term. The first is so mutable that does not tolerate more than 2 to 7 elements nor for more than 6-30 seconds. The second one recorded only the important,so as the vision, the brain auto - complete the rest of the information that we need to know. But the long term memory is highly plastic, and is modifiable each time a memory is invoked, as can be seen in the following experiment. Such plasticity is able to force significant changes in brain structure, even in ways that not only involve memory.
 

National Geographic: Test Your Brain Episode 3... por procrastinator87

3 - Language: the ability to communicate through signs, designated in Broca's area (spoken language) and Wernicke (understanding language), it is vital to understand the culture, but as the vision, we are able to distinguish shades and harmonies (Tour of Heschl). As such sarcastic tone or alarm, let us understand that paralinguistic communication supplementing meaning.
 

4 - Mirror neurons: Due to an error in an experiment with monkeys in 1996 at the University of Parma, Italy, researchers found that humans and other animals possess mirror neurons, in other words, empathy. What is surprising is that brain activity is exactly the same between a subject eating and other looking to eat. In the brain, there is no difference. This development allows us to imitation learning and socialization. Our brain is developed to generate that connection with others and be able to read emotions expressed in the faces of the other (hence our keen ability to interpret), is undoubtedly the biological basis of communication and culture.

Culture shapes the brain

But brain and culture not only have a linear relationship, both feed back. And the ability of the brain can manifest culture and contain certain fundamental aspects of it, the culture also changes brain structures. The experiences and the environment in which we live build our mental structure. Not only think differently, our brain be organized differently! but beware, the brain with new experiences is changing, as well as culture does. Do not represent a fixed reality.
 

Many anthropological studies have proved (or disproved) universality of Human Psychology, putting them to the test in the field in different cultural contexts, and also had captured and described hundreds of individual processes in such cultures, but no one had seen what worked in the brain.
 

A study by MIT and Stanford University verified these observations through the famous fMRI , applied to U.S. population and newly migrated from eastern Asia. Their findings found that different brain areas were activated compared to the same stimulus, found that Americans were more individualistic and dominant, while Asians were developing more comfortably and submissively collective .

Another observation very common among different cultures are the colors. The Eskimos had more than 9 words to refer to the white of the snow, where an observer from another culture just looks white. In the other hand Himba  confuses green from the blue, for theirs is the same color, a little experiment here.

BBC Short Video (7 min)

However, still begs the questions, where is the culture is stored? In the human brain there is no specific place where we can read the cultural codes, but separate elements, language area, memory area, area of abstraction, but not a reader of social status, custom, norm. The possibilities are in the organization of the brain. The structure of the brain is the neuronal dimension of culture or, as noted by Roger Barthes, be it in external relations of  brains, in exobrain. The culture would be in those connections among brains a supra-organic dimension, where the culture would be stored. Culture is the extension of neural networks of the brain.

Sources:
Barthes R. Anthropology of the Brain
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/techtalk52-14.pdf  http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/psychology-0111.html

Analysing culture: Respect

Ethnocentrism: Issues for a (cientific) analysis of culture

Studying cultures as "a particular collective mind set of a particular social group", has an issue. If each person belong to a culture, their own mind set, so does the person who is studying cultures. That means you could try to measuring other culture with your own cultural values, and that wouldn't be objective neither cientific. Measure cultures with your own cultural values doesn't help you to understand others, because different cultures have different goals in life. Doing that, you only get an obvious and selfish conclusion: your culture is the best and you are the best person under your own rules! That has no sense and is called ethnocentrism.

Ethnocentrism is not only for those who research cultures, that happen too with everyone who has to face others cultures. In some sense, ethnocentrism is useful to keep coherency with your own culture (if people don't feel comfotable in their own culture, there is a problem, right?). But too much ethnocentrism conduce to racism and xenophobia. But often just give us more simple problems or tons of headache. As happened with WHO (World Health Organization), when they tried to vaccinate african people for first time. African parents avoided vaccinate their sons because bacteria and virus weren't part of their cultural explanation of illness and disease. Furthermore they who had done it, had experienced fever and other symptoms. Even some thought that whites were trying to kill them. Ethnocentrism made that WHO thinks western medicine had the same status in Africa than within western societies as European, Australian or USA. While africans response was rational - because in their experience nothing good had come from white people- WHO blamed unrational response and ignorance. Result: Failure. A failure that could be avoid from cultural relativism perspective.

Cultural relativism

One solution is given by historic particularism. Following this thought- basis of culturalism-, the key concept is cultural relativism. That means to analyze a culture we have to do it in their own frame, considering all their elements and how their interact. Each culture has their own context and history and it cannot be compare with others without pay attention to this frame. Every culture can only be interpreted in their own context that allow us to a cientific approach and reduce (but not delete) researcher bias.

In that way we can explain why !Kung in subsaharian Africa still practice "hunting and gathering" despite know agricultural technics. If we put their economy in their context (environment) we can see that Kalahari desert is not a place for agriculture. Following Howell and Lee calculations, to get the health and diet that !Kung already have, they only must work 3 hours per day while their agricultural neighbors have to do it for 10 hours and  have worse health. Who is more efficient? However Namibia and Botswana governments have put pressure to make them change their lifestyle and making them work more, forcing to adopt agriculture and cattle farming. Today !Kung have to face poverty and social issues.

Relativism problems

In many regions in Africa and Asia there is a islamic branch that used to practice female circumcision, which is clitoris mutilation when women reach adult age (that could be 12 years old). This means women have to face this painful tradition because the social beliefs of clitoris is a masculine feature that has to be eliminated. Just because is a cultural practice, their practioners accuse their detractor to be ethnocentric and defend their position basis on culture, despite the brutal torture.

Another example was south african apartheid. Where M.W. Eiselen used cultural relativism to justify social segregation between whites and blacks. His position was apartheid (segregation) protects cultural identity and integrity of africans cultures, where weren't desirable their westernization, because could cause social desintegration.

Does relativism applies to those situations?

Possible dilema solution

First we have to understand cultural relativism is an analysis tool to get a deeper understanding inside a context but not justify any practice just because is a cultural traditions. Often happens that after an analysis we get a contradiction. And that is what happen in the first case. Women are not agree but they cannot avoid it because they live in a masculine culture and have no power to change it. Nevertheless some changes have come. Same happen in the second case, when apartheid was abolished.

Justify hastily and without context a practice just because belong to a cultural tradition is bad as ethnocentrism and is not cultural relativism but moral relativism. Culture allows human adaptation because is dinamic, change across the time. That means is no argument to defend any behavior, but as a system, as a context. Cultural relativism doesn't forbid us to get an opinion, after deep analysis, and want some change.

Ferraro y Andriatta, 2010, Cultural Anthropology: An Applied Perspective.
Harris M. Cultural Anthropology
Kuper A. 2001, Culture: Anthropologist' Account

Culture Science III: Cultural Studies and Communication Theory

Cultural Studies

Another academic tradition which studied culture was Cultural Studies. Born from History (as discipline), specially among social historians, and some literature studies. Their founders (Raymon Williams, E.P. Thompson, Stuart Hall, Richard Hoggart among others) tried to bring cotidianity and culture toward historic analysis. Basicly they kept the line of Frankfurt School about mass culture, but they enriched it bringing some aspects of conflict theory. They see culture as modes of living and values system within a particular time, but also as a collective feeling formed by history inside a context.

It was Williams who introduced the Ideology Theory of Althusser and Gramsci into the analysis. Basicly this theory said that "ideology" is a layer of society made of ideas, among  those culture is part of. This layer is in conflict by different social actors who try to establish an "hegemony" or, said it in other way,  get control of all the layer (which produce naturalization of those ideas). Following that theory, Williams said through that conflict the culture is created across the time. He identified:

• Dominant Forces: which bring structure to the cultural system
• Residual Forces: they were formed in the past but are still present
• Emergent Forces: New values and adaptations.

In that way, Williams could introduce notions of conflict, difference and contradiction, but above all, a notion of dinamic culture, something that change through the time. That allowed him to make a difference between the organic popular culture in pre-industrial England and current mass culture. Stuart Hall would add later that more than just make a difference we have to say that the organic popular culture ceased to exist because the modes of living that produced it had ceased to exist.

Communication Theory

Another great contribution was use communication theory to analyse the culture, specially, mass culture. In 1971, UNESCO commissioned a study to understand tv effects on population to Stuart Hall. He said that in cultural transmission was several process involved. Mainly a codification process (the message has to be created with references to reality and inside of a given cultural context) and decodification (receptor made their interpretation based on their own references of reality and their own analysis), so formally, there is three reading options:

• Dominant: The message is read exactly it was codify (Unlikely)
• Negociate: The message is negotiated (most usual)
• Opossite: The message is read inside another alternative interpretation frame.

In that way, Hall was allowed to say that media and mass culture have no control effect over their audience, but their contents are negotiated. Today is ease to prove it, because TV use the rating system, they are concern about what audiences want to see. Channels and producers propose contents, but public decide their success or failed.

Who is reponsible for rubbish television?

Of Course, all of this started the introduction of new concepts as credibility, consensus (and an argument about if is natural or naturalized rather than socially constructed) and the rol of the social media on it and in the cultural reproduction and legitimacy construction.

Source:

During, S, 2005, Cultural Studies A critical introduction