CRIMINALS DO NOT EXIST or WHY PRISIONS ARE UNNECESSARY
It has been said that the freedom fighters of one country are labeled as terrorists by another country. This is not so strange as it may sound.
After all, what is a ‘criminal’ except someone who does something that some selfish, egotistical fear-filled fool opposes?
It sounds difficult to comprehend, but the whole world will be a better place if we just let go of our need to control the behavior of other people and allow them to do as they will, granting them the same rights as we wish for ourselves. Barring a complete, genuine & truthful education (which does not exist in this country, maybe nowhere), the next best thing is to just let people do as they wish, and to Hell with what you think about it. Honestly, what are people supposed to do in a place where lies are taught to children as truth, and then expect them to live that lie all of their life? Punish them for trying to follow their hearts instead? Perhaps the best thing to do is to let people do as they will and let the chips fall where they may.
In an unrighteous and unjust society, no one must ever be punished by that society for the things they do, for that is hypocrisy in the extreme. Let there be only a simple acceptance or rejection made on a personal level—and nothing more. There is no need to punish people. A complete rejection, a simple lack of support on the part of the people can do wonders for the ‘criminals’ until they change their ways of their own accord. That is punishment enough. To voluntarily isolate people with nothing more than peaceful non-cooperation is enough to cause the ‘criminal’ to realize that they need to reassess their actions. Otherwise they would find themselves completely separated from society. And isn’t that what prison is meant for in the first place? Societies could save a whole lot of time and money if they utilized the above suggestions instead of going the more expensive route.
Prisons are unnecessary. People need healing, not punishment. Such institutions are little more than a way for fearful people to ‘take care of’ their own fears concerning what other people do. A simple tolerance of people’s right to their own actions, combined with either an attitude of acceptance or rejection should suffice.
To punish someone is to unknowingly declare and prove that you yourself are afraid of the very thing that this person has done, since you have just unconsciously identified something that exists within yourself. Therefore the problem lies with you, and not with the other. To throw them away in a dark cell for doing what they will to do with their life is just an ineffective attempt on your part to throw away a problem you have just identified within yourself, a dark thing you refuse to accept as a part of yourself, as if the act of disposing the ‘criminal’ will actually eliminate your own faults. It just sends them away for a while—no healing occurs for either party.
I can think of no greater criminal act than to identify someone as a criminal and treat them as such, even to the point of stripping them of their free will.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”……does anyone even know what that means anymore?
On a semi-related note, I once saw a preposterous news story on TV one night. It was a story about women in prison which was filmed and edited in such a manner as to elicit a sympathetic response from viewers, subconsciously indoctrinating the idea that it was ‘wrong’ to for women to have to suffer behind bars.
The reason I found this story preposterous is revealed by asking a single question……Can anyone explain to me (as the report suggested) why a woman behind bars is so lamentable but (as the report failed to equally suggest) a man behind bars is somehow so acceptable? Given the above essay, how can any human being behind bars be so acceptable if it is so allegedly lamentable for just one group of people?
