VIOLENCE, HATE AND THE 'MORAL ORDER' WE ACCEPT

SOME OF THE FIRST WRITTEN WORDS IN HUMAN HISTORY WERE ABOUT WAR, VIOLENCE AND CIVIL SOCIETAL CONFLICTS. 

“An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.”
― attributed to Mahatma Gandhi

“Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.”
― Bertrand Russell


Until about five thousand years ago, human beings lived in a state of anarchy without central government or enforceable laws.

Genocides were committed and written about by the early people of the Middle East, Asia, Athenians, Romans, the 'Crusaders', invaders/'colonizers' of the 'New World' ("Americas"), of Africa and of Australia.

Genocides were part and parcel of civil wars, 'world' wars, all wars.

Such is still the case.

But now we see POLITICAL wars erupting all over the world, internalized, vicious, hate-filled and mostly of a 'civil war' nature.

It isn't the first time violence was born of politics, but we should have taken lessons from history, by NOT repeating the errors of the past, by NOT insanely doing the SAME things over and over again, expecting ...what? Different results?
There won't be any different results.

If you think that 'psychopaths' are more prone to violence than the kind people next door, you're wrong.

Of all violent crimes committed, less than 10% are committed by those who can be diagnosed as 'psychopaths'/the mentally ill, which leaves 90% of violent acts that are committed by 'normal' people. 

Non-psychopathic people are harming/killing others in much greater numbers than the psychopaths.

WHY? 

Most of us are convinced that WE will never engage in an act of extreme brutality.

WE would never shoot, stab, choke, drag or bludgeon someone to death. WE would never rape another human being or set them on fire. We would NEVER strap a bomb to our chests and blow ourselves into a million pieces in some crowded place, or aim our vehicle at a crowd of people and step on the gas pedal.
NO, NOT US, NEVER!

When faced with these violent, senseless acts, most of us would find ourselves at a loss to explain the actions of anyone who would commit them. What possible purpose could they serve?
WHY do people hurt and kill one another?

It sounds like an unanswerable question, but there IS an answer.
The answer is simple, powerful and very disturbing.
We purposely or 'subconsciously' fail to recognize and/or admit the answer almost everywhere a valid, honest answer is needed.

However, IF, if we REALLY want to solve the problems of human violence and wars and senseless deaths, there is nothing else to do but admit the answer IS valid and true.
We have to risk an answer that may threaten our own values, our own way of life.

We have to gaze into a very dark abyss.

There we will find "moral justification".

A psychiatrist, sociologist, or behavior therapist may say that violence is enabled by loss of self-control. Something 'triggers' a person and makes them 'snap', then they just say to hell with it all (become 'disinhibited) and attack.

But that "disinhibition theory" avoids the question of why humans are motivated to be violent in the first place.
The drive to become violent has to come from somewhere, and this theory is silently lacking about where that 'somewhere' might be.

What about what some call the "rational choice theory", wherein one might just decide it's a grand idea to kill off others so he/she can be 'king of the hill', or decides to kill their friend or family member to obtain a fortune?
These rational-choice models predict that the likelihood of violence increases when the benefits of violence go up or its costs (risks of being caught in the act, punishments) go down.


A study a few years back out of the UK found that foreign nations are much more likely to intervene in a civil war when the country at war within itself also has valuable oil reserves. Fossil fuels are triggering violent conflicts all over the world, says Michael Klare, Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College in Massachusetts, the US.

Klare zooms in on four areas – Iraq/Syria, South Sudan, the Crimea/Ukraine, and the South China Sea – to argue that the desire to control valuable oil and gas assets is fueling long-standing historic tensions. “In a fossil-fuel world, control over oil and gas reserves is an essential component of national power,” he warns.

The trouble with "rational choice theory" is that it also doesn't answer the question of WHY people frequently resort to violence when, by any measure of practical sense/logic, non-violent measures would be easier and far more effective, would carry NONE of the risks or punishments associated with committing a violent or deadly act.

A quick look at history shows even those thinking of doing violence that "Wars harm both sides, most crimes yield little financial gain, terrorism and assassination almost never bring about the desired political changes, most rapes fail to bring sexual pleasure, torture rarely elicits accurate or useful information..." (That is a PDF)

Another study posited to those involved in civil war over territory (land), in which those at war valued the land as 'sacred', that a large cash settlement would be handed to them if they simply gave up the land, but showed that such an offer elevated levels of anger and disgust, as well as increased enthusiasm for violence from both sides. Those who did NOT see the land as sacred were enthusiastic to take the monetary incentive and call it a wrap.

That blows the "rational choice theory" right out of the water. Such a theory cannot handle/explain this kind of data. Adding material incentives should never make the deal worse, but sometimes it does.

Neither the disinhibition theory nor the rational choice theory provides a complete picture for why people harm one another, why they go to war.
And to the extent that we try to rely on these theories to reduce violence, we will fail again and again.
What are we missing?

Looking at violence across time and cultures, looking long and hard and honestly, a pattern emerges in all the violence. There IS a unifying theme, with all the predictive and explanatory power one could wish for.

Humans determine within their own minds and within their own cultural and/or chosen groups that violence is obligatory, necessary, proper.

Violence is motivated by moral sentiments, a deep, inner surety that some actions of others DEMANDS retribution, DEMANDS that the person who committed even an imagined 'sin'/wrong MUST be punished.
Some tell themselves that their victims "brought it on themselves", that they "begged for it" when they did thus or so.

Drill sergeants, gang leaders and guerrilla fighters brutally ‘beat in’ new recruits believing it creates lifelong bonds and unflinching obedience to superiors, both of which are fundamental to success in battle.

A father in New Guinea pours hot fat down the inner arm of his son and hopes he will endure it 'like a man' because this is imperative if he is to become a respected adult in that culture.

Suicide bombers in the Middle East kill themselves and others in the name of the authority they respect and out of loyalty to 'the noble cause'.

A brother in India or in an Islamic nation kills his sister because her sexual infidelity has contaminated and shamed their family and her death is the only way to restore the family’s honor and prove the family is devout and noble.

Fighter pilots bomb a 'terrorist' target, killing several terrorists along with many nearby civilians because their commander said it was an 'acceptable loss' in order to achieve a 'greater good', i.e.,the death of their enemies.

One can find examples of such 'moral justification' without end.

If indeed violence is motivated by moral sentiments, what is it motivated toward?
What are these perpetrators of violence trying to achieve?

The answer seems to be that violence is intended to regulate social relationships.

Across all cases that have been studied, that we ourselves can study, perpetrators are using violence to create, conduct, sustain, enhance, transform, honor, protect, redress, repair, end, and mourn relationships they see as "immorally detrimental" and/or "unjustified".

The jilted spouse or lover is convinced that the one who jilted them was unjust, evil, morally corrupt, and that allowing the one who jilted them to go unpunished would leave them free to do the same to the "next guy".

Maybe the jilted decides that harsh physical punishment is enough to change the offenders actions, or they may decide such an unjust person needs to be erased from the earth.

Maybe they feel a cultural 'moral need' to regain their 'honor', their sense of community worth by not allowing the deed to go unpunished. Others are watching, after all. Being 'unjustly shamed' demands retribution so that the scales balance once again in their society.

In every case, the violent act is perceived by the perpetrators, and by at least some who observe their violence (and in some cases even by the victims themselves) as just.

As examples...public executions have often been popular community events, with families picnicking at hangings throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, gathering to watch 'justice served'.
Remember the 'witch hunts', the approved massacres of Indigenous Tribes in colonial times, the celebrations of won, often undeclared wars that we see an abundance of today.
Syria is in ruin, people in Yemen are starving to death, all because our pals in Saudi Arabia are scared of Iranian influence there, but House of Saud rules OPEC, so, Yaaay, team!

WHY would we applaud that?
Because the ones we're told are 'wicked' got their "just desserts" and order will be restored.
Let's not forget that oil prices will drop once the fighting and killing are over.

Individuals and cultures vary widely in the ways they accomplish their set of 'regulations', these 'necessary, violent acts'.
The contexts in which each culture or individual believes violence is an acceptable means of making things right also vary, but the goal is the same.

The purpose of violence, in the minds of the violent, is to sustain or restore an accepted "moral order".

Violence is still celebrated by everyday 'good' people TODAY.

Every time "terrorists" are killed, many celebrate and determine to kill more (which makes US the terrorists to those whom we attack), while others who are attacked are incensed and vow to annihilate every man, woman and child in whatever culture/nation that killed their 'heroes', their loved ones, their countrymen.

PAUSE, REWIND, REPLAY....OVER AND OVER AGAIN, THROUGHOUT HISTORY.

BUT WAIT!
Surely it’s not difficult to claim 'moral justifications' when one is actually motivated by selfishness or is just plain criminally evil, right?
Wouldn't some use moral justification as an EXCUSE to do whatever they pleased?
The excuses/justifications that perpetrators offer reveal the moral standards of those being appealed to who will take sides with the 'righteous vindicators', finding 'moral cause' handed out freely by those among us who AGREE with their violence, perhaps even encourage it. All this SHOULD be a terribly uncomfortable thought.

If we accept that dangerous people might be motivated by genuine moral beliefs, we face a deeply troubling subjective dimension to morality as such.

At the very least, we must face the possibility that someone can be sincerely wrong about violence being 'morally justified'.

Once we allow ourselves to go that far, it’s a short hop to thinking maybe WE, who agree with moral justification are the ones who may be wrong, or even that there’s nothing to be right about in the first place as far as JUSTIFYING violence.

Those who justify violence due to moral obligation may fail to see the group or communal or cultural HATRED for certain things that fuels violence and wars of all kinds.
According to a recent study, there are at least 917 organized 'hate groups' in the United States, all of which share a common 'moral code'.

Some are composed of Whites, some are created by Blacks, some by Latinos/Hispanics, some by "religious fanatics", others were formed based on political beliefs, etc.    
What motivates most humans to hate, collectively or individually?FEAR...mainly FEAR. 

1- Fear of “The Other”
If something or someone is not LIKE them, many people fear that and then begin to hate through their fear.
They see DANGER to their societal and 'sacred' beliefs and to their personal standing in the larger national society because of these "others". SURELY, they tell themselves, such 'others' will destroy society and replace it with something that enslaves or eradicates them.

Researchers like Patrick Wanis cite the in-group out-group theory, which posits that when we feel threatened by perceived outsiders, we instinctively turn toward our in-group—those with whom we identify—as a survival mechanism. Wanis explains, “Hatred is driven by two key emotions of love and aggression: One, love for the in-group—the group that is favored; and two, aggression for the out-group—the group that has been deemed as being different, dangerous, and a threat to the in-group.”

All we have to do to 'test' this theory is to read the news, listen to the 'platforms' these 'hate groups' are based on.

The Tea Room sees this fear quite clearly in the formation of political parties.

Political affiliation has kept America divided since our second Presidential election.

Politics gave us the "Great Civil War".

Democrats see Republicans as evil incarnate and Republicans view Democrats as Satan's spawn.

The very language of politics speaks to fear and hate.
We're told to FIGHT for America by BEATING the other party.
We're told by each party that the other party is AT WAR against America and seeks to DESTROY the nation.

And most Americans buy into that and choose sides, making sure we remain DIVIDED, making sure we ALL come to ruin rather than to UNITY.

2- Fear of Ourselves

According to Washington, D.C., clinical psychologist Dana Harron, the things people hate about others are the things that they fear within themselves. She suggests thinking about the targeted group or person as a movie screen onto which we project unwanted parts of the self.
The idea is, “I'm not terrible; you are.”

This phenomenon is known as projection, a term coined by Freud to describe our tendency to reject what we don’t like about ourselves and assign it to others. Psychologist Brad Reedy further describes projection as our need to be good, which causes us to project "badness" outward onto others and attack it.

We can almost immediately see in others what we see within ourselves and wish wasn't there or try to deny that it does lurk within US.
That's how we can point fingers at others so quickly and easilyWhat would happen if we stopped thinking of moral values as objective facts that are always true everywhere at all times, and saw them instead as subjective opinions that differ across cultures and history?

Again, at the very least, shouldn't we perhaps face the possibility that one (even we ourselves) can be "sincerely wrong" about "blanket" moral values?

I'm thinking of things like, oh, "manifest destiny", let's say, or during the Crusades, when only ONE religion was acceptable, or, in the case of Islam, that THAT religion alone is the only right religion for the entire world, or that ONLY a socialist society can "fix" the problems of the world.

3- Lack of Self-compassion

The antidote to hate is compassion — for others as well as ourselves. Self-compassion means that we accept the whole self. “If we find part of ourselves unacceptable, we tend to attack others in order to defend against the threat,” says psychologist Brad Reedy. “If we are okay with ourselves, we see others’ behaviors as ‘about them’ and can respond with compassion. If I kept hate in my heart for [another], I would have to hate myself as well. It is only when we learn to hold ourselves with compassion that we may be able to demonstrate it toward others.”

4- Hate fills a void

Psychologist Bernard Golden, author of Overcoming Destructive Anger: Strategies That Work, believes that when hate involves participation in a group, it may help foster a sense of connection and camaraderie that fills a void in one’s identity. He describes hatred of individuals or groups as a way of distracting oneself from the more challenging and anxiety-provoking task of creating one’s own identity:

"Acts of hate are attempts to distract oneself from feelings such as helplessness, powerlessness, injustice, inadequacy and shame. Hate is grounded in some sense of perceived threat. It is an attitude that can give rise to hostility and aggression toward individuals or groups. Like much of anger, it is a reaction to and distraction from some form of inner pain. The individual consumed by hate may believe that the only way to regain some sense of power over his or her pain is to preemptively strike out at others. In this context, each moment of hate is a temporary reprieve from inner suffering."

5- Societal and Cultural Factors

The answer to why we hate, according to Silvia Dutchevici, LCSW, president and founder of the Critical Therapy Center, lies not only in our psychological makeup or family history, but also in our cultural and political history. “We live in a war culture that promotes violence, in which competition is a way of life,” she says. “We fear connecting because it requires us to reveal something about ourselves.
We are taught to hate the enemy — meaning anyone different than us — which leaves little room for vulnerability and an exploration of hate through empathic discourse and understanding.
In our current society, one is more ready to fight than to resolve conflict. Peace is seldom the option.”


Can't we ever agree to LIVE AND LET LIVE? 
Can't we EVER just look at history, see the gross errors of our ways and determine to STOP BEHAVING AS THOUGH WE ARE INSANE by repeating those errors yet again? 

WHAT ABOUT TERRORISTS?
SHOULDN'T WE KILL ALL 'TERRORISTS'? 

Terrorism is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.”

NEWSFLASH!
MOST WHO BELONG TO POLITICAL PARTIES COULD BE LABELED AS "TERRORISTS" BY THAT DEFINITION!
READ THE DAILY HEADLINES AND SEE IT FOR YOURSELVES. 

The inclusion of damage to private and public property in the definition of terrorism is a point of contention, but it is generally accepted in legal and statistical contexts.

WE SEE THAT DAILY, TOO, DON'T WE? 

An action must also be carried out for political, economic, religious, or social purposes to count as terrorism.


THERE'S THAT "MORAL JUSTIFICATION"! "A political party is a group of people seeking to promote the enactment of their ideals into law which, unlike an interest group, consists of multiple interests and primarily uses the ballot box.

A terrorist organization is a group of people seeking to promote the enactment of their ideals into law and primarily use politically motivated violence.
The line between the two types of organizations is not solid and there are multiple linkages between them.
Terrorist groups can become political parties; political parties can become terrorist groups; political parties can use terrorism and the ballot box; both political parties and terrorist groups can form wings of the opposite variety; and factions within political parties can splinter off into terrorist groups.

In addition, interest groups or political movements can utilize terrorism or spawn political groups or terrorist groups."   (Weinberg and Pedahzur, Political Parties and Terrorist Groups. London ; New York: 2003)


WE'VE BEEN GOING ABOUT REDUCING CRIME ALL WRONG. 

For years, we have been trying to reduce crime by incarceration, by placing restrictions on the mentally ill, by teaching potential perpetrators how to exercise more self-control.
On the face of it, these all sound like plausible strategies.

But ALL of those missed their target. 

Decade after decade, our jails are full, we still have the mentally ill diagnosed in ever greater numbers, and nobody is going to 'exercise self control' until they honestly see a NEED to and can admit to that need. 

WHO likes to admit they're wrong or that they need help? 

Did you know that about 45% of federal inmates are rearrested within five years of release?
This is considerably lower than the more alarming calculation of the Bureau of Justice Statistics that 77% are rearrested within five years.

But the BJS number includes both federal prisoners and the far more numerous veterans of state prisons.

Prisoners released before turning 21 had a rearrest rate of about 68%.

OBVIOUSLY, incarceration doesn't change minds or intent. 

One of the most robust findings in criminology is that increasing the severity of punishment has little deterrent effect.

People simply aren’t as sensitive to the potential costs of crime as the rational-choice model predicts they should be, and so efforts to reduce it by cracking down have failed to justify the immense fiscal and social costs of mass incarceration.

Meanwhile, because most violent crimes are committed by psychologically healthy individuals, legislation that focuses on the mentally ill – for example, by stopping them from buying guns – would lead to only a small reduction.
If we really wanted to cut our rates of violence, we would have to focus on moral motives.

Simply stated, violence must be made immoral.

This must hold true for both perpetrators of violence and the people they care about and/or the people who justify acts of violence based on an accepted moral code.
Only when violence in ANY relationship is seen as a violation of EVERY relationship will it diminish.

NO! NO, you may NOT do violence and expect to be excused for it, EVER.

It must be instilled in all our minds that ANY violence against ANYONE is considered violence against us ALL, that NONE of us will ever again condone violence or justify it as a "moral obligation".

I've written before about the now-banned "Blood Law" of a few Indigenous Tribes, wherein THEFT, in ANY form within the Tribe, whether theft of a life (murder), theft of a blanket, or theft of the truth (a lie), was immediately punishable by death, and the perpetrator's family members were responsible for carrying out the sentence.
If the family refused, they, too, would be seen as thieves...of justice.
If that happened, then others would be assigned to step in and carry out the sentence...on everyone who had broken that law. 
In those Tribes, THIS was the one and ONLY law.
It was sufficient. 

Such criminal acts were not condoned and were not tolerated by ANY of the Tribal members, and that was made crystal clear to each child growing up in the Tribe.
From infancy they were warned, taught and there was NO excuse offered if ANYONE broke that one law. 

In his work to reduce gang violence in Boston, the criminologist David Kennedy helps to organize 'interventions'.

Killers, violent criminals, no matter their race or social standing, are confronted by local leaders and the families of victims, who all express the wrongness of killing and insist that violence against anyone undermines relationships with everyone.

Sure, legal sanctions are also present, but they prove insufficient on their own. Critically, the message HAS to come from respected people within the criminal’s own community.

As Kennedy puts it: ‘their own ideas about right and wrong matter most; the ideas of those they care about and respect matter more’.

These programs have been quite successful WHEN PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED.
Baltimore tried to conduct a similar program "on the cheap" which seems to have failed, but other cities HAVE seen real reductions in violence using Kennedy's strict methodology. 

It won’t be easy to change our culture of violence.
We have to give people the structural, economic, technological and political means to regulate their relationships peacefully, options aside from violence that will make the scales of justice balance once again.

ALL social groups, ALL races, ALL levels of society have to determine to SHAME AND SHUN, AS WELL AS DELIVER THE VIOLENT UP FOR JUSTICE, ANYONE WHO VIOLENTLY HARMS OR KILLS ANOTHER.

THIS CAN BE DONE.
It HAS been done in the past by cultures we might call 'third world' or 'tribal' or even 'savage or strange', but it IS happening as we sit here, in prosperous, modern nations as well.

Cultures CAN AND DO change once they see the benefits of change.

People everywhere, WHO WANT TO, are finding ways to satisfy their moral motives and social-relational aims non-violently.

This in no way means this work is finished.

People also still hurt and kill one another because they believe that it's the right moral thing to do.
But if their primary social groups make them understand that violence will result in their being completely ostracized by family and community AND sent to face swift justice, most WILL learn NOT to be violent.

Once everyone, everywhere, truly believes that violence is unacceptable, is inexcusable by ALL whom they value/care for, that violence carries a "double curse", not just a legal punishment, then violence will begin to end.
The desire to be a valued member of a group, 'part of the herd' has often over-ridden the desire to be a self-serving lawbreaker.

Would we still allow for self-defense?
I would think we should, but then I think of the victims of abortions, of child abuse, of elder abuse, the animals who suffer and die from animal abuse and how none of those can ever be said to have had a real "fighting chance" to save themselves.

I think of a city cop in Houston, TX, who bragged that he could always prove self-defense by placing one of his stash of confiscated weapons in the hand of anyone he shot.
SAME can be said of a civilian who commits a violent act believing it to be justified.

It's precisely FOR those who can't truly protect themselves, who have NO means of self-defense that we MUST change this tendency to violence among all members of society. 

We simply can't keep putting the entire burden on "law enforcement" and courts and expect those few to SEE HAPPENING what WE see happen daily in our own neighborhoods, streets, homes, to produce evidence of the violence that WE bear witness to but keep quiet about, make excuses for, acts of violence that we try to NOT see, WANT to excuse, violent acts that happen to the helpless, the innocents, the weak.

NO MORE "I've got your back, brother", NO MORE "I'll be your alibi", NO MORE I'll go to bat for you every way I can, pal/son/daughter/husband/wife/mom/dad".

NO!
It's NOT 'a jungle out there', it's a CIVILIZED WORLD.

NO!
NOBODY IS PREY!
NOBODY should be allowed to be a PREDATOR! 

VIOLENCE BEGETS VIOLENCE.
IT ISN'T NECESSARY IN THE DAILY LIVES OF AMERICAN PEOPLE.
IT ISN'T TO BE CONDONED. 

HATE ERASES SANITY AND CREATES UTTER CHAOS. 

REALIZING THAT WE ARE ALL EQUAL, NO ONE BETTER THAN THE NEXT, INVITES PEACE AND PEACEFUL SOLUTIONS.

ANYONE WHO TELLS YOU THAT YOU ARE NOT EQUAL WITH ALL OTHERS IS LYING TO YOU IN ORDER TO MANIPULATE YOU TO CARRY OUT THEIR 'MORAL JUSTIFICATION' TO DO VIOLENCE AND TO DESTROY YOUR FELLOW MAN. 








______________________________________

OTHER SOURCES AND FURTHER READING: 

-- CONFLICT AND VIOLENCE IN THE 21ST CENTURY
A PDF that shows the RISE in global conflicts since 2011, the astronomical number of civilians displaced by those conflicts and FAILS to include Europe, the USA, or Canada.


-- The Essential Guide to Defense Mechanisms
The 9 most common defense mechanisms used to prevent inner turmoil, angst and fear.


-- How the Long History of Human Violence Explains Why the Internet Causes So Much Chaos

We are currently living through the third communications revolution: the Internet. Invented late last century, its use has grown exponentially: by the end of 2018, more than half of the world’s population was online. It is currently disrupting our senses of nationhood, hierarchy, equality, resource sharing and employment, among other things. It is upending national consensuses on all of the five group problems at once.

The Internet is also laying the foundations for what could be a truly global society.

Scholars—from psychologists to political scientists specializing in conflict—are starting to understand that the desire to belong among humans plays an outsized role in generating group violence of all kinds. This evolutionary desire to belong does not mean belonging to just any group of humans, but to a cohesive social group that protects you from violence, and gives you access to resources and sexual partners.
And for a social group to remain cohesive it needs to have norms and rules that solve five basic coordination problems inherent to groups. These five problems are: hierarchy (who makes the decisions), identity (who is in the group and who is out), trade (how do we trade or share resources), disease (how do we manage disease with so many individuals living in close proximity) and punishment (who are we allowed to punish as a group, and for what). If a group fails to solve these five problems, violence ensues and the group splinters and cleaves into smaller groups.


--Tage Rai, a research associate and lecturer at the MIT Sloan School of Management in Massachusetts, is the co-author, with Alan Fiske, of Virtuous Violence (2014) which I used as a source. He also wrote an essay I much appreciated titled "How Could They?"


--Mental illness and violence
A Harvard Health article.
Most individuals with psychiatric disorders are not violent.
Although a subset of people with psychiatric disorders commit assaults and violent crimes, findings have been inconsistent about how much mental illness contributes to this behavior and how much substance abuse and other factors do.
An ongoing problem in the scientific literature is that studies have used different methods to assess rates of violence — both in people with mental illness and in control groups used for comparison. Some studies rely on "self-reporting," or participants' own recollection of whether they have acted violently toward others. Such studies may underestimate rates of violence for several reasons. Participants may forget what they did in the past, or may be embarrassed about or unwilling to admit to violent behavior. Other studies have compared data from the criminal justice system, such as arrest rates among people with mental illness and those without. But these studies, by definition involving a subset of people, may also misstate rates of violence in the community. Finally, some studies have not controlled for the multiple variables beyond substance abuse that contribute to violent behavior (whether an individual is mentally ill or not), such as poverty, family history, personal adversity or stress, and so on.





//WW