First, do no harm

Belisarius begging for alms

“Primum non nocere,” (first, do no harm) is a fundamental law drilled into medical practitioners and emergency medical technicians around the world. The principle dictates that, when faced with an existing issue, one must carefully select an action that does not cause more harm than good, even if that means doing nothing. It is intended to make the practitioner consciously consider the harm that any given action might cause.

A core principle of medical ethics, this dictum is equally applicable to a wide range of governmental policies and husbandry (the management and conservation of resources). A prime example: for many years we had a zero-tolerance policy regarding wildfires. Smokey Bear warned us to be careful and all fires were fought to a standstill. As a result, the natural process of undergrowth thinning was thwarted resulting in larger and more dangerous “crowning” fires. Further, certain species require fire as part of their lifecycle, the Giant Sequoia being a case in point. When it was observed in the 1960s that no new Sequoias were germinating due to fire suppression, it was determined that our fire suppression policies were causing harm. A more open-minded view now has us allow fires to proceed as a natural ecological process except where human lives or property are threatened.

In the political arena, we are not nearly as enlightened. Many government policies have been shown to inflict harm on the very constituencies they were intended to help. Some famous examples include housing policy which fueled the Great Recession of 2009, college grants and subsidies which fund a roaring inflation rate of tuitions, and generous welfare benefits which have led to a spectacular breakdown of the nuclear family, especially within the urban poor. These programs were all well intentioned; it is simply that the negative consequences were not adequately factored into the political calculus.

Why might this be? In a thought-provoking paper published earlier this year (“Concepts and implications of altruism bias and pathological altruism,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, April 9, 2013), researcher Barbara Oakley describes the concept of pathological altruism, that is, behavior that is intended to help but results in foreseeable harm. At root, as should be no surprise, is our very human desire to help combined with an almost innocent neglect of potentially harmful side effects.

We are wired to be empathetic, altruistic; the desire to help is in our DNA (with the exception of a relatively rare number of sociopaths amongst us). Early human clans survived more readily when they assisted each other. Altruism, therefore, is a natural tendency reinforced by evolution and subsequently enshrined in religious values. (Christianity, as one example, extols philanthropy and is well-known for its many charities).

But when it comes to the political process, when programs to help the poor or subsidize this group or that are debated, we tend to be overtaken by the emotional need to help and neglect the cold, scientific analysis of the reverberations our actions will actually create. Further, this altruism bias causes us to demonize anyone who dares suggest such an analysis. But in the end, it is the greatest good with the least harm that must be our goal, and reasoned analysis, without recourse to ad hominem attacks, is the only way to achieve that end.

Pathological altruism can be very dangerous. Dr. Oakley refers to the tens of millions of deaths caused in the twentieth century by appeals to altruism (Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot all cynically garnered support for their policies in that manner). She closes by proposing that pathological altruism is of such import that it should be the subject of focused scientific research. It is hard to disagree with that.

A Duty to Retreat

Sir William Blackstone, 1723-1780

Florida has been taking it on the chin. In addition to luxury vacation condos collapsing into giant sink holes, it seems that the media and political left are piling on because of Florida’s “stand your ground” law.  Attorney General Eric Holder, in a speech to the NAACP, stated that such laws “sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods” and “undermine public safety.”

Unlike Alinskyites, whose strategy it is to capitalize on heightened emotions, it might be good to step back and take a breath.

The right to self-defense is a time-honored legal precept. Sir William Blackstone, the great English jurist, traced the concept of justifiable and excusable use of deadly force from Roman and Judaic law and codified it into English common law (“Commentaries on the Laws of England”, 1765-1769). Since most US states adopted English common law as a basis for their own, it is not surprising that all of them allow a person to use force in defense of self or others. The details vary a bit, but the concept is universal.

Where the states begin to diverge is on the concept of “duty to retreat.” Blackstone identifies a duty to retreat in the event of a sudden brawl or affray, and only in the absence of the possibility of such retreat would defensive homicide be excused. The “stand your ground” states do not require a duty to retreat, if and only if a number of requirements are met. From Florida law (Chapter 776.012 para. 3), here is the heart of the matter:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

For the person using defensive force to have no duty to retreat, the following must be true:

• Have a right to be in the place where the attack occurs
• Must not be engaged in illegal activity
• Must believe that deadly force is reasonably necessary

The Tampa Bay Times, in a paroxism of self-guilt for being Floridean, documents what it calls “stand your ground cases” from around the state. Reviewing the very first one is very instructive.

In a narrow courtyard of the Liberty Square housing project, Damon “Red Rock” Darling and Leroy “Yellowrock” Larose got into a gunfight, allegedly due to an argument over drugs. Darling said he thought Larose was going to pull a gun on him so he pulled his and fired first. Neither Darling nor Larose were killed in the fusillade, but, unfortunately, 9-year-old Sherdavia Jenkins was killed in the crossfire while playing with her dolls. An extremely sad story, but does it support General Holder’s revulsion with “stand your ground”?

Not at all. None of the elements of “stand your ground” exist in the crime. The purported aggressor (Larose) was not killed, and Darling was engaged in illegal activity (drug trade). The court denied Darling’s attempt to use “stand your ground” as defense to the death of little Sherdavia, as well they should. Both Larose and Darling were convicted, with Darling getting 50 years.  Sounds like the “stand your ground” law operating as it should.

Here is another case. Anusha Bissoon, female, stabbed to death a man who was attacking her boyfriend after a road rage incident. Witnesses told police that the boyfriend would have been killed without Bissoon’s intervention. Based on evidence and witness testimony, prosecutors declined to press charges. Bissoon was spared the grueling trouble and expense of a trial, and was protected from civil suit by the aggressor’s family and estate. Again, seems like “stand your ground” operating as designed in the interest of justice.

Make up your own mind. But please, inform yourself and don’t be influenced only by lofty rhetoric. Our justice system deserves no less.