Determining the source of a guilt

The measure as written

The rule of IS RETRIBUTION ESSENTIAL? sets the source before the retribution:

“An individual should be retributed or reprimanded in accordance with the guilt, while the main goal is to retract the source causing the destruction along with diluting the disturbance and preventing further expansion or propagation of new sources.”

A source is described as follows:

So, what actually is this source? In fact, there is no hard and fast rule to determine it, as any condition or circumstance that leads towards the guilt is actually the source, and its determination is done from case to case.

and gives the measure in Step 2:

Step 2: Determine the sources (or source) that lead to the guilt. (In practice, the sources can be traced by asking ‘why’ step by step from the guilt back to its root, by comparing the circumstances of those who committed such a guilt with those of similar people who did not, and by mapping where such cases gather, i.e. their hotspots; any computer analysis can only point to a lead, never prove a source.)

Under "Nature Shields the Sources", it tells why a guilt occurs:

Guilt is almost always a result of a compromised retraction ability, or simply, we can say that a person is not born with guilt. There are circumstances or conditions (even events) that are the root cause. Basically, these sources exist in nature, but the retraction ability that is naturally maintained shields their effect, though only up to a limit. If we artificially create more and more sources or simply exaggerate the effect of already present sources, then this leads to a compromise in the retraction ability and eventually results in the occurrence of a guilt.

names the sources that our society has strengthened or brought about:

In our society, we are the responsible entities that have exaggerated the strength of existing sources, while there is also a high influx of emerging sources. A disturbed desire to necessity equilibrium (unethical desire fulfilment), a dangerously decreased level/amount of respectfuls, a disturbed guidance standard, etc., are the driving causes of the exaggeration of existing sources, while immoral technological abuse, disastrous dominative strategies, and corrupt system regulation are some of the driving causes of the eruption of new sources.

and puts their retraction first:

Retribution is important, but the retraction of sources (i.e. minimizing the effect of existing ones while eradicating artificial ones) is crucial. Treating the wounded is essential, but destroying the killing machine is crucial.

This sub-section looks for the sources of one guilt, the killing of a person, as Step 2 gives it: it asks why each killing happened, as far as its record goes, and maps where the killings from each source gather. What it finds points to a lead; it never proves a source.

What it measures, in plain words

Step 2 traces the sources of a guilt by "asking ‘why’ step by step from the guilt back to its root". Here the guilt is the gravest one, whose damage is "irreversible (i.e. loss of life or of any body part)": the killing of a person. For each killing, the measure takes the first ‘why’ its record gives and places it under the source it points to.

What is measured.

· The killings and their first ‘why’. Each killing with the reason its record gives: the motive the police recorded, or the circumstances recorded from the police and medical reports. It is read in two of the seven societies, whose own records give this reason for each killing, area by area.

· Three sources. Each reason is placed under one of three sources, each one already named:

o   The violation of HSPs, i.e. "going against the norms that preserve human integrity", whose shocks spread through the society with "rising crime" as the first warning sign; within a family, it is when "father and mother keep quarrelling (i.e. HSP violation within the family)". Under it: killings over a family dispute, a love affair or an illicit relationship, and killings in a partner's violence or out of jealousy.

o   A disturbed desire to necessity equilibrium, i.e. "unethical desire fulfilment". Under it: killings for gain or in a robbery, killings over property, land or money, and killings where drugs were involved. Drugs are not a necessity, used or sold.

o   False societal standards, the standards that make "wealth as the measure of success" and judge people by "the status they bear in the society". Under it: killings over dowry, honour killings, killings out of caste, class or hatred of a group, and killings in gang rivalry.

· Where they gather. The killings from each source per million people, area by area, i.e. "mapping where such cases gather, i.e. their hotspots".

Read in killings and in people. No money is used.

How to read the result. Say a society shows 30% under the violation of HSPs: of the killings whose reason was recorded, three in ten were recorded as coming from a quarrel within the family or between partners. Four points keep the reading true to what was written:

· The record gives only the first ‘why’. It is asked again, step by step, back to the root: a family dispute may itself rest on property.

· Where the record does not say what a quarrel, an enmity or another crime was about, the killing is left unplaced: the record does not say what it includes.

· "a person is not born with guilt". The counts read the circumstances that compromised the retraction ability, not the persons.

· What is found "can only point to a lead, never prove a source".

How we measured it

The measures. Each killing is read with the reason its own record gives, and counted. The killings under each source are read as a share of those whose reason is known, and per million people. No money is used.

· The killings.

o   India, its 36 states and union territories: the 27,721 cases of murder registered in 2023, each with the motive the police recorded: 23 named motives, besides no clue and other causes (National Crime Records Bureau, Crime in India 2023, Volume I, Table 2A.2, Motives of Murder); and the people of each area in the middle of 2023, as projected in the same volume (Table 2A.1).

o   The United States, its 50 states and the District of Columbia: the 19,476 residents killed by homicide in 2023, each with the circumstances recorded from the police reports and the reports of the coroners and medical examiners (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Violent Death Reporting System, read through its online query system); and the people each state's count covers. In California, Florida and Texas the system covers some counties only (31, 38 and 13), and their killings are read against the people of those counties.

· The first ‘why’. In India, each case carries one motive. In the United States, a killing can carry more than one circumstance (an argument and a partner's violence together, say), so the killings under a source are given as at least (its largest circumstance) and at most (all its circumstances added).

· Under the three sources.

o   The violation of HSPs: in India, a family dispute, a love affair and an illicit relationship; in the United States, intimate partner violence, a family relationship problem and jealousy (a lovers' triangle).

o   A disturbed desire to necessity equilibrium: in India, gain, robbery, a dispute over property or land, a dispute over money, and the sale of body parts; in the United States, drug involvement.

o   False societal standards: in India, dowry, honour killing, casteism, class conflict and gang rivalry; in the United States, gang-related killings and hate crime.

o   Left unplaced, because the record does not say what they were about: in India, personal vendetta or enmity and a petty quarrel; in the United States, an argument, a fight between two people, a brawl, and a killing brought on by another crime that the record does not name.

o   Not one of the three: in India, communal or religious, political, extremism or insurgency, witchcraft, child or human sacrifice, psychopath or serial killer, a dispute over water, and road accidents.

o   Not known: in India, no clue and other causes; in the United States, unknown circumstances.

· Where they gather. The killings under each source per million people, area by area. The areas leave very different shares of their killings without a recorded reason (in India from none to 69%), so the places with the most are read only among the areas whose record names a reason for at least two killings in three: 16 Indian states and union territories of 2 million people or more (54% of India's people), and 35 states of the United States (60% of the people the system covers). The others are read by the share of their known reasons only.

· Counts under ten. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention withhold any count of fewer than ten in a state; such a count is not used, and that state is not ranked for that circumstance.

Measured years only. India in 2023; the United States in 2023.

Checks.

· India: in every area, the 25 kinds of motive add up to its total, and the six kinds of dispute add up to the disputes column; the states, the union territories and all India add up in every column; each area's total equals its murder cases in Table 2A.1, and its printed rate per 100,000 people comes out from its people.

· The United States: the counts read match the system's own pages for every state; the 51 areas add up to the nation's 19,476; in every state, the killings with known and with unknown circumstances add up to its total.

What the seven societies show

Two of the seven societies give the reason for each killing, area by area: India and the United States.

Shares of the killings whose reason is recorded (India: 18,842 murder cases; the United States: 14,384 people killed), unless stated. *A killing can carry more than one circumstance: at least its largest circumstance, at most all of them added. For the United States, ‘left unplaced’ counts the killings during an argument, the largest such circumstance; 781 or more of them, between partners, are also counted under the violation of HSPs.

The quarrel within the family and between partners leads. In India, the violation of HSPs is the largest of the three sources: 6,050 murders, a third of those whose motive is known; family disputes alone account for 3,220. In the United States, a partner's violence is recorded in 2,408 killings, one in six of those whose circumstances are known, and with a family relationship problem and jealousy, up to one in four. This is the family of THE DESTINED FUTURE (HSPs), in which the "father and mother keep quarrelling (i.e. HSP violation within the family)".

Desire comes next. In India, 4,880 murders were for gain, in a robbery, or over property, land or money: a quarter of those whose motive is known. In the United States, the record names no gain, robbery or money; drugs are involved in 1,092 killings (7.6%), and a further 3,108 were brought on by another crime that the record does not name, and are left unplaced.

False standards kill fewer, and in fewer places. In India, 996 murders (5.3%), 833 of them over dowry; in the United States, 749 gang-related killings and at most 18 hate crimes (5.2–5.3%). Dowry gathers in the east of India: 220 murders in West Bengal and 224 in Odisha, where false standards account for 42% and 32% of the murders whose motive is known.

Each source gathers in its own places. In India, the quarter of the areas with the most such murders for their people hold 40% of the murders from the violation of HSPs with 23% of the people, 53% of those from desire with 22%, and 79% of those from false standards with 34%. Among the areas that record a motive for most murders, the violation of HSPs kills most in Telangana (9.0 per million people), Tamil Nadu (8.1) and Andhra Pradesh (7.5), against 4.3 for all India; desire in Jharkhand (24.6), Uttarakhand (12.9) and Bihar (7.1), against 3.5, and in Jharkhand gain is the recorded motive of 834 of its 1,463 murders. The violation of HSPs and desire rise together: the areas with more of the one have more of the other (a rank agreement of 0.43 across 26 large areas). In the United States, a partner's violence kills most in Alaska (20.4 per million people), Louisiana (20.3) and Tennessee (17.4), and least in Massachusetts (4.0); drugs in North Carolina (16.5), Missouri (11.5) and Tennessee (10.2); gangs in Arizona (7.3) and North Carolina (6.7).

By the measure of Step 2, the first ‘why’ of a killing points to the three sources named in 63% of the murders in India whose motive is known, the violation of HSPs first; in the United States, in 17% to 38% of the killings whose circumstances are known, while an argument whose subject the record does not keep stands behind 39%. Each is a lead, never a proof; the places where they gather are where "the retraction of sources" is to begin.