Any use of force on another person to enforce the law or to manage a community has never been acceptable unless no other means for the safety of the community is available. Today, however, the use of force is more commonplace. Most of us have learned to tolerate aggressive behavior relatively well but deliberate assaults, harassment and bullying as a form of governance (whether psychological or physical) do not make sense, especially when the wellbeing of the victim is compromised.
The question of who is the victim is clear in these situations when one in authority and with the power of governance or a system is asserting violent aggression as a means to manage or control another’s behavior. The recipient of the violence is the victim. There is no excuse imaginable that one could make with good reason to claim otherwise. Those who wield the authority are required to use care, respect and good reason to manage and lead a community order. If disciplinary action is required then respectable means of addressing any issues are available in civil systems that uphold the rights of the accused in a way that does not use force.
One question to ask is whether the systems in our communities are rewarding violent aggression on the part of their leadership? In other words when a leader is able to use aggression that brings harm to another person as a means to manage a community are we rewarding them through personal acknowledgement or a supportive social system that reinforces their behavior? Furthermore, what choices exist for those who may innocently be the object of their aggression?
Someone or something needs to intervene and change the course of the behaviors that are becoming endemic in the system. Psychology understands that aggressive behaviors that are not discouraged or abated may give victims no other option than an aggressive response. This inevitably leads to serious conflict and even war. Someone, somehow, some way there needs to be intervention to stop the aggression before it leads to harm and a violation of the law.
Another concerning factor to consider is how susceptible the victim (recipient of the aggressive/violent behavior) can become to further abuses from the perpetrator. Someone with authority (whether a male order or community leader) can assert his authority on a person and label them as 'delinquent'. Their label can easily be supported by the system because of their authority which further reinforces or establishes the determined 'delinquent.' The victim now bearing this label has little authority or defenses compared to the leader and his supporting system and is forced to accept the label that now defines their person. The situation becomes worse. They can be scorned and shunned by a community because of the unregulated use of a legitimate aggression, violence and coercion.
Perpetrators that use the excuse that they are victims themselves and must respond with aggression in a system to manage and control need step back and discern the good reason of their justification for the use of force. The traditional method used to address this is not to justify wrongdoing (aggression/violence) but to seek help or support that defines a better and more civil course of action without violating basic rights and privileges of a person(s).
Violent aggression is not necessary in our communities or any course of life. To always work toward means that do not encourage it and that stop it from developing as a legitimate form of governance is critical today to preserve the sanctity of our humanity and spirit. Communities must encourage leadership to change the course of governance to more peaceable means if there is a tendency toward aggression and force.