When is it appropriate to administer "punishment"?

...poor behaviour often has to be punished in order to dissuade the perpetrator from engaging in it...    -Glen Filthie, from the comments

That statement is probably worth talking about. Some of my opinions have no nuance. Other opinions that I hold on that statement are nuanced. I don't offer these as "truths", these are only my opinions.

Un-nuanced opinions on "punishment"

If somebody is standing on your foot while you are in the elevator, it is YOUR job to get them off your foot.

Escalating from the least-intrusive to the most-intrusive methods results in the fewest unwanted outcomes. If the elevator is not crowded, a brisk "You are standing on MY FOOT" is usually effective. If that doesn't work or if the elevator is loud, a firm push forward on the lout's backside is the next level of escalation. While shanking the lout in his right kidney is very effective at getting him off your polished, penny-loafers, the task of getting him off of your foot can usually be accomplished short of blood-shed.

It is YOUR job to protect your wife and minor children. If "a lonely stranger in a black sedan" is getting too close to YOUR child, it is your God-given duty to deal with that stranger.

Recapping:

• WHO: You and your family members who you are obligated to protect
• WHAT: Observable, quantifiable injuries or threats
• HOW: Starting at the lowest response likely to change the behavior and escalating at a pace consistent with the threat level. Keep clicking up the volume knob and asking "CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?"
• WHEN: As the event is happening. The facts cannot be disputed. Unwanted behavior is stopped before additional damage occurs.
• WHY: Because it works

Slightly nuanced opinions

It is not your God-given duty to confront every adult who is talking with a minor child who is not your own. If you are getting a bad-vibe, you can move toward them and let the adult know that they are being watched. If you get a really bad vibe, you can write down their license plate number.

It is not your duty (or even desirable) to rescue somebody from an abusive relationship...unless you have the ties-of-family AND they ask for your help. Most abusive relationships are co-dependencies and the "victim" you rescue will either immediately lurch into another abusive relationship or shoot you in the back of your head.

It is not your duty to "punish" assholes on behalf of others. If the asshole injures you, absolutely, it is yours to remedy but within the limits of an eye-for-an-eye. Otherwise, you are playing God when you intervene on behalf of others because you are assuming that you are omniscient and have God-like knowledge when your knowledge is actually second or third-hand and has been "spun" to control the narrative.

One of the major pathologies of the WOKE movement is that they believe that it is their duty to be the instrument karma to every person they perceive is an asshole. They stack a multitude of assumptions and then leap to precarious conclusions. You end up with ancient, green-haired Karens interfering with police arresting child sex-traffickers because the sex-traffickers look like they are Hispanic. She is totally unaware of her arrogance and conceit as she injects herself into the middle of the arrest. She is also unaware of the risks she is taking, not just from the police but from the person being arrested and his associates.

Summary

"Punishment" has some limitations. It is not terribly precise and many times the person who receives the punishment will be unclear on exactly which parts of their behavior triggered it. Difficult to believe (since it is crystal clear to you) but true none-the-less.

When events are dire and moving quickly (like you are getting mugged) there is not time for a sedate and orderly escalation. THAT is the time for rapid and decisive "punishment". When the situation is less dire, the orderly escalation puts a lot of bread-crumbs on the ground and the malefactor has ample information to figure out why he got clobbered.

The Old Testament's "eye-for-an-eye" was an attempt to limit (i.e. set maximum amounts) for the retribution that was allowable. The Christian "turn the other cheek" was an attempt to incorporate the possibility that perhaps the injury was accidental and that the party who caused it was not aware of the damage.

The major failing of "eye-for-an-eye" IMHO is that it is impossible to "calibrate" for the pain we inflict on others. We cannot judge the pain in the other person's testicles by how much our toes hurt. Blood-feuds escalate because each side judges the pain inflicted upon them was disproportionate to the pain they had dished out.

We all know a grudge-holder who goes out of their way to inflict pain on people until they (the grudge-holder) feels vindicated. They will continue to harass, hector and shit-on more-and-more people as they navigate through life and their targeting of each person can continue for decades. Inevitably, they end up lonely and still feeling like the victim because they alienated every person who was close to them.

And yet...there are times and places when "punishment" is the only proper tool. That is after the behaviors were not improved by more subtle interventions. It is appropriate when the malefactor's behaviors are so far out of bounds that they are a grave danger to others; like when you and your wife are approached in a parking ramp by two dudes brandishing weapons.

Bonus image

The oats I planted as a cover crop are up.

The planting density around the  edges is lower. I don't know if that is because birds picked off the seeds or if I didn't plant as heavily.