Violence by one’s own armed structure: hazing, holding, humiliation and extrajudicial punishment

Epigraph

a friend of justice

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations VI.30, a short fragment of his address to himself in George Long’s translation. This is an ethical question for someone with power, not a requirement that a harmed person remain perfectly calm.

What this article is about

Violence may come from people with whom someone serves, shares accommodation, obtains necessities or carries out a common task. “Our own” then describes membership; it does not establish that what happens is lawful. Hazing, humiliation, holding and unofficial punishment require attention to particular acts and power, beyond how united a unit considers itself. This article concerns violence used to maintain submission in peacetime and wartime. It is not an account of every armed structure, a diagnosis of its members or the legal classification of an individual case.

Imagine fictional Denis, humiliated and prevented from leaving after demands from seniors; Anton, expected to participate in that treatment; and Vera, someone close to Denis. These are different positions, not an established case. Their present safety, service obligations and available actions are unknown. Under immediate danger, available urgent help for people takes priority over reading. This article promises no safe refusal, pause, complaint or publicity, absolute secrecy or protection. It supplies no detention, escape, control-evasion or threat-testing methods. The distinction between a serious need and an unknown practical option matters throughout.

I. Membership does not grant control over the whole person

Denis may value his service and the people beside him. This does not require him to call every form of treatment care. A shared task does not make someone’s body, sleep, possessions or relationships an unlimited resource for colleagues. Equally, an unpleasant requirement cannot be assessed through a feeling alone: its content, authority, circumstances and consequences matter. Distinguishing these keeps common work serious without its name automatically justifying an unknown act. The subject is what happens to one person, rather than an obligatory choice between loving the whole structure and hating everyone within it.

Formal rank and informal seniority also differ. Someone may influence everyday duties, group attitudes or access to information without thereby acquiring a legal power to punish. The ability to secure obedience does not establish authority. This article does not determine a particular commander’s competence or a unit’s legal regime. Such questions require facts and applicable law. Yet uncertainty about the legal position does not make actual holding or humiliation disappear. Present need retains a subject even while some questions remain unanswered, and a listener should not invent the missing authority from the speaker’s confidence.

The situation may be particularly confusing when someone previously helped Denis and now demands that he endure this treatment. Earlier help may remain real; gratitude has a particular object. It does not supply indefinite consent to later treatment. Denis need not rewrite the helper’s entire biography as deception to recognise present pressure. A unit’s good history likewise cannot establish what happened in a particular room. Respect for specific assistance can coexist with questions about a specific demand, its consequences and the limits of power. Different acts by the same person do not have to receive one total verdict.

II. Conflict, abuse and legal classification ask different questions

People may disagree about work, make mistakes, speak harshly or require a result corrected. Such conflict does not itself establish a crime. But “conflict” should not automatically distribute responsibility equally when one person holds another, threatens them or uses dependence. Acts, available refusal and the consequences of disagreement matter. A symmetrical instruction that everyone should be kinder cannot settle the issue. It may miss power possessed by only one side and turn a request for protection into a demand that the person first please everybody involved. Recognising asymmetry still requires attention to facts rather than a verdict based on a label.

The UN Convention against Torture distinguishes its torture definition from other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. In the selected OHCHR presentation, article 2 expressly excludes war, emergency or a superior’s order as justifications for torture. This is a normative boundary, not a finding about Denis, an offence or jurisdiction. Every instance of rudeness does not automatically have the same legal classification. However, lacking a settled legal term does not establish permissibility or justify postponing attention to immediate danger. The person’s practical need and the competent examination of an allegation remain separate questions. [1] Completed OHCHR quotations were read through first-party search extraction, not the whole PDF or Convention.

A psychological description also cannot replace examination of an act. Calling a senior “traumatised” establishes neither the cause nor the permissibility of violence. Calling Denis “too sensitive” equally fails to check facts. Someone’s circumstances can matter without a diagnosis based on another person’s account. Understanding a cause and ending harmful treatment are different tasks. Medical, legal and organisational consideration may require different specialists. Family sympathy, however strong, does not make those competences interchangeable. A sincere wish to understand everybody need not dissolve the particular demand, action or need into a general story about difficult personalities.

Another question concerns the connection between a demand and its stated task. Anton might genuinely know more than a newcomer and be able to teach the work. That does not make every teaching method appropriate. A useful skill Denis acquired does not establish that accompanying humiliation was necessary. Criticising that treatment does not require declaring the skill worthless or all demanding instruction impermissible. A real learning result and the means employed can be considered separately. The offered choice between rejecting all preparation and justifying everything that occurred need not be accepted. Legal assessment still needs competence and circumstances; usefulness cannot replace it. Present need does not disappear because something valuable was also gained in the same history.

III. Tradition does not supply consent to hazing in peace or war

An informal hierarchy may be explained through length of service, experience, access to command or group recognition. In the fictional scene, Anton hears, “Everyone went through this.” That describes the speaker’s view; it establishes neither Denis’s voluntary participation nor seniors’ authority. Repetition alone does not make treatment necessary for learning. Someone need not prove that no predecessor endured anything similar before their present situation deserves attention. A custom’s history and the grounds for a particular demand require different evidence. Nor does another person’s sincere pride in surviving that custom settle what another individual has agreed to now.

Peacetime does not guarantee an absence of coercion; wartime does not automatically justify every informal punishment. This distinguishes contexts without claiming identical practice across armies. Actual tasks, risks and rules may differ. That is precisely why a general reference to difficult conditions cannot replace them. An account of urgency does not determine permissible treatment in advance, while assessing treatment does not require denying the existence of common danger. Service responsibilities can be taken seriously alongside a separate question about what is done to someone in their name. A broad account of necessity should not replace the relevant particular act.

Denis’s outward participation in a group ritual cannot confidently reconstruct his consent. He might see no available refusal; the scene does not establish his inner response. Laughter, silence or a return to ordinary work should not automatically be treated as agreement. Neither do those signs alone prove a particular crime. They limit an overbroad inference. Proper consideration needs circumstances rather than a test of whether someone looks convincingly harmed. Calm conduct must not become the price of dignity or a reason to regard further assistance as unnecessary. Someone may continue familiar work while an important question about treatment remains open.

The group’s silence should not be described as a unanimous ethical decision. Someone may have missed the beginning, another heard only the senior’s account, and a third depended on the same informal power. These possibilities establish neither the scene’s facts nor anybody’s excuse. They show why shared presence cannot replace questions about knowledge and action. Denis need not first win majority support for a restriction on him to deserve attention. Agreement by several listeners equally does not finish factual examination. Serious attention need neither count votes as proof nor require someone to recruit supporters inside a dangerous group in order to deserve appropriate help.

IV. Holding and humiliation do not become proper punishment through confidence

Denis is told that he “must be punished.” The speaker’s certainty does not establish grounds, authority, procedure or an opportunity to challenge the measure. An actual restriction on movement differs from the explanation accompanying it. Assigned work, a lawful service sanction and unofficial violence likewise require different consideration. This article does not classify every case or provide independent-release instructions. It retains the question of who does what and on what grounds, without making a private listener the final decision maker. Stating that an explanation was given does not itself establish that the explanation is valid.

Humiliation may concern someone’s position before a group, beyond a painful word. No methods of such treatment are described here. Public submission does not become voluntary simply because witnesses are present. A group may see one outward scene without knowing about earlier threats. A claimed educational purpose does not establish an absence of harm. Equally, membership of the audience does not establish identical participation by everybody: knowledge, available action and particular contribution need separate consideration. Serious attention to the person does not require treating every bystander as possessing the same information, authority or responsibility for what happened.

Holding by one’s own structure does not assign Denis prisoner-of-war status; disagreement with a colleague does not automatically establish a service offence. One scene cannot determine those positions. A narrower historical question about blocking detachments is considered separately in SYS-208, a local corpus reference rather than a promised published page. A historical order cannot be transferred to every contemporary senior. Present conduct needs its own examination. Avoiding that transfer retains both accuracy and the seriousness of an actual restriction on a person’s freedom, without a historical label supplying legal certainty that has not been established here.

A possible admission of wrongdoing by Denis also has a subject and conditions. “I am guilty” cannot establish the lawfulness of every subsequent act without further consideration. He might acknowledge one mistake, repeat a suggested formula or understand the conversation differently; none is established here. Such a statement permits no unlimited punishment, yet difficult circumstances alone do not prove it false. Proper consideration requires particular words, conditions and competence rather than an immediate verdict from a private listener. No obtaining admissions, changing testimony or arranging test conversations is proposed. Independent fact-finding does not become safe through a sincere wish to restore justice sooner.

V. Present bodily or psychological need does not require a completed accusation

Denis might first need medical attention, rest, an understandable explanation or assistance with one everyday task. These subjects differ. This article prescribes no treatment and supplies no symptom list for excluding danger. Under immediate threat, available urgent help must reflect the actual situation. Someone should not first have to construct a persuasive legal case before a present complaint receives appropriate attention. At the same time, medical need alone does not establish another named person’s guilt. Care and factual examination can each have their own grounds without one being used as a substitute for the other.

Vera may know only part of the story without having to turn conversation into interrogation. Someone may have a question about who will take part in a consultation, the recipient’s role and the relevant conditions. That promises neither universal confidentiality nor access. Necessary information depends on task and competence. This article advises neither withholding what an appropriate professional needs nor showing one’s body or personal records to acquaintances to deserve a hearing. A private audience acquires no investigative authority through intense interest. Practical assistance should remain related to the agreed task rather than an unlimited claim to another person’s history.

The person might speak unevenly, calmly or angrily: possibilities in a fictional scene, not a diagnostic inventory. Emotion does not decide truth. Departing from the expected image equally does not establish an absence of harm. Account, present condition and the need for further factual examination can be distinguished. Support then does not depend on performing a persuasive role. Denis remains someone with other relationships and activities, beyond a case that everybody must immediately explain in full. One ordinary conversation or a moment of ease does not settle the entire history or erase an unresolved need.

VI. Participation concerns a particular act, not an attributed essence

Anton may see participation as a way to keep his place in the group. That circumstance deserves consideration without supplying a general exemption from responsibility for harm. Service dependence, fear and a particular action are different. This article sets no legal coercion test and does not decide Anton guilty in advance. He need not first be declared an entirely bad person before a demand and his own past conduct can be considered seriously. Human dignity and consideration of responsibility can coexist. Neither concern should make actual consequences disappear or turn a person’s whole future into an already completed moral sentence.

Moving from newcomer to informal senior does not create a debt to repeat earlier humiliation. “Now it is your turn” is not an independent source of authority. Anton might recognise that reproducing familiar treatment returns none of what he lost and creates a new consequence for someone else. This is an ethical distinction, not a promise of available safe refusal. No trial disobedience, dangerous confrontation or public admission is proposed to test a threat. Actual danger requires appropriate competence and resources that a text cannot create through advice. Recognising a moral question should not make its safe resolution appear already available.

Ending one’s own act matters without being the same as Denis’s release, lawful termination of service or every consequence disappearing. Anton’s inner disagreement must not be recorded as participation already ended. An actual result has its own limits. One person need not resolve a whole unit’s organisation before a changed role can be noticed. Yet partial change does not close questions of harm, obligations and appropriate consideration. This supplies neither an excuse through membership nor collective judgement through age, rank or nationality. What someone did, knew and could actually do remains more specific than what an observer imagines their group to be.

A promise to ease Anton’s position in exchange for humiliating Denis must not be confused with protection already obtained. In the scene it might remain someone’s untested promise, beyond a demonstrated outcome. A new privilege, if received, also cannot determine someone’s entire freedom of choice or responsibility. The actual conditions of a particular act matter. However, the link between promised advantage and someone else’s suffering deserves attention: seeking an end to one’s dependence might reproduce it for another. This does not make every attempt to obtain relief selfish. Participation, need and the proposed price should be distinguished, without past vulnerability becoming permission to control someone else or a lifelong sentence against Anton.

VII. Independent assistance and a lodged complaint produce different results

The British Service Complaint Process easy-read guide, updated 1 April 2026, provides for an external independent member of the appeal body for specified allegations including bullying. Independent oversight is now described as the Armed Forces Commissioner’s role. This is a particular procedural example, not a universal route for any country or confirmation of access or protection for Denis. The short text was read, not the whole of JSP 831 or actual implementation. A named institutional arrangement should retain that precise scope rather than standing in for the reader’s unknown system. [2]

Even within a named procedure, help formulating a complaint, investigation, decision and actual protection are different results. A helper’s title does not itself establish an absence of conflicting interests. Competence, independence, authority and conditions matter in a particular situation and cannot be inferred from a name alone. This article chooses no recipient for the reader and declares no conversation with command, mediation, outside contact or publicity safe. A general invitation to reconcile may be insufficient where dependence and violence are at issue rather than disagreement between equals. The need for appropriate support must not silently become a claim that such support has been secured.

No obtaining others’ records, restricted copying, hidden, altered or destroyed material, coordinated accounts or trial performance of demands is required. Actual duties to retain and disclose information depend on applicable law and appropriate competence. An authored article cannot replace individual legal explanation. Receipt of a complaint does not yet mean violence has ended; the end of one episode does not establish that every later step is safe. A limit to assistance actually received can be named without dismissing its value or turning it into a promise of all missing protection. An unresolved external question does not erase a bounded, useful result.

VIII. A relative can support without becoming the only protection system

Vera might agree one question or manageable participation with Denis. Closeness does not make her investigator, negotiator with armed people, physician and legal representative at once. Her consent and resources matter too. Help should not become a round-the-clock proof of love through an unsafe role. Yet Vera’s limited ability establishes neither Denis’s lack of worth nor the impossibility of other support. Need, particular assistance and still absent external resources can coexist. No single conclusion about the whole relationship is required to acknowledge the content and limits of what one person can actually provide in the present circumstances.

A relative may struggle with uncertainty and want a full account, immediate complaint or promise that nothing will recur. Wanting an understandable ending creates none of those facts. Denis need not prove love through danger or an unsupported reassuring statement. Equally, his need does not cancel relatives’ everyday lives, other duties or right to decline dangerous roles. Support has content in an agreed measure, beyond a promise to answer for the whole future outcome. A bounded role need not be treated as abandonment, and an expression of care should not be converted into authority over every subsequent decision Denis makes.

If a particular form of treatment ends, that is a real change with limits. It does not automatically establish restored trust, medical resolution or proper examination of the past. Returning to work also establishes no agreement with everything that happened. Later difficulty does not erase an actual end, while gratitude for one result closes no other questions. Someone need not choose between a story where everything is finished and one where no assistance ever mattered. An open future does not make a limited present result imaginary. Different outcomes may deserve different descriptions even when everyone wants the emotional relief of a single final answer.

Everyday connection can matter without continuous monitoring. An agreed manageable conversation need not become a truth test of every pause or mood change. Agreement to contact establishes no device, channel or environment safe; this article selects none and offers no covert communication method. The role’s limit matters: supporting a conversation does not grant control over every other decision. Changed availability needs an understanding of circumstances rather than automatic accusations of ingratitude. Vera can care and retain her own life. Denis can value that connection without promising to disclose everything or making her the only person responsible for the outcome of an external threat.

IX. Justice and service do not give religious sanction to submission

In VI.30 Marcus Aurelius addresses himself as someone with power, recalling justice and help for people. Historical self-instruction is not a psychological test for the harmed person. Neighbouring Stoic judgements about quickly regaining composure or treating the bodily as indifferent are not adopted as instructions here. The ethical question can be directed at the person exercising power: what does their position do to their treatment of someone else? Denis’s imperfect composure does not establish whether another person’s act was proper. The ancient text can open that question without replacing examination, protection or actual medical attention. [3]

Mark 10:35–45 places service within the disciples’ discussion of precedence. The short 10:43 fragment changes the measure of greatness; it gives no commander a right to demand obedience under the name of spiritual instruction. Service does not mean that a harmed person must remain available for violence, forgive, meet the person responsible or surrender protection. A helper’s religious seriousness likewise grants no control over somebody else’s consent. Historical meaning cannot replace legal consideration or promise that good intentions will end a particular threat. Taking a religious source seriously does not require assigning it a protective power it does not establish. [4]

The shared question is that authority and precedence can be considered through treatment of other people, beyond one’s own rank. Stoic work on oneself and the Gospel narrative do not become one complaint procedure; their differences should remain. Readers who share neither tradition can understand attention to particular need in its own terms. Spiritual life may sustain meaning without guaranteeing external protection or creating a duty to undertake danger to prove faith, strength or membership. A meaningful ethical orientation can coexist with uncertainty about access, legal consequences and the resources actually available to someone facing coercion.

X. Ending violence is larger than a convenient character story

Denis’s story need not end in a public statement, reconciliation or complete departure from the structure. The scene establishes none of these, and actual obligations require separate consideration. Someone may value a shared task, acknowledge one colleague’s help and need protection from another. Mixed relationships do not make particular harm indistinguishable. Each assertion should retain its subject: act, authority, need, assistance, consequences and degree of knowledge. One person’s character or an organisation’s supposed essence cannot replace every question. A specific examination may remain unfinished without making present care pointless or supplying permission for further harmful treatment.

In peace and war, dignity should not depend on repeating humiliation, enduring another test or providing everyone with a completed answer. This promises no easy choice. It leaves someone larger than the group’s imposed role and retains specific responsibility without collective blame. Present need deserves appropriate attention before every part of the history has been explained. Ending harmful participation and providing external protection remain different tasks. Taking the first seriously cannot justify pretending that the second has already been solved through a correct inward decision. An actual change and its unresolved consequences can both remain visible without a manufactured heroic ending.

What this means in practice

Under immediate danger, available urgent help for people takes priority over this exercise. It is authored, without established therapeutic, legal or protective effectiveness. It determines no diagnosis, offence, prisoner-of-war status, service obligation or particular body’s authority. No dangerous refusal, contact, publicity, threat testing, independent release or heroism is required. A present condition may need appropriate attention regardless of readiness to name the whole history conclusively or persuade every private audience. The exercise cannot create access or replace a professional’s assessment of the actual situation.

If reflection is possible, distinguish a known act, an explanation received and present need. “They will not let me leave” and “this is lawful punishment” need different grounds; the second does not follow from the first or a senior’s confidence. This is not evidence-collection instruction. No others’ records, restricted copying, concealment, destruction, altered information, coordinated accounts or trial participation are needed. Actual information duties require applicable law and competent explanation. A general text does not decide a particular duty, permit withholding required information or grant authority to change official records.

Name an assistance result and its limit separately. Medical attention, independent explanation, a lodged complaint, one’s own act ended, ended holding and actual protection differ. A recipient’s name establishes neither competence, independence, powers, access nor confidentiality. Safe refusal, pause, reporting and publicity, absolute secrecy and protection are not promised. Relatives retain consent, resources and other duties. A useful limited step need not close every external question to matter. Assistance does not become comprehensive simply because it is sincere, and one unresolved need does not make every other result worthless.

Key quotation

whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister

Mark 10:43, a short King James Version fragment, read in 10:35–45 context. Precedence and service, not a duty to endure violence or surrender protection. RU/TH translations are our own.

Connections between traditions

Comparison	Shared question	Boundary
Marcus Aurelius and informal seniority	What does power do to treatment of another?	A powerful person’s self-instruction does not test a harmed person’s calm.
Mark 10 and a service role	Whom does a claim to precedence serve?	Service does not require availability for violence, unsafe forgiveness or reconciliation.
Legal norm and support	What is actually considered and what changed?	Prohibition, case classification, procedure and protection need different grounds.

Three substantive comparisons rather than an expanded list; no unsupported traditions are added to meet a number.

Primary sources

1. OHCHR human rights training manual, printed page 34. Completed Convention quotations, articles 1(1), 16(1), 2(2–3), read through first-party search extraction. Direct PDF and whole Convention not read; edition date unknown. Narrow normative boundary, no national jurisdiction or individual outcome determined.
2. UK Ministry of Defence, The Service Complaint Process: Easy-read guide, updated 1 April 2026. Main 75–154 and licence 70–73 read; narrow external appeal member and Commissioner oversight. Not full JSP 831, implementation, universal route or guarantee. OGL v3.0 with third-party exception; full terms not separately read.
3. Marcus Aurelius, Meditations VI, George Long. Translation metadata and whole selected VI.30, lines 66–69, read; neighbouring passages displayed, not adopted as instructions. Not whole book or Greek comparison. Short fragment, own RU/TH versions; global rights not determined.
4. Mark 10:35–45, King James Version. All eleven verses 49–66 and Public Domain label read. Short 10:43 fragment checked; own RU/TH translations. Not the whole chapter or a legal or protective mechanism.

Tags

own-structure violence, hazing, informal hierarchy, humiliation, holding, extrajudicial punishment, peacetime, wartime, membership, consent, coercion, authority, particular act, legal classification, conflict, abuse, dignity, medical need, independent assistance, complaint, protection, relatives, resources, responsibility, participation ended, consequences, Marcus Aurelius, Gospel of Mark, justice, service

About the authors

Andrey Zarinsh is the author and founder of United Wisdom. He explores inner transformation, unity across traditions, intercultural dialogue and contemporary spiritual discipline. Instagram: @andrey.zarinsh.

Maria Evilkut is a co-author of United Wisdom. Alongside her research, she seeks to test these ideas in practice and observe how principles of unity and mutual understanding work in real life between people and cultures. Instagram: @ilkutki.