| The cause of most crime is economic marginalisation and social exclusion. |
|
|
|
Asked 3 years ago
by Stevemac  Ireland |
|
About
According to Conservative Boston radio talk show host, Michael Graham, I'm what's known as a EuroWeenie.
That's what he calls anyone from Europe who doesn't touch the forelock in deference to the almighty U S of A.
So, I guess I'm a EuroWeenie then, and proud of it.
|
12 Points
|
Sadly there will always be an element in society who think it is easier to take from others than it is to go out and earn yourself.
It probably goes right back to our cave dwelling days, when the local bully would not bother to hunt, but rather steal from another who had hunted.
Generally the only way to deal with these types are top lock them away for the good of society.
A substantial amount of crime is also drug related.
Then there are some who fit into the section you describe, who feel they have no other career options :(
Deterrance does not seem to work - even in the days when we hung people for stealing a loaf of bread - people desperate enough still did it.
It is not a black and white issue (as few issues really are) but a very grey one.
No magic solution, just things we can do in the line of damage limitation.
Very well put... if a little pessimistic.
Well there are simple things that we could do, but it means mobilising mass public opinion, and so simple becomes difficult right away.
For example if no one bought stolen goods, there would be a massive reduction in breakins and burglary, as there would be little worth stealing (just cash and stuff they could use themselves really).
I've never bought stolen goods, at least knowingly, but when I polled that on here, quite a few were happy to do so, and obviously someone is, or there would be no market.
Another example would be to legalise drugs, and sell them from government outlets, again a big chunk of drug related crime would be removed.
I don't think there is the will to really tackle the problem, just build more jails and instigate a few token social programs to be seen to be doing "something".
I wish it were not so, but that is the way it appear to me.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Why stop there? Legalize murder. Issue licenses to kill to the general public. Would put a lot of money in government coffers. It would certainly eliminate the murder statistics. Or just pick out your favorite crime and legalize it.
Try acting you (considerable) age once in a while.
Drugs used to be legal until America decided it was all bad for us. They tried the same thing with booze sometime later, but we were not stupid enough to follow that time as we did with drugs.
If you had just left it alone, there would not we a problem now, just as there was not back then.
(Shame you did not do the same with tobacco ... oh of course you grow the stuff, so it is only about the public good if it does not affect your farmers)
Pretty much, except for the sociopaths.
People who are included and invested protect their society, people who are excluded clearly see that it is not their society and so don't care.
I doubt that most crime is economic.
It is also probable that people - in rich societies - are poor because they are criminals rather than the other way around.
One almost completely ignored factor in people becoming criminals is genetic. Baed genes don't make people carry out crimes but they push them in that direction.
Your statement on crime and genetics is rather controversial, to say the least...
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyYou gave him the benefit of the doubt, as did I, but some may not...
Then they are missing out on a rather interesting world...;-)
Genetic predisposition is THE common argument made in in the west for why any 'out' group is over-represented in their (in)justice system, and used specifically in this country to justify the biased treatment of African Americans by police and courts. That's asking for a lot of doubt.
I'm being polite, maybe even a little sarcastic...
The test of my statement should not be whether it is bad or good, but whether it is right or wrong.
Low intelligence increases the probability of criminal behaviour. (This does NOT indicate that ALL people with low IQs will turn to crime). Inteligence is, to a very large degree, determined by genetic make up.
Similarly with several other personality traits.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user Reply'Cause' is always difficult to pin down.
Here is another controversial statement: Education has only a small effect on intellectual developement.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyNo - a bit more than that. I'm saying that education, while useful for imparting practical skills like eg writing, does little or nothing to develop intelligence. Not even in those mighly motivated and gifted.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplySince low intelligence is pretty much spread along the economic spectrum, are you saying that the rich have as many criminals as the poor?
Thanks. Controversial is a word of praise.
Knowledge is not advanced by following the herd.
If criminality is in our genes, then we are all screwed! I don't believe they have yet to find the right DNA code for criminality but maybe they should stop looking for the genes that lead to a predisposition to disease and start looking for the criminal gene! I guess I am "missing out on a rather interesting world" but I can't help it...
Probably not, missing out, that is. I notice that people who like the predisposition and genetic arguments are frequently those who are opposed to more equitable distributions of wealth.
I think I have the sarcastic gene! Equitable distribution of wealth...you better be careful dauguy. Someone might label you a socialist or better yet a communist.
Better than being labeled a fascist warmonger. ;)
The existence of a Majority Report presupposes the existence of a Minority Report. ;o)
Rapid advances in genetics indicate that there is not 'a' gene for this or that. But rather that genes interact in complex ways. IE that a particular characteristic is probably a product of several genes. Does anyone still doubt that a genetic predisposition towards a disease exists? For example breast cancer?
Why is it, therefore, so hard to understand that personality traits are also, in part, genetically determined?
Its not. Criminality, however, is a social construct, not a personality trait.
For instance, in this country, the majority of incarcerated offenders have done something that is not even considered a crime in many cultures, at least, it wasn't until the U.S. Government started messing around.
I disagree with your first point and cannot even pretend to believe the second.
Public killing of dissidents for entertainment is illegal here, and most Western countries, yet Rome thought it was nifty. A cultural take on crime.
Prostitution is illegal here, but not in Holland. A cultural take on crime.
Many countries do not have drinking ages, therefore you cannot be arrested for drinking under age. Others have the death penalty for the possession of alcohol. A cultural take on crime.
Other countries can chain young girls to sewing machines and yet others practice overt slavery. It was pretty big in this country, too, until fairly recently--and is breaking out again, although currently illegal. A cultural take on crime.
Abortion, while legal, is the subject of terrorist activities which have declined as people have been terrified out of providing them. A cultural determined crime, of which the terrorism is apparently not much of one.
What qualifies as crime is culture dependent, independent of your agreement. As a simple thought experiment shows: No two countries on the planet have exactly the same criminal codes.
The criminalization of opium in China was directly related to economic warfare being practiced by the British, who provided for the growth and distribution of the drug. It took quite some time for it to become illegal to trade in addiction in Great Britain. A cultural thing--they did not really consider the Chinese fully human.
The 'War on Drugs' is an artifact of moneyed interests in the United States, first brought into being to replace the Soviets as the boogeyman, and now continuing as a multi-billion dollar business, not the least of which is prison construction and services. Western enforcement tying money to criminalization of substances has made it a shooting war in South America. The home front of the war on drugs accounts for more than half the incarcerated offenders in the United States. Again, independent of your agreement.
The American West was pretty much opened up by criminals and malcontents. The ones that survived and got rich had descendants that are among our most powerful families today. I guess once they got money, the gene from criminality just---disappeared?
Eugenics is just a way to put the false of imprimatur of science on prejudice, whether class prejudice or other. Genetic predisposition to crime has been, after all, one of the main pillars of the movement since its inception.
Are you of Norwegian descent? Got any Vikings in the family tree? Think that their raids and slaughters would qualify as crimes? Think you have any of their genes?
Brilliant...
I would say that we don't know nearly enough about the mind of mankind to even broach the subject of genes and criminal behavior in the same sentence. This topic and it's statements sound an awful lot like what the aristocracy believed and said back in the 18th and 19th centuries. "We're better because of better breeding". Just in reverse. It was just as asinine then as it is now.
This comment was deleted.
[-1 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyPretty much, except for the sociopaths.
People who are included and invested protect their society, people who are excluded clearly see that it is not their society and so don't care.
One VERY GOOD point. It is only one, but it is a really strong one.