true, but certain cultures and groups do not by and large teach respect for the law, the property of others, etc
like poor people for example. Followers of "thug life" for another example
Lumping in "poor people" as followers of "thug life" is a misnomer and an mistaken assumption. Just because someone is poor, destitute, jobless but NOT out robbing people, stealing from stores, bilking the system, and so on does not a thug make. Remember that there are those from middle and upper classes who lead a double life being a thug. It's just for some reason we don't read about 'em in the paper because they're not generally stereotyped. I'm unemployed now for 7 months straight... yet I haven't robbed any stores or people or stolen cars or selling dope or whatever... am I a thug? Because I'm sure as hell am POOR!
I disagree, there is one single answer: Some people are asses who do not behave the way they ought.
And pray tell just WHO determines how anyone should behave? You? Me? Bob H? Billy Graham? Dali Lama? Who pray tell makes that determination of how one other should live? And then answer by what RIGHT do they have to tell another person how to behave as they ought to? Does anyone tell YOU how to behave? I mean outside your job/employment.
I've said that society has written most of our laws based on what the majority desires to live comfortably, safely and respectfully. Someone acts outside those boundaries is going to pay the consequences of it. That is with ANY society on this planet. It's what THEY deem to be right. We'll gravitate towards the groups that best match our own philosophy of how we should live and co-exist with one another.
You cannot tell a bad person on sight.
Very true that. Ted Bundy got away with a lot. Same with some other infamous white collar criminals.
Let's go with your example then: rape. Who cares why people rape, right? It's a criminal act, so we should just shoot those who commit it. Well, for starters, knowing what general factors lead to rape occurring can help policy-makers and law enforcement in predicting and possibly combating its frequency. Also, a person committing rape because it gives them a feeling of power is a very different indicator from a person committing rape because the victim looked so hot and was just irresistible. Only in the second situation would a victim's choice of clothing possibly have had anything to do with leading to the rape. (And before anyone tries it, no I'm not saying we should blame the victim. It's just an example of what difference motivation can have.)
I know what you're saying just adding on that it's still the perp's choice to select that hottie with the short-short pants and loose tank-top walking down the street and turning into an alleyway for a short-cut home because the perp had already decided to get some sex by any means necessary. The hottie had no intention of drawing attention to herself... except maybe some cute guys she knows on her block who might playfully flirt with her... or simply she was just too lazy to do her laundry and what she was wearing was the only thing she had clean to wear to the store to buy more laundry soap.
Irony of it that Iran and other muslim countries require their women to cover their bodies up completely but the women still end up getting raped, by their husbands or brothers in law when they're home. So how a woman dresses isn't going to be an invitation to have at her.
Or how about drug use? Why people use drugs is a pretty damn good indicator of how the DEA and State agencies can properly combat its use, predict where potential buyers will crop up, and what type of criminal response scenarios are likely to involve suspects who are high.
Yet don't they target specific economic classes more often than others? A lady I know lives in the projects with her teenage daughter. There are more cops in cars I've seen there than any other part of the city where I live. Hmmm, the potential is frightening.
I think the fundamental difference, though, is that your attempt to dismiss the motivations behind criminal acts, or to say that their motives don't matter, is an attempt to put a false barrier between "them" and "us". If we ignore the motivation behind crime and only react to crimes, "they" are just going to continue appearing among "us".
Finding out WHY people do the things that they do is a job for psychologists and sociologists not for LEO's. Though they may study the topics to have a better understanding of the people they're arresting, they've got a lot on the plate to worry about the whys... or that they simply DO see WHY but don't have the time, training to deal with it.
Generally speaking, I agree with this part. I will only point out that self-restraint, like any other aspect of one's personality, is a result of both nature and nurture. Which again, and I'm bolding for TF's sake, DOES NOT MAKE AN EXCUSE FOR IT!
Agreed there are no excuses... a person makes a choice based on a series of thoughts, actions and feelings. Why they chose that particular route stems from those three. Understanding the reason does help. They still gotta pay the consequences based on our laws but hopefully help can be given to them so that (again) hopefully they won't repeat or threepeat.
Ok, so? I've no doubt that there are many who only behave on this forum because they don't want to be hit by the banhammer. My only contention is that there is no point at which we can say "ok, that person isn't human anymore, he's just a monster and we can ignore his motivations". Sorry, but even the most heinous of criminals is still human and had some psychology behind their choices. Understanding that psychology can yield a lot of information, and (again, bolded for Twin Fist), DOES NOT EXCUSE THEIR BEHAVIOR OR NEGATE THEIR CHOICE!
Again agreed. Yet we can prevent them from making the same choice again and again. So locking them away or putting them out of OUR misery for the moment is the viable solution... if therapy, counseling and harsh punishment doesn't change their thinking/feelings which lead them to those unfortunate choices.
Unfortunate... for us.
