Young Sociopaths

[Kacey]

There are, I think, several issues going on here.

First, raising children is the responsibility of the community. The people most immediately responsible, of course, are the parents; unfortunately, many parents allow others to raise their children: schools, media, gangs, and so on. Therefore, responding to children who behave inappropriately is also the responsibility of society. The response to the situation under discussion has yet to be determined.

Second, society exists to protect its members. Our society, along with many others, has failed in this responsibility. As the density of human beings increases, the difficulty in providing this protection also increases. Our society has developed safeguards intended to ensure that the guilty, and only the guilty, are punished for their crimes; unfortunately, given the difficulties inherent in the system, the guilty may go free, and the innocent may be punished. Those who are more familiar with the system are better able to manipulate it for their own ends. In addition, attempts to streamline and/or standardize the system have led to sentencing guidelines that decrease or remove societal retribution for some offenses, while increasing societal retribution for other offenses well out of proportion (California's 'three strikes' law has created some interesting problems).

Third, many people "walk the walk, but don't talk the talk" - that is, they live by the theory that others should do as they say, but not as they do. This can be small things - parents requiring children to wear seat belts but not wearing them themselves, for example - the problem lies in the example being set, and the precedent contained within it. Once a family member, peer, media example, or any other facet of society convinces another that small omissions or commissions of wrong-doing are acceptable, larger ones may become less repugnant than previously, beginning a slide down a slippery slope, as the potential rewards begin to overshadow the potential punishments. How many parents have told their children they must obey the law, as they run red lights and speed down the freeway? What impact does that type of double message have on children?

There is not enough information in the article to determine why these children committed these atrocities. I know some people will say that why is not important in the fact of the actions themselves, but I say that it is - to determine if there was premeditation, substance abuse, how/why the target was chosen, medical conditions, a whole host of possible causes. There are several reasons I think that the reasons are important - one, if society cannot determine why such events occur, then prevention becomes much more difficult; two, while I believe that nothing can excuse these boys' actions, their reasons should be used to help determine the appropriate form of societal retribution (e.g. psychiatric treatment, juvenile detention, adult jail, length of time, etc.); and three, it is necessary to understand how we, as a society, can reach a point where members of the society find it acceptable to make choose to commit such negative actions against other members of society.

We should be outraged by this - and more, we should be working, as a society, to provide remediation for offenders and prevention for everyone else. Jail is not remediation - it is punishment. Too many offenders come out of jails possessing no skills with which to do anything but reoffend. While the ultimate goal should be prevention, remediation is necessary as well - and until those two facets are in place, the problem will remain, and, unfortunately, is likely to continue to grow.

 

[heretic888]

There are, I think, several issues going on here.

First, raising children is the responsibility of the community. The people most immediately responsible, of course, are the parents; unfortunately, many parents allow others to raise their children: schools, media, gangs, and so on. Therefore, responding to children who behave inappropriately is also the responsibility of society. The response to the situation under discussion has yet to be determined.

Second, society exists to protect its members. Our society, along with many others, has failed in this responsibility. As the density of human beings increases, the difficulty in providing this protection also increases. Our society has developed safeguards intended to ensure that the guilty, and only the guilty, are punished for their crimes; unfortunately, given the difficulties inherent in the system, the guilty may go free, and the innocent may be punished. Those who are more familiar with the system are better able to manipulate it for their own ends. In addition, attempts to streamline and/or standardize the system have led to sentencing guidelines that decrease or remove societal retribution for some offenses, while increasing societal retribution for other offenses well out of proportion (California's 'three strikes' law has created some interesting problems).

Third, many people "walk the walk, but don't talk the talk" - that is, they live by the theory that others should do as they say, but not as they do. This can be small things - parents requiring children to wear seat belts but not wearing them themselves, for example - the problem lies in the example being set, and the precedent contained within it. Once a family member, peer, media example, or any other facet of society convinces another that small omissions or commissions of wrong-doing are acceptable, larger ones may become less repugnant than previously, beginning a slide down a slippery slope, as the potential rewards begin to overshadow the potential punishments. How many parents have told their children they must obey the law, as they run red lights and speed down the freeway? What impact does that type of double message have on children?

There is not enough information in the article to determine why these children committed these atrocities. I know some people will say that why is not important in the fact of the actions themselves, but I say that it is - to determine if there was premeditation, substance abuse, how/why the target was chosen, medical conditions, a whole host of possible causes. There are several reasons I think that the reasons are important - one, if society cannot determine why such events occur, then prevention becomes much more difficult; two, while I believe that nothing can excuse these boys' actions, their reasons should be used to help determine the appropriate form of societal retribution (e.g. psychiatric treatment, juvenile detention, adult jail, length of time, etc.); and three, it is necessary to understand how we, as a society, can reach a point where members of the society find it acceptable to make choose to commit such negative actions against other members of society.

We should be outraged by this - and more, we should be working, as a society, to provide remediation for offenders and prevention for everyone else. Jail is not remediation - it is punishment. Too many offenders come out of jails possessing no skills with which to do anything but reoffend. While the ultimate goal should be prevention, remediation is necessary as well - and until those two facets are in place, the problem will remain, and, unfortunately, is likely to continue to grow.

Well said, Kacey. :asian: :asian: :asian:

 

[sgtmac_46]

How can that be true when a civerlization is formed through killing in the first place.ie

Rome
Greece
Great britain
USA
Ottoman

All the above empires used or still use killing as a means to continue their civerlization.same for stealing.

You entirely miss the point. Civilizations reserve for themselves the power to kill, that's how they exist. If individuals were to decide that they, as individuals, had the power to kill at will, there would never exist societies.

Moreover, civilizations reserve the power to kill, because some individuals still try and assert their own right to kill at will. If civilizations didn't authorize the killing of individuals who violate certain laws, then there would be no way of controlling individual criminals.

All the civilizations you named, used killing to assert and maintain control over individuals. Perhaps you should study the subject further, and you'll understand the difference between an individual that reserves the decision to kill completely to himself (a criminal) and someone who is authorized, under certain socially acceptable conditions to kill (such as a soldier).

It is that social authority that allows society to remain cohesive. The breakdown of society if the state didn't reserve those actions solely for it's self would destroy society, and revert us to primative brigandage.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Whether it's ring violence or street violence. It all boils down to the same point. People find violence entertaining. There is something inherent in all of us that we take joy out of causing others pain. Slapstick humour is yet another example of this. When they were beating that homeless guy to death. They were probably experiencing the same buzz a professional fighter gets in the ring. It is merely a case of us labelling it as something different, so we can make it acceptable to our own individual moral codes.

Wrong. I get enjoyment out of watching two combatants fight each other. I, however, am disgusted when watching an unprovoked attack against an innocent person.

Moreover, unlike watching two trained and talented fighters I admire, compete in a ring, when I watch brigands attacking a defenseless person, for their own sick sociopathic pleasure, it makes me physically angry. I want to to break them in to little pieces. When I watch a gang of youths attack a homeless man, I want to be the man they inadvertently attacked, so that I can, in turn, administer a beating to them for their efforts.

That's my emotional response, which is ENTIRELY different than watching two voluntary participants in fight. As I can guarantee i'm not unique in that, especially among martial artists, I think that indicates that there is a clear distinction inherent in the minds of people as to 'what is pleasureable' and what is not in the form of violence.

We can argue that both fighters have agreed to it, but would this not make them both sociopaths, for revelling in the partaking of violence? We could argue that the homeless man didn't get a choice? However noone here seemed to care he was homeless until he was dead. then there are cries of "What a horrible crime" and "Tragedy".

No, that would presume you entirely misunderstand the definition of 'sociopath'. Some fighters might be classified as sociopaths, but the vast majority merely enjoy the competition. Most fighters respect their opponents, and most would not intentionally harm them any more than necessary to win the fight. Moreover, they aren't cowards. I think the craven cowardice of it all is part of what revolts us.

If these men wanted a 'fight' they could have went to any bar in the city. There are hard men who would ablige them in a moments notice. Hell, i'd even watch. But they didn't want a 'fight', they wanted to hurt someone, to make them feel pain, so they could feel pleasure.

The fundamental point, I think, that Odin was trying to make is really quite simple. Without understanding something fully how can we make a judgement on it? We can call these kids sociopaths and lock them up and throw away the key. This would stop them doing it again, but it doesn't stop it ever happening again. Why do things like this happen? Why don't we all think of a way to find out rather than resort to losing our tempers with one another?

Understand? Oh, I think most of us understand perfectly what was in the minds of these sociopaths. 'Judgement'? Hah. If someone came to murder you and your family, are you saying you'd have to 'understand' their motive before defending yourself? I hardly think so. Their actions would be enough for you to 'judge them'.

What, exactly, do you want to find out? What makes two little cowards get sick pleasure from causing pain to another human being? It's really very simple. They are defective human beings. They lack some basic ability to form empathy. They decided it was their right to extract from another human being, one basically defenseless, what they wanted....which is POWER. They wanted the power of pain. They wanted to make him hurt. Now, I hope this helps clear things up.

As for the civilization question. My definition of a civilization would be a society that did not require police. If we were truly civilized we wouldn't need people to enforce "law" and "order". Civilization is a word we use to make us feel safer than we actually are.

But the very thing you said you 'didn't understand' is why we aren't civilized. That the world has people like these men in it is the very reason we have police. However, police and prisons have ensured that these type of people are rarer and rarer in our midst. We become more civilized every day that we have less and less of these kind of men.

 

[sgtmac_46]

We should be outraged by this - and more, we should be working, as a society, to provide remediation for offenders and prevention for everyone else. Jail is not remediation - it is punishment. Too many offenders come out of jails possessing no skills with which to do anything but reoffend. While the ultimate goal should be prevention, remediation is necessary as well - and until those two facets are in place, the problem will remain, and, unfortunately, is likely to continue to grow.

Rehabilitation rarely works. Punishment, likewise, doesn't work. The only crime control model that has proven itself to actually reduce crime, is the incarceration model. Removing criminals from society works. I know, that violates everything we want to believe.

We want to believe there is a solution that will suddenly make people stop being criminals, we want to believe there's a pill, or a set of words quoted in 'therapy' or some other sort of 'solution', but the reality is that many criminals will reoffend no matter how many GED programs, substance abuse programs, psycho-therapy programs, work-release programs, and assistance programs we create. Crime drops when they are in jail, and raises when they are released.

We can help some types of criminals more than others, but some will continue to commit crimes no matter what. What we need to focus on, rather than understanding how to 'fix' criminals, is to predict better which ones CAN be rehabilitated. Those that can't should be incarcerated for life.

I've been working with criminals for a long time. I've seen them start as juveniles and work their way to adulthood, in and out of prison. There is no hope for many of them. Once they adopt criminal thinking as their thought process, they are criminals for life.

There will be someone offended by what I just typed. They will tell me that I just want to 'throw people in jail and throw away the key', they will claim that i'm wrong for not desiring to understand the criminal. They will proclaim that there must be, SIMPLY MUST be a way of treating criminal behavior like a disease. One thing they won't do, however, is give one workable answer. They will, therefore, spend a lot of effort....simply reinforcing my point.

 

[MJS]

Whether it's ring violence or street violence. It all boils down to the same point. People find violence entertaining. There is something inherent in all of us that we take joy out of causing others pain. Slapstick humour is yet another example of this. When they were beating that homeless guy to death. They were probably experiencing the same buzz a professional fighter gets in the ring. It is merely a case of us labelling it as something different, so we can make it acceptable to our own individual moral codes.

There is still a very strong difference between what we're seeing in a sport event held in a ring and someone getting beaten on the street. The ring fight will stop before serious or fatal injuries occur, whereas the street..well, who is going to stop that?

The fundamental point, I think, that Odin was trying to make is really quite simple. Without understanding something fully how can we make a judgement on it? We can call these kids sociopaths and lock them up and throw away the key. This would stop them doing it again, but it doesn't stop it ever happening again. Why do things like this happen? Why don't we all think of a way to find out rather than resort to losing our tempers with one another?

I'm listening. What are some of your suggestions?

As for the civilization question. My definition of a civilization would be a society that did not require police. If we were truly civilized we wouldn't need people to enforce "law" and "order". Civilization is a word we use to make us feel safer than we actually are.

Unfortunately, the only place where we would see a perfect society, no crime, etc. is on fantasy island.

Mike

 

[Muay Thai Knee]

We can help some types of criminals more than others, but some will continue to commit crimes no matter what. What we need to focus on, rather than understanding how to 'fix' criminals, is to predict better which ones CAN be rehabilitated. Those that can't should be incarcerated for life.

I've been working with criminals for a long time. I've seen them start as juveniles and work their way to adulthood, in and out of prison. There is no hope for many of them. Once they adopt criminal thinking as their thought process, they are criminals for life.

There are many different types of criminals. People commit crimes for different reasons. yet we only really have one way of dealing with all of them. I agree that a very large proportion of people become indoctrinated into their ways and reoffend. With the exception of a very few complete psycho's I do feel that society creates a lot of these problems. I think the key is in not allowing these "sociopaths" to be created in the first place.

Unfortunately, the only place where we would see a perfect society, no crime, etc. is on fantasy island.

Just because something doesn't exist. Doesn't mean we should not strive to attain it.

 

[modarnis]

Rehabilitation rarely works. Punishment, likewise, doesn't work. The only crime control model that has proven itself to actually reduce crime, is the incarceration model. Removing criminals from society works. I know, that violates everything we want to believe.

We want to believe there is a solution that will suddenly make people stop being criminals, we want to believe there's a pill, or a set of words quoted in 'therapy' or some other sort of 'solution', but the reality is that many criminals will reoffend no matter how many GED programs, substance abuse programs, psycho-therapy programs, work-release programs, and assistance programs we create. Crime drops when they are in jail, and raises when they are released.

We can help some types of criminals more than others, but some will continue to commit crimes no matter what. What we need to focus on, rather than understanding how to 'fix' criminals, is to predict better which ones CAN be rehabilitated. Those that can't should be incarcerated for life.

I've been working with criminals for a long time. I've seen them start as juveniles and work their way to adulthood, in and out of prison. There is no hope for many of them. Once they adopt criminal thinking as their thought process, they are criminals for life.

There will be someone offended by what I just typed. They will tell me that I just want to 'throw people in jail and throw away the key', they will claim that i'm wrong for not desiring to understand the criminal. They will proclaim that there must be, SIMPLY MUST be a way of treating criminal behavior like a disease. One thing they won't do, however, is give one workable answer. They will, therefore, spend a lot of effort....simply reinforcing my point.

Well put. Unfortunately for many the the harsh reality of these truths conflict with the noble concepts they prefer to adopt

 

[MJS]

Just because something doesn't exist. Doesn't mean we should not strive to attain it.

I'm listening. How do you propose we go about this? IMO, one of the problems is that certain people have no goals, no desire to make anything of themselves, so instead of attempting to turn their life around, they find it easier to rob and steal. That being said, there will alwys be a need to have people maintain law and order, but again, I'm willing to listen to any suggestions you may have.

Mike

 

[Muay Thai Knee]

I'm listening. How do you propose we go about this? IMO, one of the problems is that certain people have no goals, no desire to make anything of themselves, so instead of attempting to turn their life around, they find it easier to rob and steal. That being said, there will alwys be a need to have people maintain law and order, but again, I'm willing to listen to any suggestions you may have.

Mike

I don't think people not having goals is the real reason why people become criminals. In fact I think for the larger part it is the exact opposite.

Everyone is different. Yet we always try to use a hollistic approach to dealing with every thing.

 

[MJS]

I don't think people not having goals is the real reason why people become criminals. In fact I think for the larger part it is the exact opposite.

No?? Well, lets see. Many times people commit crimes to support a habit such as drugs. Much easier to hold up a bank, store, etc. than get a job and make something of yourself. Another possibility is wanting to fit in with a certain group of people, such as a gang.

By the way, I'm still waiting to hear your suggestions.

Mike

 

[Muay Thai Knee]

Okay have been busy at work making something out of myself. LOL

Wrong. I get enjoyment out of watching two combatants fight each other. I, however, am disgusted when watching an unprovoked attack against an innocent person.

Wrong? Why because I disagree with you? Why do ring fighters get a thrill when they land a punch/kick? It is the same feeling. Just a matter of scale. You choose to call it something else other than that which it clearly is. Simply because you don't want to beleive you are capable of "Evil".

Moreover, unlike watching two trained and talented fighters I admire, compete in a ring, when I watch brigands attacking a defenseless person, for their own sick sociopathic pleasure, it makes me physically angry. I want to to break them in to little pieces. When I watch a gang of youths attack a homeless man, I want to be the man they inadvertently attacked, so that I can, in turn, administer a beating to them for their efforts.

The crux of what you just posted there is so oxymoronic. You'd enjoy beating them up right? It would be fun? It would be Just? Whereas if you really cared about the homeless guy you would not have allowed him to be homeless in the first place. If you ever run for public office your slogan could read Helping people - NO, Revenge - YES.

That's my emotional response, which is ENTIRELY different than watching two voluntary participants in fight. As I can guarantee i'm not unique in that, especially among martial artists, I think that indicates that there is a clear distinction inherent in the minds of people as to 'what is pleasureable' and what is not in the form of violence.

What is pleasureable in terms of violence? Please elaborate...

What, exactly, do you want to find out? What makes two little cowards get sick pleasure from causing pain to another human being? It's really very simple. They are defective human beings. They lack some basic ability to form empathy. They decided it was their right to extract from another human being, one basically defenseless, what they wanted....which is POWER. They wanted the power of pain. They wanted to make him hurt. Now, I hope this helps clear things up.

...and yet you said you wanted to do the same thing to them as it disgusted you. Could one not argue that you wished power over them in retalliation.

No?? Well, lets see. Many times people commit crimes to support a habit such as drugs. Much easier to hold up a bank, store, etc. than get a job and make something of yourself. Another possibility is wanting to fit in with a certain group of people, such as a gang.

Agreed many times that is the case. Although it is not always the reason. My point was that we have the exact same system of dealing with everyone despite the reasons for crime differing.

By the way, I'm still waiting to hear your suggestions.

I get the feeling you are more interested in me posting something that you can disect and critique. All the while bringing nothing to the table yourself. It is not an easy question to answer as my definitions of things will not meet yours. Imagine we could start from scratch and define our own model of a society. Of course this idealistic. But without ideals we are forced into the monotony of stagnation.

First we would need to define what are crimes. Three I would add...

1) It is a crime to let people go hungry or become homeless.
Let's face facts here. Poverty is the largest cause of all crime.

2) It is a crime to charge money for education.
Education should be provided to everyone free of charge until the day that they die. I mean why would we deny people the opportunity to better themselves? It would also get rid of a lot of ignorance.

 

[Kreth]

I think the difference comes down to this: In the case of a boxing match or UFC fight, etc; the "thrill" comes from athletic competition. Wannabe thugs beating up defenseless homeless men is just sadism.

 

[Odin]

I think the difference comes down to this: In the case of a boxing match or UFC fight, etc; the "thrill" comes from athletic competition. Wannabe thugs beating up defenseless homeless men is just sadism.

I think muay thai knee was trying to say that the emothion that you would get from striking someone in a ufc ring would be the same as those boys experienced when they struck the homeless man,in which case there is very little difference.

we adpot situations so that they fit our own moral code is the term I think he used.

 

[MJS]

I get the feeling you are more interested in me posting something that you can disect and critique. All the while bringing nothing to the table yourself. It is not an easy question to answer as my definitions of things will not meet yours. Imagine we could start from scratch and define our own model of a society. Of course this idealistic. But without ideals we are forced into the monotony of stagnation.

Apparently you're missing my point. You comment that you are looking for ways to have a crime free world and I'm asking for your suggestion. It has nothing to do with disecting what you say, but if you're going to say that there has to be other ways, then I would hope you'd list them!

First we would need to define what are crimes. Three I would add...

1) It is a crime to let people go hungry or become homeless.
Let's face facts here. Poverty is the largest cause of all crime.

There are shelters that provide meals. Poverty is not a crime on the level as armed robbery or assault.

2) It is a crime to charge money for education.
Education should be provided to everyone free of charge until the day that they die. I mean why would we deny people the opportunity to better themselves? It would also get rid of a lot of ignorance.

Public education vs. private schools is a matter of choice

I'm still waiting for your ways to make the world a safer place.

Mike

 

[Touch Of Death]

I think the difference comes down to this: In the case of a boxing match or UFC fight, etc; the "thrill" comes from athletic competition. Wannabe thugs beating up defenseless homeless men is just sadism.

Actualy the traditional term is proving. Just as military comanders had their men massacre jewish populations as a proving before fighting the Islamic forces at the time of the crusades. Young thugs practice violence on the defenseless to condition themselves for battle against a real foe. Its helps to be a sadist but that is not the underlying motivation.
Sean

 

[Bigshadow]

''why constantly shoot oncoming missiles when you can just take out the launcher??''

Because the incoming missiles are an immediate threat that must be dealt with before you can deal with the launcher.

 

[Martial Tucker]

Actualy the traditional term is proving. Just as military comanders had their men massacre jewish populations as a proving before fighting the Islamic forces at the time of the crusades. Young thugs practice violence on the defenseless to condition themselves for battle against a real foe. Its helps to be a sadist but that is not the underlying motivation.
Sean

All these kids were "proving" was that they are total cowards with no appreciation of the value of anything, especially human life. I'll bet heavily that in no way were these kids "training" for any real fight or anything else that involves risk by beating the homeless men. That is patently absurd.
They beat these men for kicks, and picked homeless men because they figured no one would miss, or care enough about homeless people to spend much energy investigating the crime. They didn't count on being caught on videotape.

 

[Touch Of Death]

All these kids were "proving" was that they are total cowards with no appreciation of the value of anything, especially human life. I'll bet heavily that in no way were these kids "training" for any real fight or anything else that involves risk by beating the homeless men. That is patently absurd.
They beat these men for kicks, and picked homeless men because they figured no one would miss, or care enough about homeless people to spend much energy investigating the crime. They didn't count on being caught on videotape.

Young males not having anything to prove. That is an interesting way to look at it. I'm not sure its realistic though.
Sean

 

[Kacey]

Rehabilitation rarely works. Punishment, likewise, doesn't work. The only crime control model that has proven itself to actually reduce crime, is the incarceration model. Removing criminals from society works. I know, that violates everything we want to believe.

I don't disagree entirely; however, I think it depends on the reason that the crime was committed. There is a difference, for instance, between someone who steals for the joy of committing a crime, or the joy of "having" things, and the person who steals to feed hungry children. The former two may well be beyond rehabilitation; the latter would most likely not have to resort to crime if other options for feeding those children become available.

Also, please note that my primary push is for prevention. In one of my graduate classes last semester, the professor pointed out that several states base their projections of jail space on the reported rates of behavioral problems among the state's second grade students. Rather than using that money to build jails for those second graders to grow into, that money should be used to provide as many of the students as possible with the skills necessary to avoid becoming criminals in the first place - which, ultimately, should reduce the need for jail space.

We want to believe there is a solution that will suddenly make people stop being criminals, we want to believe there's a pill, or a set of words quoted in 'therapy' or some other sort of 'solution', but the reality is that many criminals will reoffend no matter how many GED programs, substance abuse programs, psycho-therapy programs, work-release programs, and assistance programs we create. Crime drops when they are in jail, and raises when they are released.

I have no such belief. I teach special education in a middle school that is in a low-income, high-crime neighborhood; I have students whose parents have committed nearly every crime on the books; for that matter, I have (or used to have) students who have committed felonies - that's 11-14 year old children, showing off knives and guns at school, stealing cars (not to joy ride, but to fence), committing assaults... how old do they have to be before people like you give up on them, incarcerate them, and then release them knowing nothing but what they learned in jail?

We can help some types of criminals more than others, but some will continue to commit crimes no matter what. What we need to focus on, rather than understanding how to 'fix' criminals, is to predict better which ones CAN be rehabilitated. Those that can't should be incarcerated for life.

I think that this depends on the type of crime, and the amount of damage. As a taxpayer, I resent the amount of my taxes that go to support a justice system than releases criminals who are incapable of any means of support other than Welfare or returning to crime, that does little help released criminals integrate back into society, but freely allows them to return to the situation which led to the criminal activity in the first place.

I've been working with criminals for a long time. I've seen them start as juveniles and work their way to adulthood, in and out of prison. There is no hope for many of them. Once they adopt criminal thinking as their thought process, they are criminals for life.

This is true - there is no hope for some of them. However, I do know people who have "adopted criminal thinking as their thought process" and yet learned to live within the law. How do you separate out those who can learn from those who can't?

There will be someone offended by what I just typed. They will tell me that I just want to 'throw people in jail and throw away the key', they will claim that i'm wrong for not desiring to understand the criminal. They will proclaim that there must be, SIMPLY MUST be a way of treating criminal behavior like a disease. One thing they won't do, however, is give one workable answer. They will, therefore, spend a lot of effort....simply reinforcing my point.

I'm not offended - I'm saddened by what this says about our society in general. My only reason for desiring understanding for criminals is to find ways to help them not be criminals any more, and, if that's not possible, to find ways to prevent others from following the same path.