Jump to content
nec209

Are people that do crime really responsible? 

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Drakes said:

Still my muddy position consist of Apple, Google, Netflix, Raytheon and about 800 other stocks.

!

Moderator Note

Please stick to the topic

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, MigL said:

You remind me of another member we had a few years back, who continuously  bragged about his stock portfolio.
He crashed and burned very quickly.

Are you really participating/contributing  in the discussion if you post cryptic comments, then refuse to clarify when politely asked ?

What part of my position do you politely want clarified?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2020 at 1:53 PM, Area54 said:

So, you are arguing society is to blame, by providing the alcohol? That seems to run counter to your earlier position. I am confused.

Using the same logic you would appear to agree that responsibility for the use of guns in violent crimes is not down to the gunmen, but to the existence of many responsible gun owners and the gun industry that equips them. That thought would also seem to run counter to your bumper sticker position.

Do guns ever kill people ? or do people kill others with guns, ?  I hardly know anything about fire arms, but there are now safety features so they don't accidentally fire,  if you are an adult parent with children, should guns not be locked or in a secure place out of reach..  

Have adults been charged when a child picks up a gun and kills a friend with it,  (playing) depending on age is it the child's fault if they pickup a gun, to them it may be something to play with.  ?

All this is very complex

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, paulsutton said:

I hardly know anything about fire arms, but there are now safety features so they don't accidentally fire,  if you are an adult parent with children, should guns not be locked or in a secure place out of reach.. 

Well, the issue is that the anti gun control lobby has opposed safety regulations that would require guns stored safely. Accordingly, accidental gun deaths relative to population size in the USA are about 5 times as high as in countries such as Canada.

There is also the weird mindset (mostly in the USA) that you need your gun locked and loaded as quite a few folks think that they need to defend themselves in a moment's notice. This, of course, increase accident risks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is this thread is turning into a sociology thread like is society, group, culture or bad upbringing, bad parenting or problems like being poor is causing crime. And free will here becomes murky problem as some say I was poor and did not do that or I had these problems did not do that and members blame weak character. 

Some support it and others do not or have mixed views on free will.

Not addressing mental health or brain anatomy problem.

I think the problem with public is they don’t believe in bad brain anatomy problem or a chemical imbalance problem. So support free. And thus why members are avoiding it here or some thing.

Or that we don’t have CT scan, MRI scan or blood work to support bad brain anatomy or chemical imbalance problem and like to  argue no problem so you have free will.

And it becomes poorly understood problem with mental health.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe in a brain anatomy problem more of a hivemind deciding who gets what and the result I think is pretty ridiculous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On ‎7‎/‎28‎/‎2020 at 7:33 PM, Drakes said:

What part of my position do you politely want clarified?

I believe Area54 politely asked you three times to clarify your position.
It would have been common curtesy to comply, instead of bragging about your stock portfolio.

Edited by MigL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was banned as a sock puppet of a previously banned member 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, nec209 said:

And free will here becomes murky problem as some say I was poor and did not do that or I had these problems did not do that and members blame weak character. 

Free will has to be a given in any society, other than a philosophical salon. 

In a well balanced society, things like poverty, up-bringing, mental state etc... is adressed in the courts via mitigation, and ignored by the other two branches of justice.

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2020 at 8:44 AM, dimreepr said:

Free will has to be a given in any society, other than a philosophical salon. 

In a well balanced society, things like poverty, up-bringing, mental state etc... is adressed in the courts via mitigation, and ignored by the other two branches of justice.

not sure what you mean by that in bold?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely rights go along side responsibility,  I have the right to go out and walk in to my local town centre,  but the responsibility to act safely, obey the law for example.

In a similar way  have having a drivers license gives people the right to drive, when a person reaches 18 or 21 (in the US) they can buy alcohol they they have the responsibility to drive safely and are considered able to make judgements, if they choose to drink and then drive, and end up killing someone they need to be held accountable.  

Granted the seller also has some responsibility to refuse to sell more to someone who is clearly intoxicated.

---

On a side topic, I get notifications of replies here,   if I click on the link I get the following.

I logged in and then tried to follow the link a 2nd time, and got the same error page.

Any idea what is causing this?

 

 

scienceforumerror.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, nec209 said:

not sure what you mean by that in bold?

A society has no choice but to accept that we all have free will, to a greater or lesser extent. Therefore society has to design a means to assess an individual's culpability, the mechanism we use for this is a court (a body of people presided over by a judge, judges, or magistrate, and acting as a tribunal in civil and criminal cases). It's not pefect but it's the closest we can get to justice. 

While the police and the prison service's should treat everyone in the same way, as if they aren't culpable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2020 at 3:40 PM, dimreepr said:

How does one determine repentance from self interest?

Good question. +1. I suppose modern psychometric techniques are getting us closer to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, joigus said:

I suppose modern psychometric techniques are getting us closer to it.

I doubt the politicians will ever accept such a subtle distinction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2020 at 6:15 PM, Area54 said:

I would simply like to understand the point you are making. At present it is not clear. Please state your position clearly, because at present I have little or no idea what it is, other than, apparently, being generally disagreeable. You state society is not to blame, but also imply it is to blame.

Also note, I have expressed no position whatsoever on the thread topic. My couple of posts have been directed solely at attempting to understand your position. So please don't assign me imaginary motives conjured out of your own psyche.

Not sure what you mean that the court will look into if the bad guy that raped some one was raped has a kid him self? And if so spend less jail time than bad guy that raped some one that was not raped him self?

Or poor person that does shoplift spend less jail time than some on that is not poor and done shoplift?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, nec209 said:

Not sure what you mean that the court will look into if the bad guy that raped some one was raped has a kid him self? And if so spend less jail time than bad guy that raped some one that was not raped him self?

Or poor person that does shoplift spend less jail time than some on that is not poor and done shoplift?

There are such things as mitigating circumstances.   If behaviour is learned then a child who is abused may go on to abuse others as an adult or even as a child,   while clearly this is not acceptable it can be taken in to consideration. 

On a similar note a person who is a victim of say domestic violence may kill in self defence or maybe poison their abuser,   is  this murder (even if planned) or is it a sign they want to get out of a situation and feel killing their abuser is the only choice they have.

Each case should be treated as an individual case.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, nec209 said:

Not sure what you mean that the court will look into if the bad guy that raped some one was raped has a kid him self? And if so spend less jail time than bad guy that raped some one that was not raped him self?

Or poor person that does shoplift spend less jail time than some on that is not poor and done shoplift?

You've gotta drop the bad guy inference, when talking about justice; it's politics that muddies the water's of mitigation, for instance, repentance can be spun to be either/neither depending on the political will of the time... 

Crocodile tears, comes to mind...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2020 at 7:57 AM, nec209 said:

Not sure what you mean that the court will look into if the bad guy that raped some one was raped has a kid him self? And if so spend less jail time than bad guy that raped some one that was not raped him self?

Or poor person that does shoplift spend less jail time than some on that is not poor and done shoplift?

I cannot see any connection between the contents of my post and your response to it. I shall, however, respond directly to your post.

  • I agree with @dimreepr that speaking of "bad guys" is not helpful.
  • I agree with @paulsutton that "Each case should be treated as an individual case", adding that this distinction of treatment should (generally) relate to sentencing, but not to declaration of guilt or innocence.
  • I agree with @Markus Hanke that people are " responsible for their actions. Whether or not they should be answerable for them is another matter."
  • Your examples, while superficially specific, are actually too general to allow a meaningful answer, other than "it depends".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2020 at 10:13 PM, nec209 said:

I know there is not much information out there and there is lot of talk but not any hardcore science. But the theory why some people do crime and not other people is their brain yes the way their brain is wired and well some other people say chemical imbalance problem that these people have well really hard time to control his or her own self.

And there seem to be this debate among people that some people say low IQ and other people say chemical imbalance. But is there well any agreement among doctors and scientist today?

And well people who are poor may well steal or go around asking people for money at the 711 they are not normally violent or have hard time controlling his or her own emotion and pulled out gun, shoot some one or fight some one because you said some thing or looked at the person the wrong way or road rage or some one cheating on the lover.

If it is the way their brain is because of the way their brain is wired or a chemical imbalance are they really responsible or because of low IQ? 

Unless the person did not take his or her meds to me normal are they responsible for such crimes?  

You did not make an attempt to define crime. What is or is not a crime varies by locality. That said there are studies that look at the impact exposure to violence (many forms of violence are criminal throughout the world) has on the brain as it develops. Exposing a child to violence does impact brain development, increases adult health risks, and increase the likelihood the child with be violent.

Witnessing domestic violence as a child limits said child's attachment to parents and is associated with lower IQ. HERE

Another study links violence exposure at a young age to inflammatory issues than lead to increased health risks from cardiovascular disease, type-2 diabetes, and dementia, HERE

And of course exposure to violence at a child increase ones likelihood of being incarcerated as an adult. HERE.

On 7/26/2020 at 4:23 PM, nec209 said:

I guess you need tools to show there is brain damage or some thing wrong with their brain  than other people their brain or a chemical imbalance problem.

The problem is the critics that say this is just theory and there is no science proof. Well why because if there is no brain damage and there is nothing wrong with their brain it is the same as other people their brain the brain is not wired wrong and no chemical imbalance than it comes down to other things that may be the cause of crime.

If it is because of social issues and not psychology than people are going to be less empathy to the criminal.

That if there is chemical imbalance or brain is well different it is beyond the  person control and the person needs to take meds to not do crime. 

But I don’t think psychology gone that far to day say this today or psychology is that advance to day to say this so in the end this is  just theories floating around.

In some country it is a crime to be gay. Throughout much of the world until recently it was a crime to marry someone outside ones race. There are and or have been crimes against premarital intercourse, drawing images of God, etc, etc, etc. I would imagine for each type of crime much debate could be had about whether or not chemical imbalances at a play and whether or not medical is appropriate or could be success in altering the behavior. That is why a specific definition is need for crime.

Does merely labeling something a crime reduce empathy for said behavior? Look at addiction. In the U.S. it is legal to drink Alcohol. As such society is fairly tolerate of people with varying degrees of Alcoholism. Provided one gets treated being an alcoholic doesn't hold one back from opportunities (employment, financing, security clearances, etc) Yet here is the U.S. narcotics are illegal. A history of narcotics addiction will hold one back from opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Does merely labeling something a crime reduce empathy for said behavior?

That question goes to the heart of the matter; it all depends on the political spin, as to the perps repentance.

It's all to easy to paint a gay person/murderer as unapologetic (because he/she didn't cry,well enough) while a good actor not only, gets off, but is paid.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That question goes to the heart of the matter; it all depends on the political spin, as to the perps repentance.

It's all to easy to paint a gay person/murderer as unapologetic (because he/she didn't cry,well enough) while a good actor not only, gets off, but is paid.... 

True. I think the OP made a mistake framing their question around crime. I think what they were trying to ask is more centered around which behaviors are beyond vs within our control. I may be able to control whether or not I initiate the use of alcohol but my genetics will possibly determine addiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2020 at 5:37 PM, Area54 said:

I cannot see any connection between the contents of my post and your response to it. I shall, however, respond directly to your post.

  • I agree with @dimreepr that speaking of "bad guys" is not helpful.
  • I agree with @paulsutton that "Each case should be treated as an individual case", adding that this distinction of treatment should (generally) relate to sentencing, but not to declaration of guilt or innocence.
  • I agree with @Markus Hanke that people are " responsible for their actions. Whether or not they should be answerable for them is another matter."
  • Your examples, while superficially specific, are actually too general to allow a meaningful answer, other than "it depends".

Well the start of the thread was what can cause crime and the topic of free will well came up.

Members talked about factors growing up and poverty. Like if you got rapped than you more likely to rape some one, you being abused as a kid than you more likely to abuse your kids or being poor more likely to steal.


The problem with US politics is conservative vs liberal. Where in the US conservatives will down play this.

The problem with sociology and psychology is there is no tool to measure free will and it is not well understood. So the US conservatives just downplay it has junk science.

As there no tool that can measure factors like if you got raped has kid you more likely to rape some one and how that plays part on free will. Or if you grow up being abused as kid than you more likely to abuse your kids.  There is no tools or tests so US conservatives just down play all this.

And brain injuries, brain problems or chemical imbalance is even more looked down among US conservatives as just junk science. That with out tools like MRI, CT scan or blood work the US conservatives will just keep down playing it as junk science.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nec209 said:

And brain injuries, brain problems or chemical imbalance is even more looked down among US conservatives as just junk science.

!

Moderator Note

This is a science forum. Do you have any evidence that these are important factors in crime? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, nec209 said:

Well the start of the thread was what can cause crime and the topic of free will well came up.

Free will is irrelevant in this context, but the premise of your OP is interesting although you seem to doubt the concept.

4 hours ago, nec209 said:

The problem with sociology and psychology is there is no tool to measure free will and it is not well understood. So the US conservatives just downplay it has junk science.

As there no tool that can measure factors like if you got raped has kid you more likely to rape some one and how that plays part on free will. Or if you grow up being abused as kid than you more likely to abuse your kids.  There is no tools or tests so US conservatives just down play all this.

There have been many studies that point to a correlation, as presented by Ten oz; how is that not a tool?

Ultimately the question posed in the OP is, what is justice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The practical question is, if people that do crime are not responsible for their behavior should we still punish them? Well at the very least we should deter or prevent them from committing crime again, and that can require doing something punitive like imprisoning them. I can't think of a good way to stop a serial killer from murdering people other than keeping them in a secure facility 24/7, regardless of whether or not they are responsible for their behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.