Are Criminals Made Up Of Desperation, Or Maliciousness?

[Seil]

Despite the fact that I don't believe 'maliciousness' to be a word, it's an honest question. I wondered just outside my place, unlocking the front door, why we have to lock the door in the first place. Then I remembered that people would break in otherwise. Then I thought that we shouldn't have to do that, we try as a society to... actually, what's going on socially?

Are criminals made out of desperation, stealing to provide themselves or others with basic needs? Or are they looking to harm another person, or feed an addiction? Either/or, don't we have programs and homes in place to prevent both from happening - to house the homeless and to punish the misguided? We do, don't we? If we have provisions in place to prevent it, why am I still locking the door before I go out?

[Fenris]

It's "malice"

and the answer you're looking for is "both"

[Magus]

Well, my father always said that a lock only keeps an honest person out. But that was before I installed the motion-sensing gatling turret. Now everybody stays the fuck out.

[Kerensky287]

Not all criminals are the same. People are people, and some people are different from others. Sometimes people feel they have no choice but to take what they need from somebody else. Sometimes people are greedy, selfish assholes. Take your pick.

The good news is that the greedy selfish assholes are incredibly rare. If they weren't, society couldn't function. If a person is determined to commit a crime, it's really, REALLY damn hard to stop them from doing it unless you know about it ahead of time, which you probably won't.

So locking the door is a deterrent for people who are wishy-washy about the whole "being douches" thing.

[Magus]

Plus I think you have to do that for insurance purposes, there has to be signs of breaking and entering to get money for stuff that is stolen. Personally I prefer having signs of "breaking and entering and bloodletting from a hundred-bullets-a-minute fire setting" but that is just me.

[Kyanbu The Legend]

It's both. Criminals, irregulars, mavericks (I'm such a megaman nerd XD) have there own indivisual reasons for causing trouble. Be it mental illness, survival instinct, or just for malice.

The true reason we lock our doors can be described as just because people are at times unpredictable when presented with the chance to simply take something that's not there's or harm someone with the low/high chance of being seen/caught in the act.

We do it cause we just feel better doing it, knowing we might not be a victim by taking safety measures such as locking the door and staying in after dark.

[Magus]

Personally I think everybody is just a criminal waiting to happen. Didn't you guys read Lord of the Flies in high school? The only kid who's not a murderer by the end is a thinly-veiled Jesus parallel.

[Kerensky287]

The only kid who's not a murderer by the end is a thinly-veiled Jesus parallel.

And the fat kid.

But he dies, so.

[Magus]

You better re-read it, 'cause he helps kill the Jesus-parallel kid. Not that he doesn't represent civilization for much of the novel but he also represents how intellect is not a complete substitute for a moral/value compass in preventing violence or fear or negating primitive instincts.

[Krylo]

On Topic: As others have said, it depends on the criminal. Some are malicious, some are poor and just trying to get by, some grew up in the life and just don't know anything else, some are trapped in the life and can't get out, some have honest to god mental diseases that compel them to act out, some don't know any better, some are in a desperate situation. There's more motives than there are stars in the sky.

Though most of them are of the desperate/stuck in the life/whatever category, as that education and better social programs do considerably more to stop crime than more cops, but that's socialism and fuck that communist static.

On Locks: We lock the doors because criminals are, like everybody else, lazy. If they're in a neighborhood, and one house has the windows open? Well guess which house is getting robbed. Pro-tip: It's not the one with the security fence.

By the same measure, if they try your door and it opens, they're going to walk on in and take your shit. If they try it and it doesn't open, then they may try another house or just kick it in (which is noisy and increases the chances they'll be caught).

Even alarm companies don't really deter criminals because the alarm is going to get them caught. A determined thief can disable alarms and still get in, or can just smash and grab faster than police response times. However, a sign that says your house is protected by a security system is going to make your house safer because, well, if you're a criminal, who are you going to rob? The people whom you have to go through a whole to do to avoid their security system, or the people whose door you can just kick open and be done with it? (This is, incidentally, why just stealing a security company sticker and putting it in your window is nearly/just as effective as actually buying an alarm system).

On Lord of the Flies: It's a writer trying to make a point about how humanity sucks and we're all just monsters barely restrained by society. Considering he was from the UK, this is not a surprising conclusion for him to come to, however that doesn't make his opinions any more valid than Ayn Rand. Were he correct in his assumptions, then advanced civilization would have been unlikely to spring up in the first place.

[ASlimeDrawsNear]

Despite the fact that I don't believe 'maliciousness' to be a word, it's an honest question. I wondered just outside my place, unlocking the front door, why we have to lock the door in the first place. Then I remembered that people would break in otherwise. Then I thought that we shouldn't have to do that, we try as a society to... actually, what's going on socially?

Are criminals made out of desperation, stealing to provide themselves or others with basic needs? Or are they looking to harm another person, or feed an addiction? Either/or, don't we have programs and homes in place to prevent both from happening - to house the homeless and to punish the misguided? We do, don't we? If we have provisions in place to prevent it, why am I still locking the door before I go out?

Desperate and ignorant. And since there will always be the desperate and ignorant, society as a whole can't go forward. Even if some maniac up and kills the desperate and ignorant, the people that don't die will have children that can be either.

At least it's a countermeasure. Otherwise the human knowledge would advance until everyone committed suicide.

/endgrimdark :)

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Criminals are pretty universally a product of poverty, poor education and lack of jobs fuelled by a sadistic medieval justice system which focuses on punishment rather than rehabilitation, focused more on biblical retribution than on addressing criminality. Nobody is born a criminal they are all created.

That said the term I don't like the term criminal- it labels and categorises people into terrible boxes and only encourages a divide from the rest of society. It implies that their makeup is breaking laws. Pretty much everyone alive has broken a law at some point, we are all criminals.

[Magus]

On Lord of the Flies: It's a writer trying to make a point about how humanity sucks and we're all just monsters barely restrained by society. Considering he was from the UK, this is not a surprising conclusion for him to come to, however that doesn't make his opinions any more valid than Ayn Rand. Were he correct in his assumptions, then advanced civilization would have been unlikely to spring up in the first place.

Well, the war on the island between children parallels a war on the outside between adults (a fictional war is going on between the West and the Soviets, which is the backdrop for the story). Plus it was written 7 years after World War II and the Holocaust ended, a war in which advanced civilizations committed the deepest acts of depravery. So it depends on how you define savagery or civilization, which was entirely his point, I believe. But yeah, it's just an opinion, no matter how astute it seems.

[Token]

Criminals are nothing but a superstitious, cowardly lot.

[Aerozord]

I'd say most crime is just not caring. Remember most crime is petty crime, taking something out of someones car, shop lifting, running a red light.

Then there are ones of desperation or lazyness, but these are often based on high return, mugging, stealing a car stereo, drug dealing. They want or need money fast.

The types of threat we most worry about, someone breaking into your house, stealing your car, taking your identity, are crimes that take time and dedication. Still there is no malice there, if you are putting that kind of time and effort, with the fact these are crimes requiring continual evasion of the law, its probably your job now.

[Krylo]

Well, the war on the island between children parallels a war on the outside between adults (a fictional war is going on between the West and the Soviets, which is the backdrop for the story). Plus it was written 7 years after World War II and the Holocaust ended, a war in which advanced civilizations committed the deepest acts of depravery. So it depends on how you define savagery or civilization, which was entirely his point, I believe. But yeah, it's just an opinion, no matter how astute it seems.

I prefer to just blame it on him being British and be done with it.

[Fifthfiend]

On Lord of the Flies: It's a writer trying to make a point about how humanity sucks and we're all just monsters barely restrained by society. Considering he was from the UK, this is not a surprising conclusion for him to come to, however that doesn't make his opinions any more valid than Ayn Rand. Were he correct in his assumptions, then advanced civilization would have been unlikely to spring up in the first place.

I'm going to go ahead and say his opinions are vastly more valid than Ayn Rand's.

I mean... Ayn Rand

[Krylo]

I think they're actually basically the same as Ayn Rand's. That mankind, in its natural state, are monstrous savages who can do little more than abuse and kill each other to elevate themselves at the cost of everyone around them.

The only real difference seems to be that he finds this a pitiable state of affairs and Ayn Rand sees them as something to be sought toward. So I suppose in that case Golding presents the more valid opinion, in that he doesn't seem to suggest that going to that state is a good idea. On the other hand, humans are social creatures, and working together is, indeed, our natural state. It is the outliers who have the sociopathic tendency to step on and destroy others, and our own advanced civilization that makes such possible by diminishing people to slips of paper and words to those in positions of power.

It is infinitely easier to fire five hundred names than to look one person in the face and tell them that they are no longer employed.

It is simply an unfortunate fact that our current societies across the globe award those with these sociopathic tendencies.

So at the end of the day he's still dead wrong.

[Kyanbu The Legend]

Criminals are pretty universally a product of poverty, poor education and lack of jobs fuelled by a sadistic medieval justice system which focuses on punishment rather than rehabilitation, focused more on biblical retribution than on addressing criminality. Nobody is born a criminal they are all created.

That said the term I don't like the term criminal- it labels and categorises people into terrible boxes and only encourages a divide from the rest of society. It implies that their makeup is breaking laws. Pretty much everyone alive has broken a law at some point, we are all criminals.

Pretty much, yeah.

[Aerozord]

I think the closest non-primate example of humans are dogs. Most just fall into whatever the pack is doing, accepting their place and their role. Only some actually vie for power and try to rise up.

Most humans just go with the majority, yes they complain about this or that, but ultimately they will just sit back and accept society as it is. The leaders, the laws, the system. You break the law either because you view yourself as out of the system, be it the wealthy that feel they are above it or the poor that think they are forsaken by it, the rest just dont care what society says and do what they want to varying degrees.

[Nique]

I'm going to go ahead and say his opinions are vastly more valid than Ayn Rand's.

I mean... Ayn Rand

Yeah, but no one was forced to read and "analyze" Ayn Rand in 6th grade.

On topic - I would say that, from a social perspective, crime happens for economic reasons out of desperation, but on an individual level there is a certain, yeah, malice that probably goes along with it as you have to reach a point where you are, 1, motivated to, and, 2, comfortable with, violating commonly accepted ethics.

[rpgdemon]

Yeah, but no one was forced to read and "analyze" Ayn Rand in 6th grade.

Sixth grade? Seriously? We read that in either 9th or 10th here.

[Nique]

Watched the movie too. And I wasn't into anything even remotely disturbing in the realm of tvs and movies at the time (and even today watching some heavier parts of BSG makes me want to die) so that messed me up something fierce.

[Overcast]

My roommate makes sounds that make me want to vomit in his sleep. I am about to smother him, like the guy in the tell-tale heart.

Make of my crime as you will.

[The Kneumatic Pnight]

You forgot genetics.



http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e10/KneumaticPnight/Pinkerwithit.png

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Genetics= the phrenology of the 21st century

[Aerozord]

You forgot genetics.


if genetics were a major factor in criminal behavior then Australia would be entirely populated with sociopaths

[Magic_Marker]

It isn't? How do they survive the poisonous animals, then?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

By living in cities?

[Marc v4.0]

How do you get the monster wildlife to care about the cities?

[Magus]

I think they're actually basically the same as Ayn Rand's. That mankind, in its natural state, are monstrous savages who can do little more than abuse and kill each other to elevate themselves at the cost of everyone around them.

The only real difference seems to be that he finds this a pitiable state of affairs and Ayn Rand sees them as something to be sought toward. So I suppose in that case Golding presents the more valid opinion, in that he doesn't seem to suggest that going to that state is a good idea. On the other hand, humans are social creatures, and working together is, indeed, our natural state. It is the outliers who have the sociopathic tendency to step on and destroy others, and our own advanced civilization that makes such possible by diminishing people to slips of paper and words to those in positions of power.

It is infinitely easier to fire five hundred names than to look one person in the face and tell them that they are no longer employed.

It is simply an unfortunate fact that our current societies across the globe award those with these sociopathic tendencies.

So at the end of the day he's still dead wrong.

I think that was Golding's point, though? Jack using fear to coerce everyone into following him and using a scapegoat to unite them and vent their frustration and violence on--sounds like pretty much any dictator in history, and especially Hitler who had just been put out of power a few years prior. How is he wrong when examines societies at their most basic/primitive and then compares them to super advanced societies that still kill each other because of the same human frailties? He just seems to be making the comment you just made, but doesn't think it's just fortune or chance that causes it but blames it on human instinct.

Also, what is up with the British and making kids read that in 6th grade, I had this discussion with an exchange student. My seniors are reading it just now for the first time.