Are people that do crime really responsible?

[nec209]

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?  

[Markus Hanke]

I think everyone is always responsible for their actions. Whether or not they should be answerable for them is another matter - it essentially boils down to the question of how much choice someone actually had in a given situation. Someone’s social environment, upbringing, mental disposition etc may place strong constraints on their behavioural patterns, so they may not have been as free to choose their actions as we’d think. But then again, this is very difficult to measure objectively, because on the flip side you have plenty of people from extremely difficult backgrounds who are not prone to criminal behaviour at all. So I don’t know what the answer is, but it can’t be a simple one.

[dimreepr]

6 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

I think everyone is always responsible for their actions. Whether or not they should be answerable for them is another matter - it essentially boils down to the question of how much choice someone actually had in a given situation. Someone’s social environment, upbringing, mental disposition etc may place strong constraints on their behavioural patterns, so they may not have been as free to choose their actions as we’d think. But then again, this is very difficult to measure objectively, because on the flip side you have plenty of people from extremely difficult backgrounds who are not prone to criminal behaviour at all. So I don’t know what the answer is, but it can’t be a simple one.

You've framed the problem very well. "I think everyone is always responsible for their actions." the sane ones at least; for want of a better word, some people are weaker than other's. The only legitimate answer is already in place, with varying degree's of success.

A police force that treat's everyone as innocent, when doing their job; presenting the suspect to the court's as sympathetically as possible.

A judiciary that leaves their bias at the door, and actively seeks fairness in the face of political pressure.

A prison service, that treats the inmate as a victim, even when they're being difficult; and actively seeks to rehabilitate.

The Nordic country's come closest; unfortunately most of the rest of the world's woefully short of the ideal.

Edited July 26, 2020 by dimreepr

[Michael McMahon]

Enforcing precedence might lead to more consistent, fair and proportionate sentencing. We must avoid harsh sentences without being too unduly lenient. We cannot be vengeful.
 

I think provocation and spur of the moment defences undermine precedence as it’s no longer about the objective facts of the case. It instead emphasises subjective whims and enraged emotions which are unverifiable. We don’t have thoughtcrimes!

 

Repentance must obviously be taken into account and is certainly a mitigating factor. We must clearly be sympathetic to perpetrators who were suffering from mental illness at the time of the crime. Although I don’t reckon it’s fully exculpatory as they could have tried to alert people before they acted on any violent thoughts.
 

“A precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.”

- Wikipedia 

[dimreepr]

14 minutes ago, Michael McMahon said:

Repentance must obviously be taken into account and is certainly a mitigating factor.

How does one determine repentance from self interest?

Edited July 26, 2020 by dimreepr

[Michael McMahon]

I suppose it’s the empathetic tone of an apology; that they’re able to say what actions they were responsible for, why what they did was wrong and that they’re sorry.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Michael McMahon said:

I suppose it’s the empathetic tone of an apology; that they’re able to say what actions they were responsible for, why what they did was wrong and that they’re sorry.

If we take politics from the equation, isn't that the point of rehabilitation?

[Michael McMahon]

Yes. I very much agree with the concept of rehabilitation. We have to be forgiving. 
 

I just think if the crime is particularly extreme or if the perpetrator is still remorseless, then confinement in jail may be necessary to ensure and validate that they have changed their ways and have become peaceful.

 

As a last resort, time in jail can instill in some criminals the immorality of their crime by a process of backward reasoning: they have lost their freedom so they may eventually conclude that they have done something wrong. As soon as they reach that conclusion we can let them re-enter society.

 

It goes without saying that criminals should always be treated humanely by society irrespective of the severity of the crime they committed.  They should all be free to avail of psychological help and counselling so that they can recover. I agree that society should foster a merciful attitude in the court system while also acknowledging the pain of the victims and the need for public safety.

 

I was just making the point that any discrepancy and large variation in jail time for similar crimes owing to provocation would be unfair.

The provocation defence has been used not only by criminals but also in unethical cases of excessive self defence and vigilantism which is equally as bad. Taken to its logical conclusion, spur of the moment excuses would condone duelling and blood feuds.

 

[paulsutton]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

If we take politics from the equation, isn't that the point of rehabilitation?

1 hour ago, Michael McMahon said:

I suppose it’s the empathetic tone of an apology; that they’re able to say what actions they were responsible for, why what they did was wrong and that they’re sorry.

But if a person knows what they want you to hear, do some people adjust their tone accordingly,  some people are good at that , gaining trust and just pretend to show that remorse or empathy for the victim.

Not sure if anyone follows the UK news

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-berkshire-53445791/pc-andrew-harper-trial-video-shows-defendants-laughing

How do you deal with people such as this,   not quite sure how they didn't know they were dragging PC harper behind the car like this,  and ended up with Manslaughter not murder but that is a matter for the courts and legal system,

Paul

 

 

Is there more to this than admitting your offence and accepting responsibility. ,  If someone has  say alcohol or drug dependency they have to accept they have a problem and want help.  This can't apparently be forced on to people. 

So once in jail, how long should it be for?,  or should that period of incarceration also include assessment, retraining etc so people leave able to change their lives around.   Rather than what we seem to have which is a revolving door for some people. .

What purpose is the incarceration for,  so maybe to protect the public, and the public want justice to be seen, however what goes on inside jail should also produce results. or to protect that person from others,  so addicts from dealers.  or themselves perhaps.

Some people just take advantage of others, or see an opportunity to make money, so commit theft or fraud over a short or long period,  longer periods they know what they are doing perhaps it is better planned

Shawshank redemption is a good film, in that respect but it also illustrates how being inside also makes you so used to jail you struggle on the out side,  which in a away also happens to military vets the go from high structure to having to pay rent for example, 

Very complex issues.   Not an expert in this field just expressing some ideas

 

Paul

[nec209]

14 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

I think everyone is always responsible for their actions. Whether or not they should be answerable for them is another matter - it essentially boils down to the question of how much choice someone actually had in a given situation. Someone’s social environment, upbringing, mental disposition etc may place strong constraints on their behavioural patterns, so they may not have been as free to choose their actions as we’d think. But then again, this is very difficult to measure objectively, because on the flip side you have plenty of people from extremely difficult backgrounds who are not prone to criminal behaviour at all. So I don’t know what the answer is, but it can’t be a simple one.

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.

Edited July 26, 2020 by nec209

[Drakes]

20 hours ago, 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?  

Do all poor people steal?

Answer NO

Case closed

If you can't do the time, do not do the crime

[MigL]

4 hours ago, Drakes said:

Do all poor people steal?

There is a certain simplistic truth to that statement.
( I did not downvote )

We all make choices based on our own priorities, and should be responsible for those choices.
The OP seems to believe a 'chemical imbalance' absolves the perpetrator of a crime from responsibility.
As an example, drunkenness is a temporary 'chemical imbalance' which affects judgement; are we going to absolve drunk drivers who kill others of responsibility ? I don't think anyone here would support that.
Even if you propose that the driver had previously made the choice to drink and drive, the counterargument is that alcoholism is a recognised disease, so he/she is still not responsible for their actions.
So where do you draw the line of accountability ?

Society has no choice but to consider most to have free will and to be responsible for their actions.
So, if you choose to steal ( and possibly hurt others in the process ), instead of making do with what you have, asking for government assistance, or even begging, because you are hungry ( or greedy ), you have made your choice, and are held accountable by society.

[zapatos]

33 minutes ago, MigL said:

We all make choices based on our own priorities, and should be responsible for those choices.

The problem with Drakes' simplistic statement is that it seems to dismiss the complexity of this world and boil everything down to a cute little bumper sticker slogan. The law already recognizes that complexity. For example, two different people may kill another person by striking them in a pub. But if one did so because the fellow was of a different race, and the other did so because that person described how he was going to abuse the guy's children, their punishment will be different. And rightly so.

If I steal because I am going through a psychotic episode due to a prescribed drug reaction, I obviously should not be held to the same standard as someone who steals because they are showing off for their friends.

Where to draw the line is subjective, but at least our justice system is trying to be, well, just.

[Markus Hanke]

5 hours ago, Drakes said:

Do all poor people steal?

Are all affluent people honest?

[Drakes]

On 7/26/2020 at 10:50 PM, MigL said:

There is a certain simplistic truth to that statement.
( I did not downvote )

We all make choices based on our own priorities, and should be responsible for those choices.
The OP seems to believe a 'chemical imbalance' absolves the perpetrator of a crime from responsibility.
As an example, drunkenness is a temporary 'chemical imbalance' which affects judgement; are we going to absolve drunk drivers who kill others of responsibility ? I don't think anyone here would support that.
Even if you propose that the driver had previously made the choice to drink and drive, the counterargument is that alcoholism is a recognised disease, so he/she is still not responsible for their actions.
So where do you draw the line of accountability ?

Society has no choice but to consider most to have free will and to be responsible for their actions.
So, if you choose to steal ( and possibly hurt others in the process ), instead of making do with what you have, asking for government assistance, or even begging, because you are hungry ( or greedy ), you have made your choice, and are held accountable by society.

While drunkenness is a temporary condition alcoholism arises from a more permanent set of conditions that cause the disease.  This is determined not by the alcoholic but by the vast majority of alcohol users who have no problems with consumption 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Drakes said:

While drunkenness is a temporary condition alcoholism arises from a more permanent set of conditions that cause the disease.  This is determined not by the alcoholic but by the vast majority of alcohol users who have no problems with consumption 

That's like saying, hay-fever is due to the number of people wantonly breathing in pollen.

[Area54]

1 hour ago, Drakes said:

While drunkenness is a temporary condition alcoholism arises from a more permanent set of conditions that cause the disease.  This is determined not by the alcoholic but by the vast majority of alcohol users who have no problems with consumption 

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.

[Drakes]

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's like saying, hay-fever is due to the number of people wantonly breathing in pollen.

Nope as alcohol is consumed by choice.

Very poor analogy

8 hours ago, 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.

Nope society is not to blame because 99 percent of alcohol users do not become addicted.  See all you are focusing on are the problems and not the larger picture, if there was no alcohol idiots would still sniff glue

[Area54]

29 minutes ago, Drakes said:

Nope society is not to blame because 99 percent of alcohol users do not become addicted.  See all you are focusing on are the problems and not the larger picture, if there was no alcohol idiots would still sniff glue

No, I am focusing on your assertion that "alcoholism arises from a more permanent set of conditions that cause the disease.  This is determined not by the alcoholic but by the vast majority of alcohol users who have no problems with consumption." That reads, to me, that if there were not a large number of people (ergo, society) creating the demand for alcohol, coupled with many others meeting that demand, then alcoholism would not exist. Thus, as you have written it, you are blaming society. Your post has failed to address that ambiguity. Try again.

 

 

[Drakes]

8 minutes ago, Area54 said:

No, I am focusing on your assertion that "alcoholism arises from a more permanent set of conditions that cause the disease.  This is determined not by the alcoholic but by the vast majority of alcohol users who have no problems with consumption." That reads, to me, that if there were not a large number of people (ergo, society) creating the demand for alcohol, coupled with many others meeting that demand, then alcoholism would not exist. Thus, as you have written it, you are blaming society. Your post has failed to address that ambiguity. Try again.

 

 

Duh, do you want cars banned because idiots get drunk and crash?  If there were no cars there would be no drunk drivers

Are you an alcoholic or just a fed doing a stress test on yourself

[Area54]

Just now, Drakes said:

Duh, do you want cars banned because idiots get drunk and crash?  If there were no cars there would be no drunk drivers

Are you an alcoholic or just a fed doing a stress test on yourself

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.

[Drakes]

14 minutes ago, 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.

I did state my position clearly, your total inability to comprehend is not my problem.  

Might be due to the alcohol

I love shrinking shrinks

 

Edited July 28, 2020 by Drakes

[MigL]

6 minutes ago, Drakes said:

I did state my position clearly,

It's a good thing most of us ignore your 'generally disagreeable' position, because it's as clear as mud.

[Drakes]

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

It's a good thing most of us ignore your 'generally disagreeable' position, because it's as clear as mud.

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

 

 

Edited July 28, 2020 by Drakes

[MigL]

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 ?