NationStates Jolt Archive

Human Society, cooperation, needs rules. These rules whether developed by the state or Judges are Law. They are there for Justice, to allocate due reward and punishment. Very few would dispute the need for law and order. But why are laws broken? It is fashionable to say the lawlessness is caused by poverty, after all most crimes are committed by the poorest sections of society. If only there were better housing, better healthcare etc. we would put an end to crime. I would say that this idea is flawed.

If you are in relative poverty you have "less to lose" and will naturally be more likley to commit crime, this I will grant. However those, particularly on the left, who believe that spending money will end crime, are wrong. Take for example victorian England and compare it to modern England. Even ignoring drugs crime rates in victorian England were tiny and poverty was far greater then anything today. Crime is not caused by poverty, it is caused by a lack of self-restraint.

Committing crime puts you at an advantage, it is tempting, but people don't break the law, perhaps consideration of others perhaps fear of punishments. Either way they restrain themselves. The Criminal has failed to restrain themselves and has harmed others to hekp themselves. It is their fault no one elses. We are not talking about beggers starving for food stealing bread but normal crimes such as shoplifting or mugging.

If we are to assume that every person is only effected by external factors, such as poverty we remove free will. If poverty causes crime then what of all the poor who are law-abiding, are we to assume that they are simply criminals yet to be caught?

I agree. With better housing and etc. the only thing that changes is the type of crime. At the higher end of the income spectrum it's called "white-collar crime." It's still crime, just more motivated by greed than crime by those with less money.

I agree. With better housing and etc. the only thing that changes is the type of crime. At the higher end of the income spectrum it's called "white-collar crime." It's still crime, just more motivated by greed than crime by those with less money.
I partially agree. What you say about the type of crime is true: if one thing can be said about poverty, it's that it raises the chances of violent crimes are committed.

That being said, I prefer white collar crime to violent crimes. Why? Simply because money can be recuperated when the culprits are found guilty. Physical injuries or death are often permanent. Better be stolen, and get my money back after justice has been rendered, than get mauled or murdered.

Take for example victorian England and compare it to modern England. Even ignoring drugs crime rates in victorian England were tiny and poverty was far greater then anything today. Are you kidding me? Do you have statistics for this?

I agree. With better housing and etc. the only thing that changes is the type of crime. At the higher end of the income spectrum it's called "white-collar crime." It's still crime, just more motivated by greed than crime by those with less money.
yeah, but the repurcussions and punishments aren't usually as severe.. I doubt many people die due to "white-collar crime" in comparison.

I think the main cause of crime is the law.

I think the main cause of crime is the law.
Good point. If nothing were illegal, there'd be no crime.

yeah, but the repurcussions and punishments aren't usually as severe.. I doubt many people die due to "white-collar crime" in comparison.

I think the main cause of crime is the law.

Of course, without law there would be no crime ;)

This thread is flawed. Crime is caused by a number of reasons. Different crimes have different causes. Most people with a good job that keeps a roof over their heads, clothes on their backs and good food on the table dont' risk doing long sentences for selling cocaine. Rapists and murderers usually aren't in it for the money.

interestingly, "lack of self restraint" is one of the most common characteristics of being under 25 years old, the most likely ages at which to start on a life of crime.

add "being young" to the extra pressures of being poor... bad neighborhoods full of gangs, bad role models who make good money off of crime, parents who are too busy surviving to be able to spend time supervising their teen children, sucky schools, rampant drug abuse etc etc etc and you have a reason why poverty is linked to crime

not that ALL poor kids turn to crime or that ALL criminals come from poor families. free will means that sometimes kids from good families with good parents who lavish time on their kids still end up committing crimes. go figure.

Take for example victorian England and compare it to modern England. Even ignoring drugs crime rates in victorian England were tiny and poverty was far greater then anything today. Are you kidding me? Do you have statistics for this? Yeah, I'd need some stats on this too. After all, we're talking about a time when crimes against the poor were rarely recorded - if you robbed, raped, assaulted, or killed someone who wasn't wealthy (and remember, there wasn't much a middle class in those days), what were the chances the crime would even be reported? Hell, in those days, even being poor was a crime - a lot of people were forced to hide from the system and work in the black or grey market and live in slums, or you be hustled off to virtual slavery in a poorhouse.

Human Society, cooperation, needs rules. These rules whether developed by the state or Judges are Law. They are there for Justice, to allocate due reward and punishment. Very few would dispute the need for law and order. But why are laws broken? It is fashionable to say the lawlessness is caused by poverty, after all most crimes are committed by the poorest sections of society. If only there were better housing, better healthcare etc. we would put an end to crime. I would say that this idea is flawed.

If you are in relative poverty you have "less to lose" and will naturally be more likley to commit crime, this I will grant. However those, particularly on the left, who believe that spending money will end crime, are wrong. Take for example victorian England and compare it to modern England. Even ignoring drugs crime rates in victorian England were tiny and poverty was far greater then anything today. Crime is not caused by poverty, it is caused by a lack of self-restraint.

Committing crime puts you at an advantage, it is tempting, but people don't break the law, perhaps consideration of others perhaps fear of punishments. Either way they restrain themselves. The Criminal has failed to restrain themselves and has harmed others to hekp themselves. It is their fault no one elses. We are not talking about beggers starving for food stealing bread but normal crimes such as shoplifting or mugging.

What? Are you saying that there is no way to combat crime then? I can't quite follow your reasoning...

And if you are more likely to commit crime if you live in poverty, why then would not "spending money" (here I assume you mean to reduce poverty) also reduce crime?

I fear you oversimplify things too much, at least when you talk about all types of crimes in your arguement - it is a more complex problem.

This thread is flawed. Crime is caused by a number of reasons. Different crimes have different causes. Most people with a good job that keeps a roof over their heads, clothes on their backs and good food on the table dont' risk doing long sentences for selling cocaine. Rapists and murderers usually aren't in it for the money.
It's a pretty weak strawman too.. the thread I mean.. only fools believe there to be one reason only to ccommit a crime..

Are you kidding me? Do you have statistics for this?

I admit these are techically Edwardian crime rates but the principle still applies.

For England and Wales
1921 Recorded crime-103000 pop. 37886689
1961 " " -807000 pop. 46166000
2001 " " -5200000 pop. 53137000

From the ablolition of liberty- Peter Hichens Published by Atlantic books

I agree with half of Alan's thesis - crime is caused by a lack of _some_ kinds of 'self restraint' - it's also called, in different contexts, delayed gratification, self-efficacy, and most relevantly, self-regulation.

These constructs, the constructs that 'cause' crime (or make an individual more prone to criminal behaviours), don't just pop into existence - they're formed, they're developed. It's found that they develop in early childhood, partly on class lines, but more specifically on the stability of the attachment between child and parent (amongst other facters, but I'm trying (really!) to keep this clear and simple).

Now, the things that can influence this attachment, and therefore the propensity to commit crime, include low socio-economic status, single parenthood (in that it _can_ lower the amount of quality time spent with your child if you're working and can't afford good care facilities), adolescent parenthood (see above), parental depression etc etc. These risk factors tend to 'cluster' more in poorer families than in wealthier ones.

So, poverty can indirectly have a severe affect on the crime rate. Ensuring parents have enough basic resources _would_ help alleviate this, but only to a degree - what you really need are a certain minimum level of resources (to allow time/energy for good parenting) and good parenting skills - now, you _can_ ensure a minimum standard of living for your citizens, but how do you ensure (enforce?) good parenting?

With this in mind, is it any wonder some governments go for the 'povertee coses crIm!' line? They are _partially_ right, but solving the second part of the problem is a lot harder, and _enfoced_ parenting classes would (rightly) bomb with the more conservative parts of the electorate even worse than providing resources to poor people does. I don't think there's an easy, practical solution to crime that any government can enforce.

I fear you oversimplify things too much, at least when you talk about all types of crimes in your arguement - it is a more complex problem.

I'm saying that reducing poverty DOES NOT reduce crime, other methods might but against popular opinion money spent on social services will not.

I admit these are techically Edwardian crime rates but the principle still applies.

For England and Wales
1921 Recorded crime-103000 pop. 37886689
1961 " " -807000 pop. 46166000
2001 " " -5200000 pop. 53137000

From the ablolition of liberty- Peter Hichens Published by Atlantic books 1921 is hardly Victorian or Edwardian.

Shipping criminals and poor people off to Australia does prevent criminal recidivism (in Britain!), which would help lower crime rates. But I don't think the Australians want Britain to do that anymore (or anyone else start, for that matter).

Did you have another transport destination in mind? Mars? Alpha Centauri? :rolleyes:

Saying poverty causes crime is misguided yes but so is saying it is because of a lack of self-restraint. Not only is it simplistic it is just plain wrong. Violent crime in poor areas is due to many factors which cannot be narrowed down to the simply saying they have less to lose so they go with some sort of natural human need to break rules and hurt others. Sure there are people who do things just so they can try to get away with them. It can also happen because of mental illness. I think you would be most likely to come up with a theory like this If you haven't grown up in the slums. Many grow up with their parents telling them that they are nothign and will always be nothing, or are beaten or sexually abused. Many are told that the Govt. is keeping them poor and they will never have a chance in life. Growing up in poor neighborhoods, riddled with gangs, getting poor education from teachers that get paid very little and don't give a shit anymore, getting beaten up if you are a book worm or don't run with the right crown... the list goes on and on and many of these things can lead to someone feeling angry, desperate, willign to do anything to get just a little bit ahead. These people end up having kids and it creates a cycle of neglect, abuse, discontent that keeps getting passed on from generation to generation. SOme can get out of it and others cannot. Seeing past all the bullshit isn't as easy for the person trapped in their reality as it is for the peson outside of it.

I think what is needed most is equal education for all, the best that can be given. Not just for kids but for parents as well. Counseling, healthcare and nutritional help. Extracurricular activities that can help develope a person in ways that the parents lack.

Sorry if all that didn't make much sense, I get angry about shit like this. I was able to get out of my situation but I grew up in the midst of all that and know the reality of it.

I'm saying that reducing poverty DOES NOT reduce crime, other methods might but against popular opinion money spent on social services will not.
But it does reduce poverty.

I had in mind greater punishment. People don't sell crack in order to survive, they do it to help their own postion. If they live above their means e.g. a crack habit it is their fault. Some people have more fortunate up bringings then others but an adult, is still an adult, they are responsible for their own actions, they are not the victims. Punishment is justified.

But it does reduce poverty.

Thats lovely but irrelevent

I had in mind greater punishment. People don't sell crack in order to survive, they do it to help their own postion. If they live above their means e.g. a crack habit it is their fault. Some people have more fortunate up bringings then others but an adult, is still an adult, they are responsible for their own actions, they are not the victims. Punishment is justified.
Of course it is, but that doesn't help you reduce the _prerequisites_ that result in an individuals being more presdisposed to criminal actions in the first place - see my post above, #15. At best, with 'heavy punishments', you might conceivably shift 'crime' into taking a form other other than (to use your e.g.) crack dealing - you don't eliminate the propensity to commit crime in the first place at all.

(and remember, there wasn't much a middle class in those days)

during the industrial revolution? course there was!


add "being young" to the extra pressures of being poor... bad neighborhoods full of gangs, bad role models who make good money off of crime, parents who are too busy surviving to be able to spend time supervising their teen children, sucky schools, rampant drug abuse etc etc etc and you have a reason why poverty is linked to crime

hear, hear! and anyone who has worked with kids from that type of neighbourhood would agree.

If you are in relative poverty you have "less to lose" and will naturally be more likley to commit crime, this I will grant. However those, particularly on the left, who believe that spending money will end crime, are wrong. Take for example victorian England and compare it to modern England. Even ignoring drugs crime rates in victorian England were tiny and poverty was far greater then anything today. Crime is not caused by poverty, it is caused by a lack of self-restraint.
There was not less crime in Victorian England. Crime recording and reporting is just better nowadays. In 19th century America, it is reported that all crimes except for murder were committed at much higher rates than they are today. (source: Made in America by Bill Bryson, 1994)

Human Society, cooperation, needs rules. These rules whether developed by the state or Judges are Law. They are there for Justice, to allocate due reward and punishment. Very few would dispute the need for law and order. But why are laws broken? It is fashionable to say the lawlessness is caused by poverty, after all most crimes are committed by the poorest sections of society. If only there were better housing, better healthcare etc. we would put an end to crime. I would say that this idea is flawed.

If you are in relative poverty you have "less to lose" and will naturally be more likley to commit crime, this I will grant. However those, particularly on the left, who believe that spending money will end crime, are wrong. Take for example victorian England and compare it to modern England. Even ignoring drugs crime rates in victorian England were tiny and poverty was far greater then anything today. Crime is not caused by poverty, it is caused by a lack of self-restraint.

Committing crime puts you at an advantage, it is tempting, but people don't break the law, perhaps consideration of others perhaps fear of punishments. Either way they restrain themselves. The Criminal has failed to restrain themselves and has harmed others to hekp themselves. It is their fault no one elses. We are not talking about beggers starving for food stealing bread but normal crimes such as shoplifting or mugging.
I don't think many people claim that poverty is the direct cause of crime, but rather a factor that seems to increase the likelihood of criminal activity. Lack of legal ways to make enough money to sustain yourself can influence people to turn to illegal methods. But there are many, many other factors. Growing up in an abusive home, with little moral support (in terms of morals, not feeling good about yourself)...peer pressure, thrill seeking, the desire to get rich 'easy'...envy, greed...all of these things can influence a person's decision to become a criminal...or not. Crime doesn't have to be caused by poverty for the issue of poverty and criminality to be an important one. Understanding the links, and finding ways to improve the situation is a human rights issue as much as it is a way to 'reduce crime'. For me, anyway.

during the industrial revolution? course there was!
Not really. Generally, there were the poor, the working class, the merchants, and the nobles. The working class, the guildsmen, and the merchants were the seeds of the middle class, but they were not in and of themselves middle class.

I'm saying that reducing poverty DOES NOT reduce crime, other methods might but against popular opinion money spent on social services will not.

I fail to understand you, I fear. You say that if you are in relative poverty you will be more likely to commit a crime. Yet reducing poverty does not affect crime. These to sentences are, to me, in conflict with each other, as I would think that crime rates would decline if people were less likely to commit crimes?

Am I just misunderstanding your statement?

interestingly, "lack of self restraint" is one of the most common characteristics of being under 25 years old, the most likely ages at which to start on a life of crime.

add "being young" to the extra pressures of being poor... bad neighborhoods full of gangs, bad role models who make good money off of crime, parents who are too busy surviving to be able to spend time supervising their teen children, sucky schools, rampant drug abuse etc etc etc and you have a reason why poverty is linked to crime

not that ALL poor kids turn to crime or that ALL criminals come from poor families. free will means that sometimes kids from good families with good parents who lavish time on their kids still end up committing crimes. go figure.

Indeed. Environment plays into many types of crime quite a bit. Funny how, when we actually make an effort to rehabilitate the poor kid who had turned to boosting cars and help him get a job when he gets out of jail, he is much less likely to end up back in jail.

Poverty doesn't *cause* crime, and I have never heard anyone suggest that it does. What it does is make crime seem like more of an option. When you have no job, no way to make money, and someone offers you a large amount (to you) of money to steal a car, it can look like a decent deal. But if you have another way out of your situation, chances are that you won't go that way - and won't go back to it if you get out of it.


I admit these are techically Edwardian crime rates but the principle still applies.

For England and Wales
1921 Recorded crime-103000 pop. 37886689
1961 " " -807000 pop. 46166000
2001 " " -5200000 pop. 53137000

Useless. These are *recorded* crimes, and many more people are likely to report (and get records of) a crime these days. If a poor woman got raped/mugged in 1921, the chances of it even getting logged in some police officer's notes, much less actually being officially recorded, were pretty much nil. These days, it's still going to get less attention, but it will be a part of the records.

I have more respect for a mugger than any of these Enron-type criminals. A mugger is face to face and is doing it to fill a personal need - these corporate thieves bilk thousands of people and have runined many lives - for what? To put food on the table? I don't think so. A crime of need is more forgivable than a crime for power.
So is poverty a factor in crime? Yes. I grew up in Newark and was lucky enough to go to private school. Those who went to the public schools recieved some of the worst schooling in the country. It is hard to land a good job when you are reading on a 5th grade level. Easy money is everywhere in the ghetto - selling drugs, stealing cars, etc... I can see how it could happen.
An anecdote: I took the ASVAB (test to get into the military) and I scored a 90 while the highest score for the other 4 men I took it with was a 17. They were all schooled in the Newark, NJ public school system. I didn't know them but they were everyday people like myself - I felt horrible because I was just taking the test to get a day off from school and these guys were trying to make something of their life. I'd say that the system failed those four guys miserably. I know that if I scored a 17 and so did my friends - who all recieved a "high school diploma" - I might just say fuck it and do what I have to do for myself and my family. It is a joke.

Of course, without law there would be no crime ;)

without the prohibition on an arbitrary range of psychoactive substances there would be very much less crime, particularly burgalry, car theft, petty violence, mugging, etc. the police would have correspondingly large resources freed up to tackle the crime that remained.

Like every other human behavior, crime is caused by a rational risk/reward decision that the person makes. If the perceived risk outweighs the perceived reward, then the person doesn't commit the crime. If the perceived reward outweighs the perceived risk, then the person does commit the crime. Poverty greatly lowers the perceived risk, and therefore greatly skews the decision. This "self-restraint" that you speak of, is only a mildly arrogant way of describing how individuals measure the risk.

As Ted Debiase would say, "Everybody's got a price."

without the prohibition on an arbitrary range of psychoactive substances there would be very much less crime, particularly burgalry, car theft, petty violence, mugging, etc. the police would have correspondingly large resources freed up to tackle the crime that remained.

Opinions are divided on that issue...

Like every other human behavior, crime is caused by a rational risk/reward decision that the person makes...
As Ted Debiase would say, "Everybody's got a price."

Not strictly true, surely - our cognitive and behavioural patterns are shaped by experience and environment as well as purely 'rational' thought. You go on to talk about perceptions in the rest of your post, well I@m talking about a similar thing; the effect that environment + experience has on thinking and behaviour. Self-regulation is an important factor (not the _whole_ story though, I agree) that goes into determining whether or not an individual will engage in criminal behaviour.

Opinions are divided on that issue...

you mean some people are wrong :)

If you are in relative poverty you have "less to lose" and will naturally be more likley to commit crime, this I will grant. However those, particularly on the left, who believe that spending money will end crime, are wrong. Take for example victorian England and compare it to modern England. Even ignoring drugs crime rates in victorian England were tiny and poverty was far greater then anything today. Crime is not caused by poverty, it is caused by a lack of self-restraint.

Are you nuts?

England literally founded two countries because overpopulation and crime were tearing it to bits. It's fashionable in the US to say that Australia was founded by criminals and America by those seeking religious freedom. But in reality, a lot of the American colonies were penal colonies too.

When there aren't enough resources to go around you get violence. That's why society needs laws. That's why society needs society. If there's enough of everything for everyone then you don't have extensive cooperation. You have hunter-gatherers. In hunter-gatherers you don't need a lot of help, so when fights break out people just go their seperate ways. That's why hunter-gatherer bands are about 15 to 30 people.

In a larger, more complex society, peope have nowhere to go, so we need better ways to sort out our problems. Cops, courts, soldiers, churches. But all of those, are based on relationships, most of which are non-existant in modern societies. Traditional societies have complex gift-giving practices to keep people loyal who would otherwise be strangers. Modern societies only have vestiges of these traditions that aren't even considered to be particularly advised, let alone compulsory. e.g. My landlord's wife just sent my wife a Mary Kay gift basket for Christmas.

Modern societies create people with no way to meet their needs, and no relationships to make them reluctant to resort to violent ways to meet those needs. Crime is a social syndrome, not a defect in a handful of damaged individuals.

you mean some people are wrong :)

Yes of course, but I'm learning how to be diplomatic ;)

Elgesh']Not strictly true, surely - our cognitive and behavioural patterns are shaped by experience and environment as well as purely 'rational' thought. You go on to talk about perceptions in the rest of your post, well I@m talking about a similar thing; the effect that environment + experience has on thinking and behaviour. Self-regulation is an important factor (not the _whole_ story though, I agree) that goes into determining whether or not an individual will engage in criminal behaviour.

I agree with you, behavioral tendencies and attitudes are ingrained through time and experience, and this has a huge effect on the values assigned to the results of actions. However, I still believe that self-restraint is only a way of describing how a person measures the risk/reward, and while it may skew the decision making process, it is overcome by the actual factors that go into the decision making process.

Not really. Generally, there were the poor, the working class, the merchants, and the nobles. The working class, the guildsmen, and the merchants were the seeds of the middle class, but they were not in and of themselves middle class.

i think that's precisely the system that the industrial revolution overturned. a growing middle (i.e. professional) class was one of the prerequisites of the industrial revolution. and the victorian era didn't begin until the later industrial period, by which time i reckon the middle and bourgeois classes were well-entrenched. 's why all dickens ever wrote about was class struggle ^_^

I agree with you, behavioral tendencies and attitudes are ingrained through time and experience, and this has a huge effect on the values assigned to the results of actions. However, I still believe that self-restraint is only a way of describing how a person measures the risk/reward, and while it may skew the decision making process, it is overcome by the actual factors that go into the decision making process.

Well, it's a point of view... Not sure I can agree with it, seems too pat an answer...

Maybe we're both overlooking other, more important effects of socialisation though, such as rule-adherence? What about _moral_ development as a factor in determining if I commit _that particular_ criminal act? There's a long, well-supported theory that: morality develops in a society in the same way as ability to engage withh abstract thought does; and that its development is affected by experience/environment.

One of the problems here is that you are generalising crime.
Yuppies in america (See American Psycho ;p) Caused crime and they are rich :D buuuuuutttt crime for stealing is caused by peer pressure lots of the time and also poverty,
you dont meet burgulars who sya "i had no restraint... i just needed to grab it!" cos there arnt that many, so your points are invalid.

Elgesh']Not strictly true, surely - our cognitive and behavioural patterns are shaped by experience and environment as well as purely 'rational' thought. You go on to talk about perceptions in the rest of your post, well I@m talking about a similar thing; the effect that environment + experience has on thinking and behaviour. Self-regulation is an important factor (not the _whole_ story though, I agree) that goes into determining whether or not an individual will engage in criminal behaviour.

There is also a cultural aspect to the prevalence of crime in some settings. if you live in an impoverished area, whether an ethnic minority ghetto or an low wage/no wage underclass sump, or both, the likelihood is that you find yourself embedded in a criminalised social and political culture from early youth, probably with only a few more positive role models and fewer incentives to persuade you to live like the inhabitants of leafy suburbs would like you to. If you live in an area where the housing, health, educational attainment and aspirations are all poor; where the jobs are shit or there are no jobs, where financial literacy is poor and levels of debt are out of control, where drugs are the local industry, where families have broken down even more comprehensively than in the general background society, where crime is high and policing is aggressive. Probably you could be forgiven for thinking that the world outside was at war with you. Probably you couldn't care less what a bunch of sad tossers with too much time on their hands :) think

I admit these are techically Edwardian crime rates but the principle still applies.

For England and Wales
1921 Recorded crime-103000 pop. 37886689
1961 " " -807000 pop. 46166000
2001 " " -5200000 pop. 53137000

From the ablolition of liberty- Peter Hichens Published by Atlantic books
Better police work equals higher numbers of recorded crime rates. There is as much link to that statement as to yours about poverty.

Crime is not caused by poverty, it is caused by a lack of self-restraint.Not all crime is impulse crime. In fact organized crime requires quite a bit of self control. It's not that they can't help but break the rules, it's that they don't care to follow them.

There is also a cultural aspect to the prevalence of crime in some settings. if you live in an impoverished area, whether an ethnic minority ghetto or an low wage/no wage underclass sump, or both, the likelihood is that you find yourself embedded in a criminalised social and political culture from early youth, probably with only a few more positive role models and fewer incentives to persuade you to live like the inhabitants of leafy suburbs would like you to. If you live in an area where the housing, health, educational attainment and aspirations are all poor; where the jobs are shit or there are no jobs, where financial literacy is poor and levels of debt are out of control, where drugs are the local industry, where families have broken down even more comprehensively than in the general background society, where crime is high and policing is aggressive. Probably you could be forgiven for thinking that the world outside was at war with you. Probably you couldn't care less what a bunch of sad tossers with too much time on their hands :) think

Yeah, that's the position I was edging towards, that you need both a sociological and psychological perspective in 'explaining' crime.

And as a sad tosser, well, it's summat to debate, isn't it? :p Rather some of this than TV soaps and sports _all_ the time, huh? :D

Oh common, crime makes the world go round:D Can you imagine how many people might go broke if we got rid of crime (of all sorts), and that will ruin the economy. You can't get rid of crime, it existed since the dawn of man and it will continue as long as we exist. If you still want to stop it then before attacking the little guys who commit small crimes to pay rent and such, lets attack corporate crimes, lets attack governmental crimes, lets attack criminal activities in world organizations. We should stop being hypocritical.

Oh common, crime makes the world go round:D Can you imagine how many people might go broke if we got rid of crime (of all sorts), and that will ruin the economy. You can't get rid of crime, it existed since the dawn of man and it will continue as long as we exist. If you still want to stop it then before attacking the little guys who commit small crimes to pay rent and such, lets attack corporate crimes, lets attack governmental crimes, lets attack criminal activities in world organizations. We should stop being hypocritical.

You're boldly right, but to fix stuff like that properly instead of piecemeal, you'd need a policeman the size of a country - and no one seems to like the idea of a world policeman *cough'mericacough*, so...

As for your underlined bit, an inability to live in a perfect wor;d should not preclude the duty to stop people hurting others for their own purposes.

And actually, thinking about it... slavery was a government sized crime practised globally that's now somewhat reduced. Same with the pressgangs. Same in more civilised countries with taxing people more than they actually have. Same with denying women and blacks and poor people the vote, the right to property, and other personal and politicial freedoms. The process of stopping big ccrimes is appallingly slow, but maybe it's not an impossible task?

Are you nuts?

England literally founded two countries because overpopulation and crime were tearing it to bits. It's fashionable in the US to say that Australia was founded by criminals and America by those seeking religious freedom. But in reality, a lot of the American colonies were penal colonies too.


I don't think the British Empire was founded in a search for Lebensraum, your confusing it with its German cousin. Transportation was a method of punishment but there were not all that many transported. Lots certainly but problably less then todays prison population. Austalia was used because 19th century governments didn't want to raise taxes and prisons are expensive. Crime was not tearing Victorian Britain to bits.

I don't think the British Empire was founded in a search for Lebensraum, your confusing it with its German cousin. Transportation was a method of punishment but there were not all that many transported. Lots certainly but problably less then todays prison population. Austalia was used because 19th century governments didn't want to raise taxes and prisons are expensive. Crime was not tearing Victorian Britain to bits.

Not that I know anything about Victorian Britain or its supposed high crime rate...but er, you can't really compare the prison population of the 1800s to that of today's. The population today is a hell of alot more then the population of the 1800s.

Even so, per capita there is more of the population in prison today

Even so, per capita there is more of the population in prison today

Most of it due to better policing. Victorian England didn't exactly have survaillence cameras. Thus, you can't really demonstrate Victorian England's crime rate by the number of criminals caught since so much more wouldn't have been caught.

When we ask 'why crime' we risk overlooking how exceptional it is that human societies have laws that are obeyed to the extent that they are. I think it is less useful to ask 'what causes crime?' than it is to ask 'what causes people to obey laws?'.

If we ask why people break laws we would probably end up with a very (ridiculously) long list, further the list would be a list of problems that we then need to solve before the answer can be of any practical use.

If we ask why people obey laws the answer we would end up with would very probably be much smaller (and easier to manage) than the answer to 'why to people break laws', further the list would be a list of solutions.

Obediance to law is not the 'normal - default', but rather is exceptional, so it makes more sense to ask 'what could/does cause this exceptional trait to manifest?' rather than asking 'what can/does cause this expectional trait to not manifest?'.