People who commit crimes

[ManaMinori 4,145]

Ugh. Where do I even begin? Am I the only one here who sees people hitting and running robbing, shooting, ect., and just think how cowardly they are? They do the crime and run, knowing it's wrong, else they wouldn't be running in the first place.

And the robberies. Is what they're stealing really worth jail time? Do they REALLY think they're going to get away scot free? doubt it.

Idiocy. Let's talk about it.

[hgdsghfdhgfdghfdshg 82]

As someone who has a criminal record, I'm offended.

 

Not really though, it's a joke.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Nicodemius

[Jeric 46,854]

Do they REALLY think they're going to get away scot free?

 

 

This is an important thought here, because I suspect that most acts of crime are done with the mentality that the person committing the crime will likely not get caught. Most criminals convince themselves that they will be the one to get off, yes. This is doubly so for low level crimes like shoplifting and vandalism.

 

This, off course, ignores some drug crimes since an addict really has an impaired ability to process logic to begin with. 

[Discordian 6,015]

Why wouldn't you run away? It's cowardly to do everything you can to survive? If you commit a crime there's going to be consequences so running is how one would attempt to avoid those consequences. They aren't running because they don't want to deal with confrontation but because they want to keep going, to keep living freely. Freedom is not cowardice.

[Invincible 2,091]

It's only a crime if you're caught. Besides, people don't often have the same higher control over their desires and consequent actions. Some think of the outcome only after the deed is done.

 

As for whether or not the crime is really worth jail time... it obviously does to some people.

[ManaMinori 4,145]

Why wouldn't you run away? It's cowardly to do everything you can to survive? If you commit a crime there's going to be consequences so running is how one would attempt to avoid those consequences. They aren't running because they don't want to deal with confrontation but because they want to keep going, to keep living freely. Freedom is not cowardice.

you're man enough to commit it. Be man enough to be there when the cops come, own up to it, and take your jail time like a man

 

If thy truly wanted freedom, they wouldn't have been stupid enough to do the crime and have their freedom stripped from thm.

It's only a crime if you're caught. Besides, people don't often have the same higher control over their desires and consequent actions. Some think of the outcome only after the deed is done.

As for whether or not the crime is really worth jail time... it obviously does to some people.

stealing something that isn't yours isn't a crime?

Shooting and/or killing someone isn't a crime? What? What?

Edited May 10, 2016 by Nightmare Muffin

[Discordian 6,015]

you're man enough to commit it. Be man enough to be there when the cops come, own up to it, and take your jail time like a man

Why is it more manly to let yourself be caught? To effectively end your life as it is? What makes it cowardly to want to keep your freedom?

[Luminance 2,186]

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

 

It's true that some crimes may never see the light and that's a sad truth.

[Johnny1226 14,674]

I suppose that Sometimes the person may believe that they have no other choice someone down on their luck may think the simplest way is to take what they need from others who they think need it less, then there are those who commit crimes due to pure impulse unable to control their primal instincts, then there are the very rare instances where a person does something just because they want to

[Discordian 6,015]

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

 

It's true that some crimes may never see the light and that's a sad truth.

That doesn't mean one should want to serve the jail time. Why do it if you can avoid it?

[Luminance 2,186]

That doesn't mean one should want to serve the jail time. Why do it if you can avoid it?

 

Some people result to doing illegal things in their own will, especially if it's the last resort. The crime itself is easy but the time behind bars is agony.

[Discordian 6,015]

Some people result to doing illegal things in their own will, especially if it's the last resort. The crime itself is easy but the time behind bars is agony.

Undoubtedly but that's not really what I'm asking. Regardless of one's reasons for committing the crime it doesn't really make any sense to me that you should stick around afterward. What's the point of committing it in the first place if you get nothing out of it?

[Luminance 2,186]

Undoubtedly but that's not really what I'm asking. Regardless of one's reasons for committing the crime it doesn't really make any sense to me that you should stick around afterward. What's the point of committing it in the first place if you get nothing out of it?

Yeah, maybe to them it's worth more than their freedom so they chance it anyways.

[Invincible 2,091]

stealing something that isn't yours isn't a crime?

Shooting and/or killing someone isn't a crime? What? What?

A crime is only a crime if someone is there to judge you. 'Innocent until proven guilty' and all that. Though not all judicial systems adhere to the same principle, in most cases if you can't establish guilt against someone they get to walk away. I never said it will make their deed go away, merely that it's only a crime if you're held accountable for it.

[Gestum 2,493]

Actually, I think that you can't exactly use the word "cowardly" to describe people who breaks the rule. It does take some big balls to do that. It may be stupid and morally wrong but it is by no means cowardly.

 

Also the world isn't exactly black and white. So you can't really say that people who committed are definitely evil or stupid.

[Chaton 3,765]

 

 

They do the crime and run

 

 

Are you saying if you were a criminal, you'd commit a crime and stand around waiting to be arrested?

[SugarfootWillie 383]

Violent crimes are the most ballsy thing you can do when they are premeditated. Do you have the stomach to kill another human? Do you have the stomach to hold someone at gun point knowing very well that the person you are sticking up might kill you? Those things are far from cowardly. If I were to do those I would have nightmares for the rest of my life, I'd probably cry myself to sleep too. immoral and cowardly are not the same.

 

On to another aspect of crime, what about those people that smoke cannabis because they were involved in a serious car accident and need pain relief, but don't want to risk getting addicted to pain killers? What about the people who eat psilocybin mushrooms, LSD, or Aya, in order to achieve spiritual enlightenment, get their lives together, combat the onset of Alzheimer's, combat depression, or [insert medical value]?

 

Criminal activity is not black and white, and neither should be the consequence. The only issue with not making it black and white is that delievering justice becomes difficult. You need to ask yourself if it's better that the guilty go to jail, or that the innocent stay out.

[Crusaders Forever 88]

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

 

It's true that some crimes may never see the light and that's a sad truth.

 

Agreed. I've been watching stuff about cold cases, and how most of them don't get solved. Even if they have suspects, or other evidence. It's just not enough to convict someone of the crime.

[Once In A Blue Moon 895]

 

 

I never said it will make their deed go away, merely that it's only a crime if you're held accountable for it.

 

The act is a crime if it broke the law - I understand that innocent until proven guilty refers to proving that the person in question committed the crime 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. This is why unsolved crimes still show up in crime statistics - you can still prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it was a crime even if you can't prove that a particular person did it.

 

 

 

Criminal activity is not black and white, and neither should be the consequence. The only issue with not making it black and white is that delievering justice becomes difficult. You need to ask yourself if it's better that the guilty go to jail, or that the innocent stay out.

 

I would disagree to an extent in saying that it is a black-and-white 'was this a crime and did they commit it?' If the answer is yes to both then you determine the appropriate response. How judges apply justice should be where the variability comes in - considering various mitigating or aggravating factors and so on. Stealing food from a shop is always a crime, but if you are driven to it by desperation then that should be reflected in the sentence that is handed down - if this seems harsh, then it is the way that convicted criminals are treated that should be adjusted, not the law (I believe that the system should help the desperate and those forced to crime by necessity, although how one would implement this well I don't know.) Of note is a ruling to the contrary in Italy recently, which I can't see going well for all of its good intentions.

[ConcorDisparate 385]

Nevermind, crime doesn't have the same meaning in my language.

Edited May 10, 2016 by ConcorDisparate

[Simon 4,557]

This is my primary area of study actually, essentially the question of why people choose to commit a crime, so I figured I'd chime in. Admittedly this is an area I've dedicated the past several years of my life to studying so that's why the post is what it is Ye be warned.

 

My area of study is the law and criminal justice, but my primary area of interest is in crime prevention and criminal behavioral analysis. Essentially the study of why crimes take place and why people become criminals. I'm going to divide this post into two parts: why a person becomes a criminal, and why a specific crime takes place.

 

Why a person becomes a criminal

 

This is one of the most complex and controversial issues in criminal justice, essentially falling back on a classic nature vs nurture debate. The reality, however, is that it's a wide culmination of factors over a person's entire life that ultimately leads to a person's predisposition to commit crimes. I say predisposition because it's important to note we all are predisposed to commit crimes, just our experiences and life determine our willingness to commit each separate crime.

 

Here's what I mean by this: most drivers at some point in their life will go faster than the speed limit or break some sort of traffic law. They're able to do this because these are offenses which have a relatively low threshold for predisposition... it doesn't take a lot to convince a person that going 30mph in a 25mph zone is probably not going to bring the world to a screeching halt. On the other hand, only a very small minority of the population is predisposed to major violent crimes like a completely random murder.

 

What this means when we're talking about something like a robbery is that it's not just as simple as a person is poor so they steal. It's thousands of minor events and factors over their entire life that ultimately lead to their overall willingness to solve their money problems through theft. Because of this, it's just not as simple as lumping every single person who commits a crime into a bag and saying they're evil. I don't and never will condone crime, but the genuine question of why a person becomes a criminal is so convoluted and person-specific that it's not an easy subject to pre-judge en mass. It's fairly easy to create a scenario for any crime in which the offense is at least understandable, even though the offenses themselves are rarely justifiable.

 

Let me give an example of this: studies have shown that people who were physically assaulted at a young age are several times more likely to at some point be abusive or commit a violent crime themselves. The reason for this is parents condition children with their behaviors from a young age. If a child sees a parent do something, it is perceived as they develop to be the way they should act themselves. This can create psychological conditioning that is extraordinarily difficult to break, which predisposes the individual to be violent themselves. While something like child abuse can never be truly justified, it can, at least in some instances, be understandable why the offender wound up making that horrid choice and mistake. Understanding that factors out of the control of an individual can lead to their predisposition to committing crime makes it clear that in many instances there is a mental health component at play that makes the issue more complex than demonizing all offenders in gross. Yes, child abuse is a horrid crime and the parents responsible should be punished, but taking a moment to look at why that father or mother is abusive may help to prevent further abuse when they are released.

 

Frankly, in most instances if you delve deep enough into the individuals past and to some degree into their biology, you can generally find some level of understanding for why a person became an individual willing or predisposed to committing a certain type of crime. That's not to say there aren't people who earned this predisposition purely out of their own bad choices in life, or that the offenses themselves are justified, but as someone who studies this area in depth, it's important that you don't just outright ignore the factors that lead to people's willingness to commit crimes, as it is those factors which provide realistic solutions for reversing those behavioral trends and removing that predisposition later on in life.

 

Why a specific crime takes place

 

In terms of the big question of why a crime takes place, the most useful theory to look at is the rational choice theory. Essentially this theory relies on the premise that most or all crimes are essentially a cost/benefit analysis from the offender's perspective. That in his eyes, the perceived benefit of committing a crime outweighs the harms and risks. So if a person steals a car, it's likely not because they think stealing a car is worth spending time in jail, it's because they think they are able to avoid capture and thus the costs are low compared to the reward.

 

The heavily related, and arguably more important area to discuss is the theory of crime prevention. Crime prevention theorists state that a crime takes place when three factors are present: desire, ability, and opportunity. That is, first you must have an individual who desires to commit a crime. This is where the predisposition to committing a specific crime comes into play. If a person is simply not willing to violate a certain law or act in a certain way, then you lack a motivated offender and the desire necessary to commit a crime. But, having a predisposed offender isn't enough to have desire. This is where factors like the present situation of the offender come into play... a person who is wealthy is less likely to commit a minor theft than a poor person. It's not because being poor inherently makes you more predisposed to crime or an evil person, but because that is a major factor in creating the desire to commit a crime. There are many people who are willing to commit a crime and never do because they are never put into a situation where a crime makes sense for them. Moreover, people have varying levels of predisposition for each specific crime ranging from a predisposition to commit a crime out of extreme need to an innate desire to commit a crime. Someone who is willing to commit murder to protect a loved one likely is not predisposed to go into a public place and randomly start shooting people. When the need and predisposition balance out to create a genuine desire to commit a crime, the remaining two factors become determinant on whether a crime actually happens.

 

The remaining factors are ability and opportunity. Ability is fairly straightforward: if you can't physically commit a crime, no matter how much you want to, you won't commit a crime. A simple example of this is a person who does not know how to open a safe probably does not have the ability to steal the contents of the safe, and thus no crime can be committed. Opportunity is a seemingly straightforward, but surprisingly important factor in crime prevention. In essence, it's that a situation where a crime can take place must present itself to the offender. If a car is left open with the engine running in the middle of an abandoned parking lot a predisposed offender is nearby, a crime opportunity has been created for the offender. If a person with a strong desire to steal a car is in the middle of the desert where no cars are around for miles, then the person won't steal a car.

 

All three of these factors are important in trying to reduce crime, as the best way to prevent crime is to do something which removes one or all of these elements. For instance, let's say a person became predisposed to becoming an abusive parent and we want to prevent that from happening. First you can remove the desire to commit the crime. This may be achievable through psychological counseling to help resolve the problems in their past which gave them a predisposition to commit the crime in the first place. Alternatively you can remove the desire to commit a crime by removing the factors which make the offender believe they need to become violent. If a person only becomes violent when a certain event occurs, preventing that event from occurring will in turn eliminate the abuse. The more common way of preventing child abuse is to remove the opportunity and ability by taking the child away entirely and revoking custody.

 

With all that being said, there's one last question that needs to be answered... why the heck did we need to know all this theoretical mumbo jumbo?

 

The premise of the OP in this thread is essentially twofold: why do people commit crimes, and are those people cowardly or evil. The simple truth is that there is no answer. Every crime and criminal are the culmination of thousands - even millions of variables that take place. Everything from the offender's past to the person's biology to whether you decided to walk down 5th street or 6th street to get home that day are what create the unfortunate scenario where everything lined up for a crime to take place. While crimes are rarely justified, many criminals have paths that make the end result to some degree understandable. That is to say that if another human being had been subjected to all the same experiences and choices as the criminal, they likely would have come to a similar or identical end choice and committed a crime. Because of this, it's my belief that it's important to focus on how to prevent crime and rehabilitate predisposed offenders, rather than simply demonizing people for the end result of a complex set of factors.

 

In short, crime is a complex thing, don't be overly quick to jump to conclusions and label offenders without the full set of facts. 

[chili 120]

I'd like to believe that everyone who's done a crime was led down the wrong path in life somehow. Either someone told them to do it or they think it's right, or they need to do it to survive in someway. I don't know what to think about the whole thing but it depends on the crime and such. It could be everything from mental illness to survival instincts. Crazy world we all live in, huh.

[Discordian 6,015]

I'd like to believe that everyone who's done a crime was led down the wrong path in life somehow. Either someone told them to do it or they think it's right, or they need to do it to survive in someway. I don't know what to think about the whole thing but it depends on the crime and such. It could be everything from mental illness to survival instincts. Crazy world we all live in, huh.

Sometimes it's not even that. Even well-to-do and rich people have been known to steal things or assault others and it doesn't always mean they're having a bad day or need whatever they're stealing. Sometimes it can be as simple as "because I felt like it".

[Twiggy 2,966]

 

 

Is what they're stealing really worth jail time?

A crime might be worth it. I would probably do some jail time if I got piss drunk and threw up on Hillary Clinton, but that would be worth it. Because I would be the guy who threw up on Hillary Clinton.

[Invincible 2,091]

The act is a crime if it broke the law - I understand that innocent until proven guilty refers to proving that the person in question committed the crime 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. This is why unsolved crimes still show up in crime statistics - you can still prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it was a crime even if you can't prove that a particular person did it.

 

 

Hmm. I agree, you actually had nailed it somewhat better than I did. Though I would still maintain my original point that without establishing guilt in a certain charge you can't really call a person a criminal.