are criminals made or are they born

good logs...

Are criminals made or are they born..........

dhyde

Both!

Da Shins Kelly

Made. Everyone's a product of their environment. You aren't who you are from day one, in my opinion.

Unsay Moon

First it is important to define the terms.

'Made' and 'born' can mean exactly the same thing. They can both mean 'born' or 'made' through birth from their mother. They can also both mean being 'born' or 'made' at some point through their life because of their environment. If they are both equal - 'born' = 'made' then the only answer can be both.

I am going to assume that 'born' means through birth and 'made' means as a product of their environment.

Unfortunately we seem to live in a world of many different issues and reasons for crime. Is someone a bad person if they steal to feed their starving family? - debatable. They are a criminal though. Even if it not always a notable violation of the law. In this situation I have described, the criminal has been created to feed their family. It is due to their starving family - their environment - so they are 'made'.

A child could be born into a family of criminals but this does not make them inherently criminal. They will probably also be 'made'.

Serious criminals like people who go on kill other people for no motive are very uncommon. The same goes for people who steal for need for financial gain (greed).

People usually become criminal because their environment causes then to need to fight for themselves or because of some other troubles in life.

It is possible for people to be born evil with a built-in hatred from birth. I have never read about or experienced anything like this in human nature but I cannot say that it is impossible.

Most people are criminals if you think about it because of how most people have broken the law - no matter how small this crime may be. In fact - it would be difficult to find somebody who hasn't broken the law.

From what I know about the people I know and the people I have experienced in my life. They have all committed criminal offences from their environment and how their life has given them situations to be criminal. I would not say any one of these people I know is a bad person for it.

It is difficult to answer your question because I'm not really sure to how strong the definitions in your question are. As a summary, I would like to believe that criminals are made and that as a society we can improve and make peoples lives better so that there are less criminals. However we live in a world where there is so many possibilities that it is impossible to assume anything as certain.

My final answer is ''Probably both I'm afraid''. I hope I am of some help.

acoc100

40% genetics
60% environment

top laup

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Made. Everyone's a product of their environment. You aren't who you are from day one, in my opinion.

This.

Boo Radley

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Made. Everyone's a product of their environment. You aren't who you are from day one, in my opinion.

I think this is a little simplistic. For example, schizophrenia is inherited but symptoms will only present themselves if the correct environmental stimuli affect a person. It is likely this is true of other behaviours, such as aggression, which can lead to criminal behaviour.

Therefore, I'd say that nature and nurture combine in many cases.

It must also be considered what is a crime? Any one crime is a human concept and has been decided by humans. There is no such thing as a 'natural' crime. If we bare this in mind and how, despicably, it used to be illegal in this country to be a practicing homosexual, then you would say by this definition of what a crime was that a criminal was born.

Note: In the above points I believe homosexuality to be genetic and also in no way think it is a criminal act. Just to clarify.

Dtoffee

society is at fault ...... we either allow/facilitate crime or we create it.

By that, we create crime by deprevation, isolation and information (media promoting crime as acceptable ... grand theft auto etc)

We allow it and facillitate it by being too weak to deal with the issues across the board. The reality is crime is a business and its a BIG business ..... if you wiped out all crime, what would you do with all the gardai, courts, prisons, solicitors, security companies, alarm companies et al .... now who wants to end that.

Lets just debate it forever but change nothing that will effect our livelihoods as that would be so unpopular, we need an acceptable level of crime to keep the gang in work. After all, what would you have to discuss if there were no crime

Lawrence1895

Every human being is born into this world like a white sheet of paper, and it's up to his social habitat, what will be written onto this sheet of paper.
First of all, parents and teachers write something onto the sheet, later we add things ourselves.
And it is always the feedback we get from society and what we make out of it.

That's why I assume, nobody is born as a criminal

acoc100

Lars1916 wrote: »

Every human being is born into this world like a white sheet of paper, and it's up to his social habitat, what will be written onto this sheet of paper.
First of all, parents and teachers write something onto the sheet, later we add things ourselves.
And it is always the feedback we get from society and what we make out of it.

That's why I assume, nobody is born as a criminal

While legally everyone is born with a white sheet of paper.
People certainly get genes which may make them more likely to break to the law such as the genes a sociopath may inherit.

Joe1919

Perhaps people also commit crimes because sometimes it pays to commit crime.

This is Gary Becker's argument that 'Rationality implied that some individuals become criminals because of the financial rewards from crime compared to legal work, taking account of the likelihood of apprehension and conviction, and the severityof punishment.' (pp 41-43.)

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1992/becker-lecture.html
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1992/becker-lecture.pdf

himnextdoor

It's neither; the law subjectively labels people as criminals.

Is Tony Blair any less a criminal than Osama Bin Laden? They both used aeroplanes to kill innocent people, that is of course assuming (which I don't) that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.

Are the bankers any less thieves than smack-heads stealing to feed their habit?

Are peadophile priests less criminals than prostitutes?

Who is and who is not a criminal depends on the people who make or interpret law.

Poor Uncle Tom

/short answer: they are born,

/long answer: they are made.

albeit

One of my neighbours children always steal something when she has been visiting in my apartment. I am trying to make up mind about this question in regards to her. She is seven. Her mother is a art-teacher, although (dont know why I feel the need to write 'although'?) she drinks alot and has at one stage been reprted to social services for leaving her two youngest kids alone in the apartment while she was away to the shop buying food for 30 minutes (3 and 5 year old). Her mother always denies that her daughter has stolen something altough I am sure of it as it has gone missing when she was there, and sometimes it has been replaced the next time she visits and sometimes it is found in her apartment and the mother says it was the youngest one who took it... The youngest children are lovely however, and would never take anything. They just seem more honest and "good" whereas the 7-yearold seem "bad" and "devious". It makes me wonder about this thing the topic is about. Also, will the other two become the same as they grow older, or is it in this child to be "bad". Ther mother is just very unthoughtful sometimes but seems to be a loving and "fun" mother.

Odysseus

acoc100 wrote: »

While legally everyone is born with a white sheet of paper.
People certainly get genes which may make them more likely to break to the law such as the genes a sociopath may inherit.

But that is dependant upon whether one agrees that such disorders are genetic. However, a more significant point being that there is a distinction in forensic psych between a sociopath or psychopath and a criminal psychopath or sociopath.

In so far as pointed out that we are all criminals at some level, if we limit our definition of criminality in this case to the type of crimes associated with those two disorders not all sociopaths or psychopaths engage in criminal behaviour.

Whereas some make the distinction between true psychopaths, secondary and dyssocial ones. Within those classification genetics would been seen as being a strong factor with the primary or true psychopaths; whereas with dyssocial ones criminality is seen as more of a learned behaviour, this learning occurring through sub-cultures such as gangs or family. The above would be based upon Hare’s work on the subject.

I think this is the same with sociopaths, though whilst they are different the terms sociopath and psychopath are commonly lumped together, along with the classification of dissocial personality disorder [ICD-10] or anti-social personality disorder [DSM] whereas there is a significant difference.

I have an interest in forensic psych as my work brings into contact with varying types of criminal behaviour, but as yet I have not have the time to study it in a formal environment. However, I do think it needs to be acknowledged that there are varying types of criminals who engage in varying types of criminal behaviour.


Personally I would see the origins of criminal behaviour as being subjective to each "criminal", however, I would not see criminals as being born, I'm unhappy with the term made too, but if forced to stick with the choice between "born" or "made" I would have to go with made. I would favour that as I see factors such as socialisation, identification and the like as being the core factors rather than genetics.

I-like-eggs,mmm

The development of our personality and socialism begins at a very young age from home....around our parents, siblings and extended families. And if this is relatively sound...then in normal circumstances...the person will be fine.

However, maybe the person has a "killer" gene or a type of psychosis/even a mental health disorder leading him/her to become a murderer. Well, this person may be brought up in a well balanced, supportive environment...and may never ever portray this. However, we all become teenagers and adults. And some of us like to experiment with illegal drugs and alcohol. And sadly, sometimes these substances can be the very trigger.

There's no black or white in this at all...that's the bottom line. In my opinion.

dar4

I-like-eggs,mmm wrote: »

The development of our personality and socialism begins at a very young age from home....around our parents, siblings and extended families. And if this is relatively sound...then in normal circumstances...the person will be fine.

However, maybe the person has a "killer" gene or a type of psychosis/even a mental health disorder leading him/her to become a murderer. Well, this person may be brought up in a well balanced, supportive environment...and may never ever portray this. However, we all become teenagers and adults. And some of us like to experiment with illegal drugs and alcohol. And sadly, sometimes these substances can be the very trigger.

There's no black or white in this at all...that's the bottom line. In my opinion.

bull its not the seringity/africa ur talking about in a world were everyone is equal in a social setting ie no rich or poor equal operutunieitys these things most likely wont present ie all the rich or poor on drugs ?/alcolhol it wont happen ever but if it did a world without social class would somebody have to be "the leader" till we get away from the very menatality of a "apex" were lost in a black hole happy days ha

HugoDrax

It's nearly impossible to say if criminals are made or born.
Ted Bundy told friends such as crime writer Ann Rule who knew for many years before he was exposed as an infamous serial killer that his 'father' was a wonderful man. This turned out to be untrue - his 'father' actually was a nasty violent tempered man. Ted was actually his grandson because his 'sister' gave birth out of wedlock and he was brought up ignorant of the fact - it was only when he was old enough to dig around did he find out the truth.
He was born into a comfortable family environment but it is believed that he killed a little girl when he was a teenager.
Bundy claimed a major influence with sent him down his dark was popular detective serials with lurid stories of murder - literature that would be tame by today's standards - and later pornography which became more widespread in the 1960's and 1970's spurring him on to dominate young women and kill them for pleasure.
Bundy still was able to live a seemingly normal life - he was on the way to becoming successful lawyer and possible a bright future as a politician.
He was charismatic, good looking and attractive to women and had long term relationships.
What is alleged to have set him off was a relationship with a young woman who had been his high school sweetheart - she had dumped him for being needy and insecure before he transformed himself into a promising lawyer which attracted her to him again. It is believed he deliberately proposed to her and then cruelly rejected her as revenge for the first rejection.
This behavior could have been rooted in the example of his nasty 'father' and the family environment which had been exposed as a lie.
The type of female victim - young pretty college students with long centre parted hair closely resembled his high school sweetheart.
Bundy's strategy was to stalk his victims on college campuses masquerading as a college student with an arm in a cast or on crutches carrying a stack of heavy books inviting girls to help him carry them to his car where he would use the cast or crutch to render her unconscious. He then drove them to the mountains where he sexually tortured them, killed them and then returned again to have sex with their bodies until they decomposed and he replaced them with a new victim.
When he wasn't killing young women he lived an entirely normal life and lovers and friends had no clue of his dark side.
But gradually he started to disintegrate and his two lives merged.
He was caught after he bungled the abduction of a young woman and was arrested after he tried to attack a police officer who pulled him over after he aroused his suspicion.
Bundy enjoyed his trials and his appeals, taking time out to escape and kill more victims before being recaptured, fired his lawyers several times, enjoyed the attention of the press and ultimately defended himself in court where he relived his crimes when questioned police and other witnesses.
He dragged out his execution following his death sentence by offering his services to profile other serial killers before the authorities lost patience with his obvious attempts to delay his execution and finally sent him to the chair. Before his death he gave an interview where managed to convince right wing anti-pornography campaigner that his killing spree was caused by smut. Bundy appears in the videotaped interview to be thoroughly enjoying toying with the gullible interviewer.

Bundy might well have genetically inherited his grandfather's psychopathic personality, he learned deception through living a lie for many years, he seems to have a pre-disposition for killing since childhood when he is suspected of killing a child he knew, he was incredibly adept at deceiving friends and colleagues about his true nature, he was charming, sophisticated and women found him highly attractive and disarming so much so that women who would have been his ideal potential victims turned up at his trial almost like rock groupies.

Perhaps childhood trauma set him off but not everyone who has a bad childhood becomes a serial killing monster.

Bundy's relationships were all a shame because he could only be truly satisfied sexually if he could completely dominate another human being - the ultimate was torture and murder and necrophilia.

It could be speculated that Bundy could be a genetic throwback to our prehistoric ancestors who had not yet developed the empathy the human race later acquired through evolving co-operative hunting behavior, agriculture and later urban living. Perhaps there was a time or region where females were few and far between where only violent rapists who were prepared to readily kill others who competed with them for food or rape females could pass on their genes. These traits perhaps still survive although they are useless in our 'civilised' society. Perhaps Bundy's psychopathology is no different from a cleft lip, female beards, webbed toes or fingers, extra nipples or appendixes which appear to be left overs from our ancient past?

meryem

In my opinion it can be a result of many reasons or simply mix of any combination of it.

1. By birth inherited properties.

2. Ruthless and suppressive environment.

3. Made to do that since no other easy mean of earning livelihood could be found.

4. Bad upbringing!

Anyway we as a member of civil society should try to bring back such elements back to civil society's civil rules fold. And if can't be possible than better get ride them of.

oneshotfinch

It's hard to designate the reason into one category or the other.

To take a real world example, our housekeeper is one of the nicest, most upstanding people I have ever met. She's a fantastic mother and she'd do anything for her children (we took on holiday to California a few years ago and gave her some spending money, she spent it all on clothes for her son).

Now I don't know what the father was like, but from what I saw of him he seemed to be a decent person as well. They had a fine home and lived in a safe area for raising children. All in all, it was a good environment for anybody to grow up.

She has two daughters who went on to become nurses, and a son who threw a poor chap over the rail of a ship to his death.

Boroimhe

Some people have genes that may predispose them to certain actions but it is only that "a predisposition" not a destiny. If this gene could be turned off then they would be like the rest of us or if they could be raised in a more nurturing environment they could excel.

That said the environment we are raised in makes an immeasurable impact on our minds and hence our actions. I know a family in which one son became a vigilante, one sold drugs (until he got cought) and the sister was a drug addict. This further complicates the argument as each person was a, born to the same people and b, raised in the same environment. This says to me that they each had some sort of experience which shaped their outlooks and peronalities (which would fall under environment I guess).

One thing for sure is that locking people up does nothing but waste tax payer's money and send the wrong message to people. Prison is only a way to punish and make the "victims" of the crime feel they have gotten "Justice" but if we look at crime as the actions of a defective/ill raised or "socially challenged" person then we could actually address the issue and perhaps come up with some sort of solution to stop crime and hence the "birth" of criminals.

In short...... I don't know

SJM

A bit of both - nature/nurture

abelard

Admitteldy I haven't read through every argument here (a bit of a case of the tl;dr), so apologies if some of this is repetition.

I study Crime Science. It's a generally modernist and positivist approach to considering crime. We use a lot of quantitative methods, and consider things like designing the environment against crime, policing strategies, economics etc. and most of our theory is based on the likes of rational choice, routine activities, environmental theory etc. This all comes back to the point that much criminal activity is a product of the environment. There's a well used hypothetical, along the lines of - "do you believe that if tomorrow, all law enforcement disappeared, there were no locks on doors, no banks, people just left their cars unlocked and their money and valuables in their unlocked houses, and kept going about their business, that crime would increase? If so, you accept the fact that crime is, to some extent, a product of the environment."

However, I accept this isn't really the question that was asked. What's being asked is if criminality, not crime, is environmental. Rational choice theory requires a motivated offender, and where does this motivation come from? In many ways, we can just throw criminality in with the general nature v nurture debate, but it's more interesting to analyse it separately and break it down a bit.

A modernist approach will generally say criminality is the fault of society, and there is some theory to back this up. We have the concepts of need, of strain and of anomie - all of which point to individuals turning to crime as society has let them down.

Even on a more individual level, we can ask what effect early childhood, parenting and schooling have on children. Part of the point of these activities is socially normalising the child, and when this is interrupted or distorted, behaviour such as social rebellion, apathy or anti social behaviour can emerge, which can lead to criminal behaviour.

It is likely foolish to completely ignore biology at the same time, however. I'm not too familiar with research on this particular issue, but not everyone is wired in quite the same way. Consider that, as one example among a likely sea of hundreds, that dopamine levels effect how feedback is processed in decision making (correct me if I've misunderstood that). It's likely that some extent of an individual's risk perception and aversion, recklessness and choice are to an extent biological.

Basically, there is no such thing as "criminality" as a discrete entity, there's no criminal part of the brain. Whether someone commits a crime in a certain situation is a product of their specific motivations, which can come from biology of their environmental history, and how they assess the current opportunity in which they find themselves. To one extent or another, everyone is capable of committing crime at some level.

himnextdoor

abelard wrote: »

A modernist approach will generally say criminality is the fault of society, and there is some theory to back this up. We have the concepts of need, of strain and of anomie - all of which point to individuals turning to crime as society has let them down.

Would you say that in general, criminality is related to resourcefulness?

I'm exploring the possibility that 'criminality' can be an advantage in certain situations. For example, in a post-apocalyptic environment, a tendency to be morally upright could be a serious disadvantage to survival whereas a willingness to steal, rob or kill would provide a survival edge.

Personally, I believe that in general, insurers, bankers, politicians, etc. have the hallmarks of criminality but since they operate within a legal framework they are not perceived as criminals; I wonder if it is these criminal tendencies that direct such people to success in society.

And on that basis, is the justice system an exercise in 'pulling up the ladder to success'?

It does seem to me that 'criminality' is a naturally selected behaviour that has served the evolution of humans very well.

abelard

himnextdoor wrote: »

Would you say that in general, criminality is related to resourcefulness?

Crime, I think, more than criminality, if I'm understanding you right. Resourcefulness increases the number of opportunities a motivated offender can take advantage off, and in that case may effect their reasoning and situational decision making. For example, one of the reasons that boot camps are not effective in reducing recidivism is that they turn young men into physically strong, fit and capable young men, increasing the criminal opportunities they can avail of on release. It's important to remember though that resourcefulness is nothing without motivation. I see opportunities to commit crime every day, we all do, but my situational risk assessment and lack of motivation to commit crime stop me from doing so.

himnextdoor wrote: »

I'm exploring the possibility that 'criminality' can be an advantage in certain situations. For example, in a post-apocalyptic environment, a tendency to be morally upright could be a serious disadvantage to survival whereas a willingness to steal, rob or kill would provide a survival edge.

I think you need to deconstruct the concept of criminality. There are aspects of personality and ability that are associated with crime and criminality which may certainly be useful in such a situation - eg survival instinct, "cut-throatedness", quick thinking, risk comprehension etc. But such personality traits can also be associated with non-criminals. Again I believe everyone has the ability and possibility to commit crime, but we lack the motivation. In a post-apocalyptic scenario, the concept of motivation would obviously have to framed in a completely different light based on survival, necessity and defense.

himnextdoor wrote: »

It does seem to me that 'criminality' is a naturally selected behaviour that has served the evolution of humans very well.

You might be right, but again I would argue that criminality has to be thought of as a group of attributes which can also be possessed by non-criminals.

the culture of deference

If I was a homosexual I would be a criminal in the middle east.

If i was a drug user in holland that would be legal.

If I lived in a remote part of India I could legally have sex with children.

The age of consent in Italy is 14.


Abuse, murder, rape, theft, violence etc is what we are capable of as a species, all of us. We have just made up rules to pretend otherwise.

goodomens

himnextdoor wrote: »

It's neither; the law subjectively labels people as criminals.

Is Tony Blair any less a criminal than Osama Bin Laden? They both used aeroplanes to kill innocent people, that is of course assuming (which I don't) that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.

Are the bankers any less thieves than smack-heads stealing to feed their habit?

Are peadophile priests less criminals than prostitutes?

Who is and who is not a criminal depends on the people who make or interpret law.

There is a different between Tony blair sending in troops to kill terrorists, and osama organizing men to murder WTC workers. The troops were not instructed to murder civilians, only the terrorists.

himnextdoor

goodomens wrote: »

There is a different between Tony blair sending in troops to kill terrorists, and osama organizing men to murder WTC workers. The troops were not instructed to murder civilians, only the terrorists.

Dropped bombs can't tell the difference between terrorists and innocent civilians any more than hi-jacked planes can.

Is Cuma Liom

I work with young people.It's hard sometimes to explain to them sometimes that what they are doing will hurt them in the long run.

sparkling sea

goodomens wrote: »

There is a different between Tony blair sending in troops to kill terrorists, and osama organizing men to murder WTC workers. The troops were not instructed to murder civilians, only the terrorists.

The end result is still the same the death of a human being - a person is dead, society differentiates, it labels one group of people murders or criminals and the other group heros. In England the solider may be labelled a hero, but in Afghanistan they may be labelled a criminal and vica versa.

People have different preceptions of what is criminal and who is commiting the crime. Some think Bin Laden is the terrorist, others Tony Blair, others realise its not a simple as it seems, because it never is. The notion of what is or more to the point who is criminal changes depending on the situation.

It wasn't that long ago that a husband could rape his wife - no crime committed - his label, a husband. Now he will be charged with rape and if found guilty, he will be a rapist.

I think the values of a society at a given time determine what or who is criminal, hopefully as we grow we learn, but if we decided the criminals are born then there will be little or no hope for these people.

Bandana boy

I think all the posts on Crime being subjective using extreme examples are obfuscating the issue. Most crime is not stealing a loaf of bread to feed your children or dealing death to Extremist Muslims in the middle East.

In the main Crime is not subjective ,Many will without a list of what is or is not a crime not follow criminal activity.

While it would be naïve to suggest that Socio-economic factors do not have an impact on many forms of crime –Theft ,Drug dealing etc .The propensity for violence and willingness to use it is imo Born.
So Criminal activity motivated by Money is Made.
Criminal activity motivated by violence on another is Born.

sparkling sea

Bandana boy wrote: »

In the main Crime is not subjective ,Many will without a list of what is or is not a crime not follow criminal activity.

While it would be naïve to suggest that Socio-economic factors do not have an impact on many forms of crime –Theft ,Drug dealing etc ,the propensity for violence and willingness to use it is imo Born.
So Criminal activity motivated by Money is Made.
Criminal activity motivated by violence on another is Born.

This is a bit contradictory - don't these activities relate to motivation for making money ?

sparkling sea

keithob wrote: »

maybe discuss the terminolgy of the word Criminal....

Is a criminal a person who does armed robbery on a bank to provide food for his family?

Is a criminal a person who is a corrupt Professional banker and Politician for self financial gain? .ie. Anglo Irish .. Ahern... Golden Circle....

Its impossible to get agreement on what a Criminal is or what is criminal because not all criminal laws are implemented. Also some legislation in itself may be criminal but implemented to protect certain (usually powerful) groups in society.
Sociologist Emile Durkheim asks people to imagine a society of saints, a perfect cloister of exemplary individuals. Crimes, properly so called, will there be unknown; but faults which appear venial to the layman will create there the same scandal that the ordinary offense does in ordinary consciousness. If, then, this society has the power to judge and punish, it will define these acts as criminal and will treat them as such.

himnextdoor

sparkling sea wrote: »

Its impossible to get agreement on what a Criminal is or what is criminal because not all criminal laws are implemented. Also some legislation in itself may be criminal but implemented to protect certain (usually powerful) groups in society.
Sociologist Emile Durkheim asks people to imagine a society of saints, a perfect cloister of exemplary individuals. Crimes, properly so called, will there be unknown; but faults which appear venial to the layman will create there the same scandal that the ordinary offense does in ordinary consciousness. If, then, this society has the power to judge and punish, it will define these acts as criminal and will treat them as such.

Which, for me, provides a good basis for a definition; what constitutes a crime reflects social morality. And is entirely subjective.

A criminal acts in opposition to socially accepted norms and is not deemed a criminal until he/she breaks the law and is tried and convicted, or equivalent, for it.

So, I would say that society defines criminality as a tendency to deliberately act against the interests of society as enshrined by the law.

Or, a criminal is one who knowingly breaks the law. 'Knowingly' in this context meaning in the full knowledge of the implications of breaking the law.

But 'knowingly' is the problem; for me, crime must involve 'intent'. For example, in order to steal there must be intent to deprive the owner of the thing that is stolen; murder requires an intention to kill and for either to be a crime, there must be a law against it. The legal process has to determine intent before it can define the law that is broken.

sparkling sea

himnextdoor wrote: »

Which, for me, provides a good basis for a definition; what constitutes a crime reflects social morality. And is entirely subjective.

A criminal acts in opposition to socially accepted norms and is not deemed a criminal until he/she breaks the law and is tried and convicted, or equivalent, for it.

So, I would say that society defines criminality as a tendency to deliberately act against the interests of society as enshrined by the law.

Or, a criminal is one who knowingly breaks the law. 'Knowingly' in this context meaning in the full knowledge of the implications of breaking the law.

But 'knowingly' is the problem; for me, crime must involve 'intent'. For example, in order to steal there must be intent to deprive the owner of the thing that is stolen; murder requires an intention to kill and for either to be a crime, there must be a law against it. The legal process has to determine intent before it can define the law that is broken.

Defining a crime in a given society is not difficult - defining a criminal is much more difficult. Thats what makes the OP question so difficult to answer I think.

It would appear under your definition that if a person is an inept and gets caught they are a criminal, however if they do not get found out then they are not a criminal?

If an inept person has money or is lucky enough to get an extemely good barrister, one who is better than average at arguing a case, even though the person committed the crime, they are found not guilty, they are not criminal?

In this country a person who commits white collar crime is much less likely to be prosecuted - are they still criminals?

himnextdoor

sparkling sea wrote: »

Defining a crime in a given society is not difficult - defining a criminal is much more difficult. Thats what makes the OP question so difficult to answer I think.

It would appear under your definition that if a person is an inept and gets caught they are a criminal, however if they do not get found out then they are not a criminal?

If an inept person has money or is lucky enough to get an extemely good barrister, one who is better than average at arguing a case, even though the person committed the crime, they are found not guilty, they are not criminal?

In this country a person who commits white collar crime is much less likely to be prosecuted - are they still criminals?

It's not because of my definition, it's because of the subjectivity of the law enforcement agencies.

Selt-interests have to come in to it; is not committing a crime likely to be detrimental to your own well-being, for instance. Suppose a hungry man steals food from McDonalds at the point it's about to be bleached in order to make it inedible, is he detrimental to society or is he just a hungry man? If the man didn't steal food and instead starved to death, would that be detrimental to society? Can there be a choice of 'starve to death' or 'be a criminal'?

That seems to be a conflict of interests to me. It would mean that nature has criminality as its 'base-line'. Steal food or die is not a choice, it's survival and we cannot criminalise people for wanting to survive. Can we?

People who employ accountants employ thieves; accounts effectively 'steal' from the tax-man. Sure, accountants follow rules but can it be said that by depriving the tax-man of revenue, accountants damage the interests of society?

I say yes, it can but the law says that there are socially agreed rules that allow accountants to operate as they do; no law is broken therefore no crime has been committed.

But society can stand that; less tax equals lowered standards of elderly care. Doesn't affect me. Lower standards of education; I left school ages ago. Lousy transport; I live in a city... etc. The will of the people is reflected in its law.

The law also reflects the apathy, ignorance and complacency of the people too.

But you are right, he can get away with murder and you can't. And by my definition, that is detrimental to society, it is immoral; a rule for him and a rule for you cannot be a basis for equality - justice requires equality but justice is another story isn't it?

I'd like to add that I think the law has nothing really to do with criminality; it is simply the mechanism used by those in control that stops us screwing it up for them by screwing it up for us.

Drumpot

Spot on himnextdoor ..

Really . . Society, at any given stage decides, what it believes to be "civil" and what is "criminal" . .

People used to be stoned to death . . Rape was acceptable in certain times, yet we feel we are in a ridiculously civil society . . .

I love to marvel at how complacent and arrogant we can be as supposedly superior race . .

Ironically I think a quote from a movie sums up my feeling on humanity, despite being part of it, I feel completely Alien to the way its run - "You dont see them F**king each over for a percentage" - Lt Ripley - Aliens . .

sparkling sea

himnextdoor wrote: »

The law also reflects the apathy, ignorance and complacency of the people too.

But you are right, he can get away with murder and you can't. And by my definition, that is detrimental to society, it is immoral; a rule for him and a rule for you cannot be a basis for equality - justice requires equality but justice is another story isn't it?

I'd like to add that I think the law has nothing really to do with criminality; it is simply the mechanism used by those in control that stops us screwing it up for them by screwing it up for us.

I do think some legislation relates to criminality, for me though in the main it relates to social control.

Who is being protected and from whom is the problem.

Omentum

We are all born criminals. And we are all born non-criminals. People choose. Why they chose is another issue.

All crimes are violence of some sort. Violence can take a multitude of forms.

No other species is as cruel as man and this is because we can rationalise our future actions.

We are all born with the potential to be violent. It's one of the reason we have evolved. Society has created boundries in which we should act. Some people choose to act within these confines and others don't.