Inside Probation RTÉ 1 Monday 6th & 13th Oct 9.35pm

What a joke. No sentence for raping his daughter. I despair of this countries justice system

mickydoomsux wrote: »

This show is basically serving to confirm everything that is wrong with the joke of a justice system we have.

The vast majority of offenders aren't poor put-upon types, they are just garbage and should be treated as such. But no, we have people tripping over themselves to make excuses for them and give them the easiest life possible so they can continue to be irredeemable scrotes until they do something that ruins someone elses life.

Easy know these people aren't the receiving end of the actions of these types from "disadvantaged" areas with "tough upbringings". Us normal folk actually have to deal with them and we simply wish they didn't exist.

The show hasn't shown the majority of offenders so it didn't confirm anything.

Lapin wrote: »

How can anyone stick up for some little thief who wants to see the CCTV footage of his crime before he decides to plead guilty or not?

It was disgusting wasn't it!
And he thought he was robbing a man, as if that isn't as bad as robbing a woman.
They're all great at analysing their issues, but not so great at finding self-control to stay out of trouble. :rolleyes:

I am speechless after watching that.
Un friggen believable.

mickydoomsux wrote: »

This show is basically serving to confirm everything that is wrong with the joke of a justice system we have.

The vast majority of offenders aren't poor put-upon types, they are just garbage and should be treated as such. But no, we have people tripping over themselves to make excuses for them and give them the easiest life possible so they can continue to be irredeemable scrotes until they do something that ruins someone elses life.

Easy know these people aren't the receiving end of the actions of these types from "disadvantaged" areas with "tough upbringings". Us normal folk actually have to deal with them and we simply wish they didn't exist.

^This is a very common view.

There is noting innate or genetic to being, or becoming, an "irredeemable scrote" or "garbage" or a waster scumbag drain on society, noting. A person being this is a result of environment, simple. It's a hard truth most people don't want to admit. If you where born into those same "scumbags" homes, had the same upbringing, influences and opportunities, we could be here discussing you!

I don't care how much of a liberal asshole I sound like making excuses for scumbags, as yes a lot are! but understanding why they are and how to help them change is far better than just treating them like scumbags, what's that going to solve?

Before you come back with crimes committed against you, so have I, unprovoked attack, robbings, all that, I don't feel like hurting them back - I'd be no better than them if I did - I feel sorry for them - warped mindsets because of a sh*tty upbringing most likely..

FYI being "normal folk" is a privilege that no one person can claim as their own doing, we all had help becoming 'normal'.

Esel wrote: »

Are you saying, definitively, that nurture is everything, and nature is nothing?

Are you saying that genes that may predispose to a certain type of behaviour are not inherited? That sociopathic or psychopathic tendencies are all as a result of life experience? How does your theory work for medical (i.e. in the physical body as opposed to the mind) conditions that have been proven to be genetic? Think heart conditions, many cancers, muscular/orthopaedic disorders etc. How is the brain/mind totally free from such inheritance?

Without getting into too much of a debate about nature vs nurture, Yes and no. Genetics as a root cause for people's behaviour is simple untenable as they do not occur in isolation of environment. And yes for the same reason nurture cannot be the sole cause, but it is much more important than people like to admit.

I think we are in agreement here. Genes are inherited, obviously, but crucially they are not determined, such conditions and diseases are due to particular genes but not all people who have them have its associated condition. And Isn't it well established that genes are turned on and off and altered by environment?:

"Abuse alters genetics, McGill study shows Suicide victims who suffered abuse as children – neglect, sexual, physical or emotional – show genetic changes in their brain". (Cant post link) Re: Google search Montreal study of suicide victims.

Again, I'm not saying that nurture is everything, (forgive my previous post if it came across like that) it's just very important. Genes are crucial but understanding environments role on genes ie the epigenetic effect, is more important, as is all environmental influences a person may have.

My previous post was in relation to labelling people wasters in society, addicts and "scumbags". Suggesting they are somehow just that by their own doing or that it is all 'in the genes'. This bears little explanation as to why they are as they are. This view supports that we should give up on them, lock them away and not care as they chose their own path. Some do, in fact most! What I am saying is they choose a life of crime, or continue to use drugs or a particular behaviour because of influences, events and shortcomings throughout their lives that have shaped their thinking – outlook on life, their attitude and self-awareness.

There are very many high-functionning psychopaths in society. Did their high-functionning quality come from nurture alone? It may well have done, but where did the underlying condition come from? Always from nurture?

More learned behaviour and environment than genes. I'm not sure if a particular gene has been identified for high-functioning psychopaths in society but if there is, and their probably is, then the genes supposed effect to predispose a particular condition or behaviour will often happen provided the environment re-enforces it:

People reared by parents with antisocial personality disorder or substance abuse disorders are more likely to develop antisocial personality disorder (APD) than members of the general population. People with the disorder may be homeless, living in poverty, suffering from a concurrent substance abuse disorder, or piling up extensive criminal records, as antisocial personality disorder is associated with low socioeconomic status and urban backgrounds. Highly intelligent individuals with APD, however, may not come to the attention of the criminal justice or mental health care systems and may be underrepresented in diagnostic statistics.

Studies of adopted children indicate that both genetic and environmental factors influence the development of APD. Both biological and adopted children of people diagnosed with the disorder have an increased risk of developing it. Children born to parents diagnosed with APD but adopted into other families resemble their biological more than their adoptive parents. The environment of the adoptive home, however, may lower the child's risk of developing APD.

Researchers have linked antisocial personality disorder to childhood physical or sexual abuse; neurological disorders (which are often undiagnosed); and low IQ. But, as with other personality disorders, no one has identified any specific cause or causes of antisocial personality disorder. Persons diagnosed with APD also have an increased incidence of somatization and substance-related disorders".

Read more: Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders - Antisocial personality disorder.

Is this borne out by a preponderance of peer-reviewed, scientific studies?

Yes, well, I’ve done a little research for this response just now but I am a recent social science graduate, I've studied too much empirical research to contend that genes play a greater role than environment in a person’s behaviour or place in society. The thought that public policy should be informed by this idea is actually terrifying. I think we both agree on this?

Do those studies explain how some people (admittedly a very small percentage of the total population) who had 100% great nurture turned out to be so opposite than predicted?

I don't know, but environment includes a whole spectra of influences from cultural, peers, family, institutional, etc etc, somewhere along the line a person can change dramatically or even slightly, changing their way of thinking regardless of what they were brought up to believe. – Assertion granted.

I am not saying that bad nurture is not one possible cause of anti-social behaviour - far from it. To say, however, that it is the only cause of such behaviour is questionnable.

If your theory (nurture only) is true (and I do not believe it is - for all cases) how do you explain the anomalies?

Not the only cause but it certainly has a very big impact on a person’s being and for the majority of offenders in prison, (and not the aforementioned rare abnormalities – good upbringing leading to anti-social behaviour) their upbringing, their opportunities, their culture, education, employment status, their home environment, these are more often than not similar to the guy in the cell next door and from a social science perspective these indicators are mostly why they are there in the first place.

Most captured 'offenders' probably had a bad start/continuation/ /individuation experience - of life. The vast majority of 'non-offenders' did not have all that. However, some 'offenders' did get all the possible breaks in life, and still grew up to be really, really bad. Nature (inherited) or nurture (saw how to manipulate from a position of power)? Which? Genes, or means?

Both, more nurture though. Why someone with a great upbringing and plenty of opportunities would end up a homeless alcoholic is complex and multifaceted, why do some people who seem to have everything become depressed, why do some people who had the worst upbringing imaginable turn out to be the nicest people you could meet? These questions can’t be summed up with one answer as each person internalises their individual and constantly changing environment differently. But there is plenty of research to show why most people are the way they are as suggested above.

A good example of some research that makes people uncomfortable:

Cycle of child sexual abuse: links between being a victim and becoming a perpetrator

Background - There is widespread belief in a ‘cycle’ of child sexual abuse, but little empirical evidence for this belief.

Aims - To identify perpetrators of such abuse who had been victims of paedophilia and/or incest, in order to: ascertain whether subjects who had been victims become perpetrators of such abuse; compare characteristics of those who had and had not been victims; and review psychodynamic ideas thought to underlie the behaviour of perpetrators.

Method - Retrospective clinical case note review of 843 subjects attending a specialist forensic psychotherapy centre.
Results - Among 747 males the risk of being a perpetrator was positively correlated with reported sexual abuse victim experiences. The overall rate of having been a victim was 35% for perpetrators and 11% for non-perpetrators. Of the 96 females, 43% had been victims but only one was a perpetrator. A high percentage of male subjects abused in childhood by a female relative became perpetrators. Having been a victim was a strong predictor of becoming a perpetrator, as was an index of parental loss in childhood.

Conclusions The data support the notion of a victim-to-victimiser cycle in a minority of male perpetrators but not among the female victims studied. Sexual abuse by a female in childhood may be a risk factor for a cycle of abuse in males.
Re: The British Journal of Psychiatry (2001) 179: 482-494 doi: 10.1192/bjp.179.6.482

So the most sickest an vile of society are often victims of sexual assault themselves, is that an excuse, no, it explains that sick bastards aren’t born with it in them, they learn it. The same way we learn how to be good.
A society that has so much violence and horrible people is for me an indicator of how people shape people by how we treat each other.

How can a total re-appraisal of outlook be applied successfully to someone who does just does not have the capacity to change (however this lack of capacity arose)?

Under the right conditions, everybody has the capacity to change.

tl/dr Nature (genetics) and nurture (early life experience, upbringing) - both are factors in the formation of the person. Nurture may be the main influence, but it may not be the only influence. If the gene is active (especially in the mind), it can be very hard to identify, and even harder to suppress.

I agree that they work hand in hand, nurture does not occur in isolation of nature however in relation to criminals and how we treat them, focusing on genes or an ideology that says they can’t change is just wrong and it will serve to just perpetuate a cycle of crime, violence and anti-social behaviour which these people pass on not through genes but through how they treat their children and how they live in society.


I’m tired now, we’ll leave the abortion debate until tomorrow…