Crime Reactions

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:59 pm

I've been pondering this for a long time and just decided to put the question out there.

We've all seen pictures of seedy losers that are found guilty of murder or drug charges and they fit the part so we kind of think 'sure, glad they caught him sooner than later.' But what about those powerful executives or people with upper class jobs and you find out they embezzled millions or were caught with child pornography. I tend to think 'wtf made that worth risking a really good life for?'

I'm more outraged at the middle and upper class criminals. The poor losers didn't have much to risk or much else to work with but... the other guys just couldn't appreciate what they had.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:28 am

When I was religious I liked to think and say its due to sin, and what you described was the consequences of separation from God. When I was philosophical (or so I thought), I countered that it was man's lack of moral sophistication and deliberate thought process. Now? I realize we're nothing more than a species of monkey that is driven by desire and a need to survive - a species that spends most of each day convincing itself it's more than it truly is.

Nothing surprises me anymore.

kas · Post by **kas** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:36 am

koan;1351242 wrote:

I'm more outraged at the middle and upper class criminals. The poor losers didn't have much to risk or much else to work with but... the other guys just couldn't appreciate what they had.

I don't know about Canada but what is outrageous in the U.K. is the preferential treatment given to "upper class" criminals like Tory politician Jeffrey Archer who was sentenced to 4 years for, what the judge described as, the most blatant case of perjury he had ever seen.

Archer had only served a few weeks of the sentence (in an open prison) when he was allowed weekend leave to attend a dinner party.

The most galling thing though was he gets to keep his status as a "Lord"

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:26 pm

I'm more outraged at the middle and upper class criminals. The poor losers didn't have much to risk or much else to work with but... the other guys just couldn't appreciate what they had.

The low life crimes are probably fueled by desperation, addiction, idiocy or opportunity.

The others are probably mostly generated by greed.

Whats better or less troublesome to society, thousands losing their pensions, stock portfolios and lifes savings or an elderly woman being drug behind a car for the loose change in her purse by a crack addict?

I cant really make the distinction. What is clear to me is that right is right and wrong is wrong.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:20 pm

There is the potential that crimes of greed are responsible for the inequality that causes crimes of poverty.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:29 pm

Just off the top of my head and with no statistics that is possible I suppose but the crimes of greed probably affect more middle and upper class families than the guys in the street. The middle class dont generally resort to thug-ism.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:35 pm

Nomad;1351482 wrote: I cant really make the distinction. What is clear to me is that right is right and wrong is wrong.

Well no, not really. Wrong as an act of desperation is entirely different to wrong as a calculated means to excess.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:38 pm

Wrong.

My example of an 80 yr. old woman being drug behind a car for her purse seems to be an act of desperation.

I personally dont give a rats ass what motivated the 2 girls to behave that way.

Wrong is always wrong.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:43 pm

Nomad;1351502 wrote: Wrong.

My example of an 80 yr. old woman being drug behind a car for her purse seems to be an act of desperation.

I personally dont give a rats ass what motivated the 2 girls to behave that way.

Wrong is always wrong.The behaviour of the crack addict is best corrected by removing the cause of her desperation. The behaviour of the corrupt politician can only be corrected by removing his capacity to be corrupt. The first is external, the other internal. The one is a property of society while the other is inherent within the individual.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:52 pm

spot;1351504 wrote: The behaviour of the two girls is best corrected by removing the cause of their desperation. The behaviour of the corrupt politician can only be corrected by removing his capacity to be corrupt. The first is external, the other internal. The one is a property of society while the other is inherent within the individual.

Ill have to disagree. The law is in place to protect citizens from harms way. There are no distinctions. Its a purely black and white matter. Obey the law, dont get arrested. Disobey, pay the penalty. The law is pertains to the the greedy CEO as well as the heartless thug.

Both crimes are detrimental to society as a whole. A violent act, or the loss of income both present situations in which society demands retribution. The source of the cause for the crime may be of some interest but the laws arent in place to be negotiated. You do right or you do wrong.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 11:35 pm

I'm looking at it along the lines of a corporate crime defrauds a person of their life savings, plunges them into debt resulting in addiction and thievery to provide for his/her family.

White collar crime costs companies billions of dollars resulting in rising costs to consumers resulting in people being unable to attain their basic needs.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 11:38 pm

I'd have no trouble calling attention to someone stealing a bottle of perfume or a fur coat but I'd have more trouble alerting a store to theft of a loaf of bread or low end children's footwear.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 12:02 am

koan;1351507 wrote: I'm looking at it along the lines of a corporate crime defrauds a person of their life savings, plunges them into debt resulting in addiction and thievery to provide for his/her family.

White collar crime costs companies billions of dollars resulting in rising costs to consumers resulting in people being unable to attain their basic needs.

I dont know if that sounds like a reasonable or typical scenario.

I understand about degrees but I still believe in right and wrong. Anyone could make an argument for justifying their behavior but society has declared itself a land of law. The law must apply to every citizen. The store owner takes a hit on loaves of bread stolen from his inventory. He has more of a right to not find that acceptable than the thief has the right to steal for whatever reason. The punishments are doled out in degrees as well. That thief will get a slap, the other will take a severe hit.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 12:05 am

Sometimes a big toe gets cut off because it is gangrene but the toe wasn't the reason it went bad, it was the circulatory system.

Any one scenario won't suffice as an example. It's a matter of assessing cause and effect far enough up the ladder.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 12:31 am

Agreed but you can search for reasons to the high heaven. There are millions of reasons why people do things. Thats why its necessary to have a bottom line. There has to be an absolute and that is the law. There are too many variables to consider the whys.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 12:38 am

I take issue on two points.

Firstly, the crimes aren't evenly (allowing for crime rates by group) detected or investigated or enforced or sentenced. In my opinion anyone in jail who can show his crime category wasn't evenly handled at any of those stages to the detriment of an identifiable group of whom he's a part should be released, nothing else is ever going to push Law Enforcement into impartial policing.

And secondly, it's not surprising US imprisonment rates are so outrageously high compared to world averages when ordinary citizens like you have such dismissive attitudes to societal reform.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:31 am

spot;1351524 wrote: when ordinary citizens like you...
I take issue on two points.

1. Nomad isn't exactly ordinary.

2. He isn't exactly dismissive. He is proposing a line where the existing laws have to remain and those who cross it remain guilty.

I'm not sure it's dismissive to say that there isn't enough data to assess. Though the lack of data shouldn't discourage the seeking of the data needed.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 10:25 am

I saw a documentary on Woody Guthrie the other day. He made the humorous point about laws:

A policeman will just stand there and let a banker rob a farmer, or a finance man rob a workin man. But if a farmer robs a banker -- you would have a whole dern army of cops out a shooting at him. Robbery is a chapter in etiquette. -- Woody Guthrie

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 10:29 am

That Woody Guthrie.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:13 pm

spot;1351524 wrote: I take issue on two points.

Firstly, the crimes aren't evenly (allowing for crime rates by group) detected or investigated or enforced or sentenced. In my opinion anyone in jail who can show his crime category wasn't evenly handled at any of those stages to the detriment of an identifiable group of whom he's a part should be released, nothing else is ever going to push Law Enforcement into impartial policing.

And secondly, it's not surprising US imprisonment rates are so outrageously high compared to world averages when ordinary citizens like you have such dismissive attitudes to societal reform.

Im not interested in reform. Im interested in removing people that harm other people from society so that they cant repeat their actions. If someone desires to reform themselves then fine, reform away. In the meantime they have a penalty to pay. Holding a criminal accountable for their actions is anything but dismissive.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:16 pm

Nomad;1351709 wrote: Im not interested in reform. Im interested in removing people that harm other people from society so that they cant repeat their actions. If someone desires to reform themselves then fine, reform away. In the meantime they have a penalty to pay. Holding a criminal accountable for their actions is anything but dismissive.

But dismissing one type of criminal because it hasn't been proved they are harmful is kind of dismissive. I was under the impression you were just saying we shouldn't stop prosecuting easy to catch criminals while trying to figure out what to do about harder to catch ones. Both, imo, cause premature death in society. It would be foolish to deny that street crime is crime just because white collar crime might cause it. But it would be just as foolish to ignore the effect of white collar crime on society just because they're good at putting paperwork between themselves and the bodies.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:30 pm

koan;1351710 wrote: But dismissing one type of criminal because it hasn't been proved they are harmful is kind of dismissive. I was under the impression you were just saying we shouldn't stop prosecuting easy to catch criminals while trying to figure out what to do about harder to catch ones. Both, imo, cause premature death in society. It would be foolish to deny that street crime is crime just because white collar crime might cause it. But it would be just as foolish to ignore the effect of white collar crime on society just because they're good at putting paperwork between themselves and the bodies.

I didnt dismiss the effect wcc has on society. Clearly Maddoff affected thousands. Devastatingly so and that kind of thing goes on all the time.

I dont believe though that the two are as intricately connected as I think your implying. Each of us makes choices regarding our actions. Its as simple as that, right and wrong. No one can make me/you do anything you dont want to do or would cause me/you to ignore our principals. Its just not that complicated.

If you lose your job because the CEO corrupted the co. are you going to go out and rob a bank? If you dont its because you know the consequences arent worth the risk.

If you do its because you lack character and have no regard for right and wrong.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:35 pm

Nomad;1351711 wrote: I didnt dismiss the effect wcc has on society. Clearly Maddoff affected thousands. Devastatingly so and that kind of thing goes on all the time.

I dont believe though that the two are as intricately connected as I think your implying. Each of us makes choices regarding our actions. Its as simple as that, right and wrong. No one can make me/you do anything you dont want to do or would cause me/you to ignore our principals. Its just not that complicated.

If you lose your job because the CEO corrupted the co. are you going to go out and rob a bank? If you dont its because you know the consequences arent worth the risk.

If you do its because you lack character and have no regard for right and wrong.

Have you ever noticed how many people lack character? It's the ideal, not the norm.

Society is actually made up of "the norm" and I'm not convinced the norm is a person of character or morals.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:43 pm

Scenario:

A teacher molests a student. A drug addict knifes someone at a bar.

The drug addict is looked down on more, though the teacher makes for longer lasting gossip.

But the teacher molested the person who then developed emotional problems and became the drug addict.

Even if you don't know that history, I think the teacher was the bigger loser. They had a legitimate career and the possibility at a fulfilling life but they couldn't control themselves. The drug addict was already ****ed up trying to make the best of a lost life. So who is more despicable? Who had the most choice?

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 9:26 pm

koan;1351716 wrote: Scenario:

A teacher molests a student. A drug addict knifes someone at a bar.

The drug addict is looked down on more, though the teacher makes for longer lasting gossip.

But the teacher molested the person who then developed emotional problems and became the drug addict.

Even if you don't know that history, I think the teacher was the bigger loser. They had a legitimate career and the possibility at a fulfilling life but they couldn't control themselves. The drug addict was already ****ed up trying to make the best of a lost life. So who is more despicable? Who had the most choice?

Knifing someone at a bar isnt my idea of making the best of a lost life. A better option would be to decide to seek treatment, get a job, maybe raise a family and ultimately not knife anyone. Those are all reasonable options.

The teacher chose to throw it all away. Both scenarios produced victims. My concern is for the victims not for people who make poor choices. Why does this discussion prioritize the perpetrator and omit the rights of the victims?

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 10:21 pm

Nomad;1351866 wrote: Knifing someone at a bar isnt my idea of making the best of a lost life. A better option would be to decide to seek treatment, get a job, maybe raise a family and ultimately not knife anyone. Those are all reasonable options.

The teacher chose to throw it all away. Both scenarios produced victims. My concern is for the victims not for people who make poor choices. Why does this discussion prioritize the perpetrator and omit the rights of the victims?

It doesn't, it is thinking about the victim who ended up knifing someone. There are tiers of victims. Each victimization creates another victim. My scenario was focused on the first tier.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:21 pm

I wrote lengthy replies (((twice))) that were washed away upon clicking reply. My frustration level begs I try again another day.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 1:47 am

Nomad;1351875 wrote: I wrote lengthy replies (((twice))) that were washed away upon clicking reply. My frustration level begs I try again another day.

damn. That happened to me all morning... and when you press the go back button your text is gone. It's not really a time hinged debate, nor one that likely has any resolution at all.