Young Sociopaths

[Martial Tucker]

Young males not having anything to prove. That is an interesting way to look at it. I'm not sure its realistic though.
Sean

I never said that. Re-read my post. Touch Of Death compared these kids to midieval would-be warriors by implying that they attacked the defenseless homeless men with bats to somehow train/harden themselves for future battles against more formidable opponents. He referred to this as "proving"
I said they did it for kicks and I believe they would crap in their pants in a fair fight.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Okay have been busy at work making something out of myself. LOL

Wrong? Why because I disagree with you? Why do ring fighters get a thrill when they land a punch/kick? It is the same feeling. Just a matter of scale. You choose to call it something else other than that which it clearly is. Simply because you don't want to beleive you are capable of "Evil".

Ring fighters enjoy competition. Nothing competative about beating a homeless guy. If you find that pleasurable, perhaps you have some unresolved issues. For the majority of the population, however, the difference is extremely clear. It would be rare to find the person unable to make the distinction, instantly. That certain criminals can't make the distinction may be an important lesson here.

Also, note, I didn't call anything 'evil'. I did call it cowardice, which it. I'd be more than happy to demonstrate the difference between a 'fight' and an 'attack' to these gentlemen.

The crux of what you just posted there is so oxymoronic. You'd enjoy beating them up right? It would be fun? It would be Just? Whereas if you really cared about the homeless guy you would not have allowed him to be homeless in the first place. If you ever run for public office your slogan could read Helping people - NO, Revenge - YES.

LMFAO. The homeless guy is homeless for reasons of his own. However, your logic is idiotic. It's ok to the beat the guy because he's homeless? That is the most asinine logic i've heard in a long time. Oh, wait, it's ok to beat him because I haven't helped NOT be homeless? Been thinking long?

What is pleasureable in terms of violence? Please elaborate...

I think I did. The majority of the population is able to distinguish between violence in competition and beating a homeless guy for cheap thrills. If you are unable to, perhaps you have issues beyond the realm of this forum to address. The average person is able to distinguish between right and wrong.

Perhaps you are identifying a little too much with the suspects here. That seems to be the impression i'm getting. That may be why you are so upset at the prospect of punishing someone for something you can identify with. The average person, however, empathizes with the beaten man in this case, not his assailants. If your empathy is leaning the other direction, I can't help you friend.

...and yet you said you wanted to do the same thing to them as it disgusted you. Could one not argue that you wished power over them in retalliation.

What I said was, that it's too bad they didn't attack me instead. Then they could have gotten a 'fight' instead of simply beating a defenseless man. If these cowards wanted a fight, they could find one any time of the week. Instead, however, since they are cowards, they decided to feel powerful by beating the weak and the defenseless. That you can't distinguish between the two may be evidence of pathology on your own part, as well.

Agreed many times that is the case. Although it is not always the reason. My point was that we have the exact same system of dealing with everyone despite the reasons for crime differing.

List one justification, just one, that justifies this act of beating a homeless man for pleasure. Go ahead, i'll be real interesting in seeing THIS response.

I get the feeling you are more interested in me posting something that you can disect and critique. All the while bringing nothing to the table yourself. It is not an easy question to answer as my definitions of things will not meet yours. Imagine we could start from scratch and define our own model of a society. Of course this idealistic. But without ideals we are forced into the monotony of stagnation.

The difference between my model in yours is this......yours is built around empathy for the sociopath. Ideals have nothing to do with 'monotony'. Ideals have little to do with reality.

The problem you run in to with 'ideals' is when you start acting as if they ARE reality.

First we would need to define what are crimes. Three I would add...

1) It is a crime to let people go hungry or become homeless.
Let's face facts here. Poverty is the largest cause of all crime.

This is a strawman. The reason this man is homeless, is irrelavent in justifying beating him for pleasure. You are attempting to reduce blame on the individuals who beat this man, by trying to spread it around. It's a fallacious argument.

2) It is a crime to charge money for education.
Education should be provided to everyone free of charge until the day that they die. I mean why would we deny people the opportunity to better themselves? It would also get rid of a lot of ignorance.

Gain, entirely irrelavent. You are attempting to build arguments about irrelavencies. Your entire argument is fallacious, it's a dodge. None of this has to do with a homeless man being beaten for pleasure.

You are merely attempting to deflect the guilt away from the actual men who did this, and toward society as a whole, through some bizarre form of, for lack of a better word, 'logic'.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I think muay thai knee was trying to say that the emothion that you would get from striking someone in a ufc ring would be the same as those boys experienced when they struck the homeless man,in which case there is very little difference.

If that's what Muay Thai was saying, Muay Thai is wrong. You are claiming that a man who walks in an beats a 2 year old child, is someone morally on the same level as someone who engages in a ring sport?

It's asinine. It's faulty logic, and it's quite frankly, based on some pathological thinking. Although, he does lend us some insight in to the minds of the men who committed this crime. They would probably make the same argument, so perhaps Muay Thai is inadvertantly giving us a glimpse.

we adpot situations so that they fit our own moral code is the term I think he used.

That's gibberish, it actually means nothing. Societies determine a basic standard of behavior, that is clear, but pointing it out doesn't really add anything to the argument or justify the beating of a homeless man. Moreover, the reason socieities have laws, is prevent people from going in to your home, murdering you, stealing your property and raping your wife.

Are you arguing that the murdering, rapist thieve has as much right to do that as you have to stop him? I really doubt you'd even make that argument in anything but the most abstract way.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I don't disagree entirely; however, I think it depends on the reason that the crime was committed. There is a difference, for instance, between someone who steals for the joy of committing a crime, or the joy of "having" things, and the person who steals to feed hungry children. The former two may well be beyond rehabilitation; the latter would most likely not have to resort to crime if other options for feeding those children become available.

Yes, but we're talking about two men beating a homless man for pleasure, so lets not lose too much sight of the actually context of this discussion.

Also, in the US in this day and age, people rarely steal to feed their hungry children. We provide food for hungry children, the state and federal government pay for it. In fact, the biggest crime involved there is the drug and alcohol addicted parents who SELL foodstamps and their childrens food to BUY drugs and alcohol.

In theory, I understand your point, but in point of fact, at least as the developed world is concerned, it's a non issue.

Also, please note that my primary push is for prevention. In one of my graduate classes last semester, the professor pointed out that several states base their projections of jail space on the reported rates of behavioral problems among the state's second grade students. Rather than using that money to build jails for those second graders to grow into, that money should be used to provide as many of the students as possible with the skills necessary to avoid becoming criminals in the first place - which, ultimately, should reduce the need for jail space.

I'd be interested in knowing which state this is. Sounds like a myth. A little too contrived. What likely he is referring to, though a bit dishonestly, is that adult behavior can be predicted in second grade. Prisons do not build that far ahead, however, as in reality prisons are always overbooked as it is. Further, you can't predict trends in criminal behavior that far away. What's money, money is not set aside that far in the future. Prisons are filled as soon as they are built. So, building them in anticipation of 2nd grade offenders would presume they were built and remained empty waiting. That isn't the case.

At any rate, prevention is a nice buzz word, but the sad fact is, you can't 'prevent' all crime. Not all crime is the result of lack of education, or lack of opportunities, heck, some aren't even from lack of parental discipline (though that plays a HUGE role). Some people are just born to be criminals. I know we find that statement distasteful, but i've been dealing with criminals, intimately for well over a decade. I can spot often spot a child who is going to grow up to be a criminal. They have a certain quality....or rather, they lack certain qualities, empathy and guilt, for example.

I also assume your graduate degree is in education, am I correct?

I have no such belief. I teach special education in a middle school that is in a low-income, high-crime neighborhood; I have students whose parents have committed nearly every crime on the books; for that matter, I have (or used to have) students who have committed felonies - that's 11-14 year old children, showing off knives and guns at school, stealing cars (not to joy ride, but to fence), committing assaults... how old do they have to be before people like you give up on them, incarcerate them, and then release them knowing nothing but what they learned in jail?

Old enough to rob, rape steal and murder.....next question. By the way, nobody 'gave up on them'. That's a dodge. You're excusing their behavior, and blaming someone else for it. No one MADE them commit a crime. It was this kind of failed sociological thinking in the 1960's and 1970's that lead to the highest crime rates in US history in the 1970's and 1980's. Crime didn't go DOWN because people thought like you, it SKY ROCKETED.

Do the research, treating crime like a disease that needs treatment was an unqualified failure.

I think that this depends on the type of crime, and the amount of damage. As a taxpayer, I resent the amount of my taxes that go to support a justice system than releases criminals who are incapable of any means of support other than Welfare or returning to crime, that does little help released criminals integrate back into society, but freely allows them to return to the situation which led to the criminal activity in the first place.

Again, I agree. But you've yet to point to me ONE successful program that will rehabilitate even HALF of offenders, even HALF. You can't point to one solution that will reduce recidivism. The best you've got is 'There has to be a way'. No, there certainly doesn't have to be. You presume that because we want it bad enough, it will exist. Probation and Parole were designed to rehabilitate and reintegrate prisoners back in to society. They are monitored, and trained, and drug tested, and given educational opportunities. Most reoffend within two months. Blaming society is a cop out.

This is true - there is no hope for some of them. However, I do know people who have "adopted criminal thinking as their thought process" and yet learned to live within the law. How do you separate out those who can learn from those who can't?

Many don't learn to 'live within the law' many just learn how better to not get caught by the law. They merely become more sophisticated in their criminal activity.

I'm not offended - I'm saddened by what this says about our society in general. My only reason for desiring understanding for criminals is to find ways to help them not be criminals any more, and, if that's not possible, to find ways to prevent others from following the same path.

You blame society, but it's not unique to our society. In fact, our crime has been falling steadily for about 15 years. The crime rate Europe has been on a steady incline for the last several years. This is not a 'US problem', this is a human race problem.

Really, what you should be saying is 'I'm saddened by what this says about humanity as a whole, that so many of us embrace criminal behavior as a viable lifestyle.'

You're presumption is that criminals are 'victims'. You talk about 'preventing them' from becoming criminals. You assume it isn't a concious choice. Yet, I bet you'd be offended by the suggestion that you aren't capable of making a concious choice. The reality is that YOU made a concious choice to be where you are, criminals, like wise, and crime, are on one level or another, rational choices. That's why you can't 'prevent' crime as if it were a disease. It's not a disease, it's a maladaptive way of looking at the world. As such you can't 'prevent it' in many cases.




Since we've brought up criminal thinking, let me let you in on a little contrast between the mind of a criminal and the mind of the average person. In jail, criminals often call those who don't think like criminals 'Square Johns', hence, non-criminal thinking is 'Square John thinking'.


You're walking down the road, and you see a woman drop money out of her purse. She doesn't see it, but you do. Contrast

Normal Thinking : Walk up to the woman, and tell her she dropped some money
Criminal Thinking: Wait till she's not looking, and scoop it up and put it in your pocket...better yet, rob her of the rest of her money.


You're in a restaurant, and someone leaves a checkbook on the next table.

Normal Thinking: I walk up and tell the manager someone left their checkbook
Criminal Thinking: When nobodies looking I put it in my pocket, and start writting forged checks.


You're at a party, and some girl has had too much to drink.

Normal Thinking: Try and keep the other guys away from her and try to make sure she gets home safely
Criminal Thinking: Wait till she passes out, and have my way with her.


You hear about a robber down the block getting show by a homeowner

Normal thinking : Be glad it wasn't my house. Alternate: Be glad there's one less robber running around.
Criminal Thinking: Be angry at the homeowner, and think that you'll be glad when they ban all those private guns, so that you can be safe breaking in to a house. I mean, you're just trying to make a living.


You see the police driving down your block.

Normal Thinking: I'm glad they're patroling my area
Criminal Thinking: I wish those pigs would go somewhere else.


You hear about a homeless man getting beaten by two men. You then hear they got arrested and are going to be charged.

Normal Thinking: How could someone beat a defenseless homeless man for pleasure, that is so wrong Alternate: Those punks need to go to jail
Criminal Thinking: I can't believe they're hassling those boys who were obviously just out having a little fun, blowing off some steam. It's not any big deal. People watch violence all the time, what's the difference. Beating a homeless man, that's one thing, but to send two men to JAIL, that's awful. It's not me that's corrupt, society is corrupt....man.



Then there's criminal logic. Such logic basically follows as such

'Yeah, I shot her, but it's her own fault...I just wanted some money, the dumb broad shouldn't have fought back' genuinely convinced he was justified.

'Anything that's not nailed down belongs to me...anything I can pry loose is not nailed down.'

'I have the right to steal anything I want, you don't have the right to stop me.'

'I have the right to rape any woman I want, you don't have the right to stop me.'

'I have the right to beat anyone I want, with impunity, you don't have the right to stop me.'

'Sure, i'm a rapist, thief, and murderer, but it's the cops that are crooked....They lied to me to get me to confess to a rape and murder.....that's wrong, to lie to a guy like that.'

'I didn't do nuthin', man, this BS' said with the stolen property in his hand.

'You're a jerk for not believing my obvious lie of a story' said with righteous indignation.

'She's lying, I never touched her' said as the woman is being carted away in an ambulance.


Yes, Virginia, criminals do really exist, and they aren't the soft, cuddly, misunderstood criminals too many of us are apparently seeing on TV. They're the 'break in to your house, steal your TV, slap your mom, and shoot your dog type criminals.'

 

[sgtmac_46]

I never said that. Re-read my post. Touch Of Death compared these kids to midieval would-be warriors by implying that they attacked the defenseless homeless men with bats to somehow train/harden themselves for future battles against more formidable opponents. He referred to this as "proving"
I said they did it for kicks and I believe they would crap in their pants in a fair fight.

Exactly. If they wanted to 'harden' themselves, there was likely a bar right down the street, with dozens of men who would be willing to 'aid' in their 'hardening' process, by allowing them to 'demonstrate' their 'warrior' skills.

Actually, i'm willing to bet they'll get ample opportunity to hone their 'warrior skills' in jail, with other sociopaths and low-lifes, likewise honing their 'warrior skills'. It's a regular gladiator's school inside. :rofl:

 

[MJS]

I think muay thai knee was trying to say that the emothion that you would get from striking someone in a ufc ring would be the same as those boys experienced when they struck the homeless man,in which case there is very little difference.

we adpot situations so that they fit our own moral code is the term I think he used.

I believe that we're well aware what he is trying to say, as this is similar to what you have said in past posts. Again, however, there are distinct differences between ring and sport.

Mike

 

[MJS]

Agreed many times that is the case. Although it is not always the reason. My point was that we have the exact same system of dealing with everyone despite the reasons for crime differing.

Not always the reason? Perhaps you can list some other reasons why people would rob and shoot the owners of the mom and pop store, rob a bank, mug someone on the street? Poverty, drug addiction, unemployment are a few more reasons. Again, perhaps you can provide more insight. Don't think that I'm again disecting your posts, but keep in mind, when you engage in a discussion on a forum, people are going to want to discuss. You're stating that is not always the reason and I'm inquiring as to why you think that.

Mike

 

[sgtmac_46]

I think muay thai knee was trying to say that the emothion that you would get from striking someone in a ufc ring would be the same as those boys experienced when they struck the homeless man,in which case there is very little difference.

we adpot situations so that they fit our own moral code is the term I think he used.

I believe that we're well aware what he is trying to say, as this is similar to what you have said in past posts. Again, however, there are distinct differences between ring and sport.

Mike

The argument that, because assaulting and beating a defenseless homeless man is violence, and fighting in a ring is violence, they are both the same thing, is like saying that because concensual sex is sexual intercourse and rape is sexual intercourse, they are both the same thing. They are not only NOT the same thing, most people understand they are WORLD's apart.

Fortunately, most people find that this line of logic is absurd and morally repugnant.

However, many rapists would argue that IS correct, they ARE the same thing. Of course, that would just further illustrates my point about the moral bankrupt nature of that position.

The analogy applies completely, because this act was a power motivated act every bit like rape, it was about victimizing another human being, victimizing them for their own perverse pleasure.

 

[MJS]

[/i]



The argument that, because assaulting and beating a defenseless homeless man is violence, and fighting in a ring is violence, they are both the same thing, is like saying that because concensual sex is sexual intercourse and rape is sexual intercourse, they are both the same thing. They are not only NOT the same thing, most people understand they are WORLD's apart.

Agreed.

Fortunately, most people find that this line of logic is absurd and morally repugnant.

It is obsurd because as you said and I agree, there are distinct differences. Apparently some people are having a hard time seeing the difference between the 2.

 

[sgtmac_46]

It is obsurd because as you said and I agree, there are distinct differences. Apparently some people are having a hard time seeing the difference between the 2.

That's because some people have developed a real empathetic attachment to the suspects in the case, for whatever bizarre and perverse reason. Apparently the fact that a homeless man is dead, for the cheap thrill of two human parasites, is a triviality.

Of course, i'll hear more arguments about the 'need' to understand. On exactly what level is it necessary we understand the motives that would convince two people it's ok to beat a third to death, simply because they were bored and he was an easy target. I haven't gotten an answer to that question yet.

It's clear we understand enough, we understand that these men are capable of beating defenseless people, for the sheer enjoyment of it. They certainly appeared to be having a good time on the video. It's also clear that the pain, suffering and death of another human being didn't really give them much pause in their enjoyment, we understand that as well.

As for 'explainations', if they really must have one, maybe a line from 'Con Air' will help

'He's a fountain of misplaced rage. Name your cliche; Mother held him too much or not enough, last picked at kickball, late night sneaky uncle, whatever.' Garland Greene

Let them pick which one gives them the warm and fuzzies, and makes themselves feel better about being a human being. Personally, I liked 'Last picked at football', that's what did it. Darn sports in school.

 

[MJS]

That's because some people have developed a real empathetic attachment to the suspects in the case, for whatever bizarre and perverse reason. Apparently the fact that a homeless man is dead, for the cheap thrill of two human parasites, is a triviality.

Seems to me, in todays world, people tend to have more sympathy for the criminal than the victim. The ACLU wants to make sure terrorists in Iraq are being treated not too harshly, but they forget these people thrive on killing.

Of course, i'll hear more arguments about the 'need' to understand. On exactly what level is it necessary we understand the motives that would convince two people it's ok to beat a third to death, simply because they were bored and he was an easy target. I haven't gotten an answer to that question yet.

Oh come on Sgt., sure you have. Its the same thrill as watching a boxing match! Just kidding! Seriously though, I don't think that you'll get that answer.

It's clear we understand enough, we understand that these men are capable of beating defenseless people, for the sheer enjoyment of it. They certainly appeared to be having a good time on the video. It's also clear that the pain, suffering and death of another human being didn't really give them much pause in their enjoyment, we understand that as well.

Agreed.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I remember watching the Columbine massacre, and the media aftermath taking place. One thing that became obvious to me, was the degree to which these men were turned in to some sort of martyrs by the press. They wanted to remembered in posterity, they wanted their names to be every day words...and we gave them what they wanted.

Now, every two bit parasite, who wants revenge for 'getting picked last at dodgeball' holds these guys up as idols. WE did that, we did it by spending the last several years, telling everyone how 'Important' it was to understand the thinking of these boy, to understand their motives, and desires.

Now, I want anyone reading this, name to me the names of the two boys who shot up Columbine. I bet most people can do it easily.




Now....Name two people they murdered. I bet most of you can't, and that's truly sad. We are worried about the hopes, dreams, hates and desires of two murderers....and we could care less about the hopes and dreams of the people they killed. We've twisted our mentality around, and created a perverse new morality that is quite frankly disgusting. We are telling people, murderers have value, victims don't.

Don't think that's true?

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,1101990503,00.html

Here's what the cover reads 'Monsters next door? What made them do it?' As if that's the important issue. We have those two parasites, smilling faces, huge and in color.

Their victims, in small little black and white borders, around them....anonymous, there only as context. Their lives didn't matter, except as props in the sick fantasies of these two boys, and we perpetuated that. The message we sent? Only these two mattered, what they did, why they did it. We could care less about their victims, it's these boys that sell papers. It's these boys pain we care about, 'they were bullied?', they were angry? That's what we want to understand, them, them, them, we don't care about the futures they snuffed out that day. We don't care what might have been, with those children that could now be graduating college, starting a career, having children of their own, have a family.

Still don't believe me? Come up with a name of any of the victims yet?

This, MJS, is part of the root of the 'empathize with the killer' movement. And, yet again, i'll hear how important it is to 'understand' these people, truly understand on an empathetic level. It wasn't always that way. There was a day and age we identified with the victims, not the sociopaths.

 

[modarnis]

Not always the reason? Perhaps you can list some other reasons why people would rob and shoot the owners of the mom and pop store, rob a bank, mug someone on the street? Poverty, drug addiction, unemployment are a few more reasons. Again, perhaps you can provide more insight. Don't think that I'm again disecting your posts, but keep in mind, when you engage in a discussion on a forum, people are going to want to discuss. You're stating that is not always the reason and I'm inquiring as to why you think that.

Mike

And the reality is, in our system of laws, the reason doesn't matter. There is a distinct difference between motive and intent. That intent, or mens rea (mental state) is all that matters

 

[Bigshadow]

At any rate, prevention is a nice buzz word, but the sad fact is, you can't 'prevent' all crime. Not all crime is the result of lack of education, or lack of opportunities, heck, some aren't even from lack of parental discipline (though that plays a HUGE role). Some people are just born to be criminals. I know we find that statement distasteful, but i've been dealing with criminals, intimately for well over a decade. I can spot often spot a child who is going to grow up to be a criminal. They have a certain quality....or rather, they lack certain qualities, empathy and guilt, for example.

I agree. I believe that a certain amount of criminals are born that way and didn't happen through circumstance. I believe there are sometimes genetic defects that make people criminals.

Do the research, treating crime like a disease that needs treatment was an unqualified failure.

As brutal as it may sound. Society is like a flower garden, there are flowers (the law abiding citizens) and there are weeds (the criminals). To keep a beautiful flower garden, you have to remove the weeds. For it is the weeds that choke out the flowers. You cannot change the weeds into flowers, so they must be plucked. Yes, sometimes flowers become disease ridden and become a threat to the other flowers, so they too must be removed or sometimes they can be nurtured back into good flowers.

 

[Kacey]

Yes, but we're talking about two men beating a homless man for pleasure, so lets not lose too much sight of the actually context of this discussion.

Indeed... however, I do feel that society (not US society, but Western society) is part of the problem

Also, in the US in this day and age, people rarely steal to feed their hungry children. We provide food for hungry children, the state and federal government pay for it. In fact, the biggest crime involved there is the drug and alcohol addicted parents who SELL foodstamps and their childrens food to BUY drugs and alcohol.

In theory, I understand your point, but in point of fact, at least as the developed world is concerned, it's a non issue.

Perhaps not where you live - but I have several middle school students whose parents are in jail for either stealing necessities (food, clothing), or stealing other items that were sold to buy necessities (food, clothing, shelter). I also know dozens of children who eat at school - and only at school, because there is no food at home; therefore, they eat breakfast and lunch, and only on school days. Other days they go hungry; this is why the school lunch program is continued over holidays. But it is not enough. There are many people, adults and children, who are lacking basic necessities - some because they do not qualify for the aid (being technically over the 'poverty line'), some because they do not know how to access the aid, and some because they will not access the aid. Do all of these people turn to crime? No... but some do, out of necessity.

I'd be interested in knowing which state this is. Sounds like a myth. A little too contrived. What likely he is referring to, though a bit dishonestly, is that adult behavior can be predicted in second grade. Prisons do not build that far ahead, however, as in reality prisons are always overbooked as it is. Further, you can't predict trends in criminal behavior that far away. What's money, money is not set aside that far in the future. Prisons are filled as soon as they are built. So, building them in anticipation of 2nd grade offenders would presume they were built and remained empty waiting. That isn't the case.

I apparently did not put this data into my notes (or if I did, I can't find it) so I cannot speak to this with more detail. However, I do recall being shocked by his statement, and that, based on the discussion that ensued, so were many other people in the class.

At any rate, prevention is a nice buzz word, but the sad fact is, you can't 'prevent' all crime. Not all crime is the result of lack of education, or lack of opportunities, heck, some aren't even from lack of parental discipline (though that plays a HUGE role). Some people are just born to be criminals. I know we find that statement distasteful, but i've been dealing with criminals, intimately for well over a decade. I can spot often spot a child who is going to grow up to be a criminal. They have a certain quality....or rather, they lack certain qualities, empathy and guilt, for example.

Being that a large portion of my training is in psychology, I don't disagree that some people are 'born to be criminals'. They are called sociopaths - people who understand the the rules of society, but don't believe that those rules apply to them. There are a very small number of true sociopaths in a society - and a lot of people with lawyers who try to get them labeled as sociopaths to excuse their behavior, who erroneously add to the statistics. However, true sociopaths are as rare as true multiple personalities.

"Prevention" has been used as a buzzword, true - but that does not negate the fact that proper training (by society, but most especially by parents and other close relatives, who have the greatest influence on young children when their initial values are being formed) can prevent crimes. I am not speaking to a case-by-case method here; I am referring to societal norms and values, which lead people to devalue being law-abiding in favor of a quick route to success. An example (fiction, true, but indicative of the point I am trying to make):

"Lazarus enjoyed every minute and wished it were longer. How peaceful and clean and tree-shaded the city was! How gently bucolic.

He recalled another time when he had visited his old hometown - what century? - sometime early in the Diaspora, he thought - when a citizen venturing out into its filthy canyon streets wore a steel helmet simulating a wig, a bulletproof vest and codpiece, spectacles that were armor, gloves that covered brass knucks, and other concealed and illegal weapons - but rarely went out into the streets; it was more discreet to stick to transportation pods and go outdoors only in guarded suburbs - especially after dark.

But here and now guns were legal - and no one wore them."

Time Enough for Love, Robert Heinlein, pg 457 (1973)
​

One hundred years ago, cultural norms, in the US and other industrialized nations, were different. People were expected to pull their own weight, and criminal activity was looked upon much more negatively than it is today. Small crimes are overlooked (like speeding), and that small wedge leads to bigger breaks in cultural norms - to the point where some subcultures look upon lawbreaking as the norm, not the exception. This is what I am talking about when I say prevention - but it will require a change in society that is broader than any prevention programs currently in place or being proposed, and people will have to drop the "not-in-my-backyard" lack of involvement that allows such norms to flourish "across the tracks" in the "bad" neighborhoods. The cult of instant gratification also encourages criminal activity - why wait and earn what you want over a long time, if you can get away with stealing it today?

I also assume your graduate degree is in education, am I correct?

No, it's in psychology, although I am a teacher. I have a BA in psychology, a teaching certificate, an MA in Counseling, and am in a certification program to become a psychologist.

Old enough to rob, rape steal and murder.....next question. By the way, nobody 'gave up on them'. That's a dodge. You're excusing their behavior, and blaming someone else for it. No one MADE them commit a crime. It was this kind of failed sociological thinking in the 1960's and 1970's that lead to the highest crime rates in US history in the 1970's and 1980's. Crime didn't go DOWN because people thought like you, it SKY ROCKETED.

Do the research, treating crime like a disease that needs treatment was an unqualified failure.

You don't know me any more than I know you - please don't lump me in with a group. I excuse no one - but not excusing a person's behavior does not automatically make the perpetrator solely responsible. Too many of my middle school students learn from the example most often in front of them - their parents - that lying, cheating, and stealing are a way of life. We, as teachers, try to give them another example, but it's an uphill battle.

Again, I agree. But you've yet to point to me ONE successful program that will rehabilitate even HALF of offenders, even HALF. You can't point to one solution that will reduce recidivism. The best you've got is 'There has to be a way'. No, there certainly doesn't have to be. You presume that because we want it bad enough, it will exist. Probation and Parole were designed to rehabilitate and reintegrate prisoners back in to society. They are monitored, and trained, and drug tested, and given educational opportunities. Most reoffend within two months. Blaming society is a cop out.

Many don't learn to 'live within the law' many just learn how better to not get caught by the law. They merely become more sophisticated in their criminal activity.

See my comments above. I don't recall pointing out any specific rehabilitation programs - I stated that there are too few programs in place, and that the current incarceration program turns out criminals who have no skills but those needed to reoffend. Of course the current rehab programs don't work - the only one consistently in place is an attempt to make jail and prison so repulsive that the experience itself will prevent recidivism - a method that has been proven to fail, especially as, for many people, jail it preferable to life outside - clothing, shelter, meals, medical, all provided by the government. Why stay out?

You blame society, but it's not unique to our society. In fact, our crime has been falling steadily for about 15 years. The crime rate Europe has been on a steady incline for the last several years. This is not a 'US problem', this is a human race problem.

Really, what you should be saying is 'I'm saddened by what this says about humanity as a whole, that so many of us embrace criminal behavior as a viable lifestyle.'

I never said it was US society - I said was society in general, and was referring to Western civilization (so-called). If I was not clear on that that you read in that I meant US civilization, then I apologize.

You're presumption is that criminals are 'victims'. You talk about 'preventing them' from becoming criminals. You assume it isn't a concious choice. Yet, I bet you'd be offended by the suggestion that you aren't capable of making a concious choice. The reality is that YOU made a concious choice to be where you are, criminals, like wise, and crime, are on one level or another, rational choices. That's why you can't 'prevent' crime as if it were a disease. It's not a disease, it's a maladaptive way of looking at the world. As such you can't 'prevent it' in many cases.

No, I don't presume that most criminals are victims. I assume that most criminals live in a society in which crime is more rewarding the being law-abiding - the few who don't fit that profile simply don't care (sociopaths) or get off on the 'rush' of committing a crime (sociopaths and other mentally deranged individuals). You presumed that that was what I meant - but it wasn't what I said.

Since we've brought up criminal thinking, let me let you in on a little contrast between the mind of a criminal and the mind of the average person. In jail, criminals often call those who don't think like criminals 'Square Johns', hence, non-criminal thinking is 'Square John thinking'.

People who think this way before being jailed are sociopaths. People who think this way after being jailed have been taught to do so by the society in which they exist - and jail has it's own society, which perpetuates this type of thought - "You have been done wrong by the man, so your only choice is to return the favor".

Yes, Virginia, criminals do really exist, and they aren't the soft, cuddly, misunderstood criminals too many of us are apparently seeing on TV. They're the 'break in to your house, steal your TV, slap your mom, and shoot your dog type criminals.'

I never said they weren't, nor did I intend to imply it. You interpreted that from my statements. However, I do feel that a change in society in general (which I don't see coming any time soon) is the most effective (and probably only effective) form of prevention - but I would rather that the government spend my money on attempts at rehabilitation than on warehousing. So it's not even 50% effective. So what? If it's 1% effective, then, in my opinion, it was worth the money.

You seem to have a particular agenda in this discussion, and that's your right. It is also my right to have a different one. If everyone agreed all the time, then this would be a pretty boring board!

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Perhaps not where you live - but I have several middle school students whose parents are in jail for either stealing necessities (food, clothing), or stealing other items that were sold to buy necessities (food, clothing, shelter). I also know dozens of children who eat at school - and only at school, because there is no food at home; therefore, they eat breakfast and lunch, and only on school days.

Yeah, because "mom" is either too busy spending her social services money on booze, drugs or going out to the club. And most "food and clothes" stolen on the street (cause ive seen it) are steaks, batteries, razor blades and shrimps that can be traded quick for rock and the girls ive hung with that boost aint doin it because they dont have any clothes to wear. I agree with Sgt. theres no need to steal beyond the fact that theyre spending their governemt cheese on stuff they shouldnt be spendin it on.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Indeed... however, I do feel that society (not US society, but Western society) is part of the problem

There is not a society on the planet that rape and murder do not occur. There are parts of the planet, however, that much of it is treated like a crime. That Western Culture makes those things a crime, does not mean they invented them.

Perhaps not where you live - but I have several middle school students whose parents are in jail for either stealing necessities (food, clothing), or stealing other items that were sold to buy necessities (food, clothing, shelter). I also know dozens of children who eat at school - and only at school, because there is no food at home; therefore, they eat breakfast and lunch, and only on school days. Other days they go hungry; this is why the school lunch program is continued over holidays. But it is not enough. There are many people, adults and children, who are lacking basic necessities - some because they do not qualify for the aid (being technically over the 'poverty line'), some because they do not know how to access the aid, and some because they will not access the aid. Do all of these people turn to crime? No... but some do, out of necessity.

No, we do have people that steal 'necessities' as well. Though, most of them do it because they squandered the resources provided by the state to support habits, then don't have any money left to buy food and clothes, so they steal. Had they not spent the money they had already been given on drugs and alcohol, they could support their children.

I apparently did not put this data into my notes (or if I did, I can't find it) so I cannot speak to this with more detail. However, I do recall being shocked by his statement, and that, based on the discussion that ensued, so were many other people in the class.

That was, I suspect, was the point. It was used for it's shock value in your class, not as an accurate and true statement.

Being that a large portion of my training is in psychology, I don't disagree that some people are 'born to be criminals'. They are called sociopaths - people who understand the the rules of society, but don't believe that those rules apply to them. There are a very small number of true sociopaths in a society - and a lot of people with lawyers who try to get them labeled as sociopaths to excuse their behavior, who erroneously add to the statistics. However, true sociopaths are as rare as true multiple personalities.

Sociopathology is not a mental disorder, but rather, an entirely different worldview. Sociopaths represents approximately 2% of the US population. Want to know what percentage of the US population commits most of the violent crime?

"Prevention" has been used as a buzzword, true - but that does not negate the fact that proper training (by society, but most especially by parents and other close relatives, who have the greatest influence on young children when their initial values are being formed) can prevent crimes. I am not speaking to a case-by-case method here; I am referring to societal norms and values, which lead people to devalue being law-abiding in favor of a quick route to success. An example (fiction, true, but indicative of the point I am trying to make):

Sadly, one of the biggest producers of criminals has been the single parent model. Not blaming mothers, but for whatever reason, being raised in a single parent home has acted as a corrosive element on males. Some boys grow up fine, but a disproportianate number of single parent boys have criminal issues. Part of it could be simple economics, but that doesn't explain all
of it. Most of it runs far deeper than economic issues.

"Lazarus enjoyed every minute and wished it were longer. How peaceful and clean and tree-shaded the city was! How gently bucolic.

He recalled another time when he had visited his old hometown - what century? - sometime early in the Diaspora, he thought - when a citizen venturing out into its filthy canyon streets wore a steel helmet simulating a wig, a bulletproof vest and codpiece, spectacles that were armor, gloves that covered brass knucks, and other concealed and illegal weapons - but rarely went out into the streets; it was more discreet to stick to transportation pods and go outdoors only in guarded suburbs - especially after dark.

But here and now guns were legal - and no one wore them."

Time Enough for Love, Robert Heinlein, pg 457 (1973)

​

Hey, I love Heinlein.

One hundred years ago, cultural norms, in the US and other industrialized nations, were different. People were expected to pull their own weight, and criminal activity was looked upon much more negatively than it is today. Small crimes are overlooked (like speeding), and that small wedge leads to bigger breaks in cultural norms - to the point where some subcultures look upon lawbreaking as the norm, not the exception. This is what I am talking about when I say prevention - but it will require a change in society that is broader than any prevention programs currently in place or being proposed, and people will have to drop the "not-in-my-backyard" lack of involvement that allows such norms to flourish "across the tracks" in the "bad" neighborhoods. The cult of instant gratification also encourages criminal activity - why wait and earn what you want over a long time, if you can get away with stealing it today?

One of the big problems is the LACK of community mindedness in the 'Bad neighborhoods'. In the old days, neighborhoods policed themselves.

No, it's in psychology, although I am a teacher. I have a BA in psychology, a teaching certificate, an MA in Counseling, and am in a certification program to become a psychologist.

I'm a psych guy myself, though counseling isn't my area of study.

You don't know me any more than I know you - please don't lump me in with a group. I excuse no one - but not excusing a person's behavior does not automatically make the perpetrator solely responsible. Too many of my middle school students learn from the example most often in front of them - their parents - that lying, cheating, and stealing are a way of life. We, as teachers, try to give them another example, but it's an uphill battle.

Sadly, however, once the well becomes poisoned, many become beyond hope. How do you 'unpoison' a well.

See my comments above. I don't recall pointing out any specific rehabilitation programs - I stated that there are too few programs in place, and that the current incarceration program turns out criminals who have no skills but those needed to reoffend. Of course the current rehab programs don't work - the only one consistently in place is an attempt to make jail and prison so repulsive that the experience itself will prevent recidivism - a method that has been proven to fail, especially as, for many people, jail it preferable to life outside - clothing, shelter, meals, medical, all provided by the government. Why stay out?

I asked for you to point to one that works.

I never said it was US society - I said was society in general, and was referring to Western civilization (so-called). If I was not clear on that that you read in that I meant US civilization, then I apologize.

It's part of the human condition.

No, I don't presume that most criminals are victims. I assume that most criminals live in a society in which crime is more rewarding the being law-abiding - the few who don't fit that profile simply don't care (sociopaths) or get off on the 'rush' of committing a crime (sociopaths and other mentally deranged individuals). You presumed that that was what I meant - but it wasn't what I said.

No, by defending the comments of a few others here, you've inadvertantly aligned yourself with their position. I don't, however, lump your mentality with theirs. It's obvious that you have more perspective than many of them do.

People who think this way before being jailed are sociopaths. People who think this way after being jailed have been taught to do so by the society in which they exist - and jail has it's own society, which perpetuates this type of thought - "You have been done wrong by the man, so your only choice is to return the favor".

A sociopath by design or a sociopath by experience, is still a sociopath. Either way, a poisoned well needs to be buried over.

I never said they weren't, nor did I intend to imply it. You interpreted that from my statements. However, I do feel that a change in society in general (which I don't see coming any time soon) is the most effective (and probably only effective) form of prevention - but I would rather that the government spend my money on attempts at rehabilitation than on warehousing. So it's not even 50% effective. So what? If it's 1% effective, then, in my opinion, it was worth the money.

If it's ineffective, that means that crime will rise and more people will die.....so that some people can feel more benevolent. Warehousing has proven to be the only effective crime control method to date. 'Rehabilitation' was a failure.

You seem to have a particular agenda in this discussion, and that's your right. It is also my right to have a different one. If everyone agreed all the time, then this would be a pretty boring board!

Oh, you have the right to disagree. At least you are, unlike some, a rational and reasonable person. I can respect your opinion, without agreeing with it. :asian:

 

[Odin]

[/i]



The argument that, because assaulting and beating a defenseless homeless man is violence, and fighting in a ring is violence, they are both the same thing, is like saying that because concensual sex is sexual intercourse and rape is sexual intercourse, they are both the same thing. They are not only NOT the same thing, most people understand they are WORLD's apart.

Fortunately, most people find that this line of logic is absurd and morally repugnant.

However, many rapists would argue that IS correct, they ARE the same thing. Of course, that would just further illustrates my point about the moral bankrupt nature of that position.

The analogy applies completely, because this act was a power motivated act every bit like rape, it was about victimizing another human being, victimizing them for their own perverse pleasure.

...okay lets try to simplify fo you......when you rape someone and you have sex with someone I assume both times the person involved will climax's right......so therfore even though the two things are different the emothional response is the same at that point???why is this so hard to understand???

I mean really????what more do you want????a diagram maybe??Its not even a matter of opinion Im just shocked as to how hard your finding that point to understand!!!

 

[sgtmac_46]

...okay lets try to simplify fo you......when you rape someone and you have sex with someone I assume both times the person involved will climax's right......so therfore even though the two things are different the emothional response is the same at that point???why is this so hard to understand???

Excuse me, did you just justify the position that rape and consensual sex are the same thing? AND did you just claim that the emotional response of a rape victim is the SAME as the emotional response of a woman having consensual sex with a PARTNER?!

Forget the ludicrous claim that a rapist is having the same emotional response as a man having sex with a willing partner, I can't believe you just claimed the VICTIM has the same emotional response?!

At best, your defense of that statement might be the fact that you simply 'forgot' about the victim. At best, at BEST, your intended point was that the emotional response of a rapist and a man having sex is identical (insinuating that having sex with your wife is emotionally the same as holding a knife to a woman's throat and raping her, which is itself an idiotic claim).

Assuming THAT's your point, it still presumes the victim in the rape process and HER emotional response are IRRELAVENT....a claim i'm SURE a sociopath would make (but nobody else).

That, in itself, is extremely damning.



I'm hoping what I just read is the result of your apparent inability to articulate, because if I read this correctly, it is, in fact, beyond the pale, and ranks as possibly the most absurd claim i've ever read on Martial Talk.

 

[Odin]

Excuse me, did you just justify the position that rape and consensual sex are the same thing? AND did you just claim that the emotional response of a rape victim is the SAME as the emotional response of a woman having consensual sex with a PARTNER?!

Forget the ludicrous claim that a rapist is having the same emotional response as a man having sex with a willing partner, I can't believe you just claimed the VICTIM has the same emotional response?!

At best, your defense of that statement might be the fact that you simply 'forgot' about the victim. That, in itself, is extremely damning.



I'm hoping what I just read is the result of your apparent inability to articulate, because if I read this correctly, it is, in fact, beyond the pale, and ranks as possibly the most absurd claim i've ever read on Martial Talk.

For the love of jesus Christ!!

okay try and break down the act in your head....not the whole thing but break it down into little bits...okay...now stg_mac you put that thinking cap on...you take that ignorance cap of for just one minute.....now if you think of the one point....thats one point mac not the whole thing now..just that one point..that you climax.....just climax not the actually sex or anything...,just the climax...did i say just the climax??hold on JUST THE CLIMAX okay....wouldnt the emotion....the human body feels..thats the HUMAN BODY FEELS..you know them messages to the brain....be the same whether the person was raping or being with the his partner.....the emotional response...not what happend before i MEAN IN THAT INSTANCE.when he climaxed just that bit now mac nothing else can we concentrate on that one point...can you do that mac???....which would be the same as when a fighter throws a punch in the street and when a fighter throws a punch in the ring...the same signals would be sent to the brain displaying that same emotional response...all that changes is how you decide to label it......if I could I would love to get a a guy who was a professor in behavioral neurogenetics to sit you down to talk to about how your brain works.now did you get that mac...im not going to get a reply with you taking things out of context now am I??hey??