U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-16-2009, 09:32 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,556,197 times
Reputation: 35864

Advertisements

Crime is only a symptom of pathology. Psychiatrists estimate that one or two percent of all men and a much smaller percentage of women meet the profile of a Sociopath. Sociopaths commit crimes of opportunity, selfishly to fulfill their own desires, without a thought to the consequences to anybody else, even members of their own family. Crimes committed by sociopaths are not differentiated from crimes committed by people who have different motives. Probably, they should be, but difficulties arise in trying to determine who is a sociopath, because they are generally very skilled at evading detection. They are pathological liars, and can only be positively identified through a long period of observation in a social environment.

It would be a good first step to require the courts to determine how the offender is motivated, and then adjust the penalty accordingly. If the sociopaths could be effectively neutralized and removed from society, there would be a lot less harmful activity taking place. Most non-gang murders result when an otherwise law-abiding individual finds himself in an untenable position and can see no other way to continue his life, and murders in a weak moment. Police recognize this, some police departments have a few ex-murders on call to help them solve cases, and the murderers enjoy a high degree of trust that they have full remorse and are a near-zero risk to re-offend. On the other hand, sociopaths are daily victimizing the people around them, and commit well-planned crimes with a low risk of apprehension. They are far more dangerous than murderers, but most of them walk free.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-16-2009, 10:11 PM
 
339 posts, read 627,385 times
Reputation: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Crime is only a symptom of pathology. Psychiatrists estimate that one or two percent of all men and a much smaller percentage of women meet the profile of a Sociopath. Sociopaths commit crimes of opportunity, selfishly to fulfill their own desires, without a thought to the consequences to anybody else, even members of their own family. Crimes committed by sociopaths are not differentiated from crimes committed by people who have different motives. Probably, they should be, but difficulties arise in trying to determine who is a sociopath, because they are generally very skilled at evading detection. They are pathological liars, and can only be positively identified through a long period of observation in a social environment.

It would be a good first step to require the courts to determine how the offender is motivated, and then adjust the penalty accordingly. If the sociopaths could be effectively neutralized and removed from society, there would be a lot less harmful activity taking place. Most non-gang murders result when an otherwise law-abiding individual finds himself in an untenable position and can see no other way to continue his life, and murders in a weak moment. Police recognize this, some police departments have a few ex-murders on call to help them solve cases, and the murderers enjoy a high degree of trust that they have full remorse and are a near-zero risk to re-offend. On the other hand, sociopaths are daily victimizing the people around them, and commit well-planned crimes with a low risk of apprehension. They are far more dangerous than murderers, but most of them walk free.
Que? Motivation is pretty much always out there when dealing with crime/criminals (motive). There aren't many crimes where a motive cannot be developed. Sociopaths, psychopaths, etc. even have motives. I think it's pretty clear why someone steals, kills or does whatever when the facts are laid out. People do things for different reasons, but there are reasons. There's no "cookie cutter" formula to figure out a motive (IMO). The bottom line is that they broke the law. And...how is anyone more dangerous than a murderer? Maybe I am misunderstanding. How do you propose this gets accomplished?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2009, 11:55 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,556,197 times
Reputation: 35864
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDTD View Post
How do you propose this gets accomplished?
The fist step to getting something accomplished is to try to get closed-minded people to expand their thinking and consider alternative solutions to those that are hopeless failures.

I am not afraid of a person who, when backed into a desperate situation, murders a person who is contributing to his despration. I am afraid of a person who possesses absolutely no scruples about destroying the lives of whomever gets in the way of his selfish needs without even giving it a thought.

A part of the principle of our judiciary is to place a wall of separation between ordinary people and those who represent a clear danger. Sadly, these forums are full of people who think the entire purpose it to get revenge against disobediece, but personally, I'd rather keep some space between me and those who are a danger to me, and I am not particularly driven to torture them in the process.

I don't expect you to understand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2009, 02:05 AM
 
339 posts, read 627,385 times
Reputation: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
The fist step to getting something accomplished is to try to get closed-minded people to expand their thinking and consider alternative solutions to those that are hopeless failures.

I am not afraid of a person who, when backed into a desperate situation, murders a person who is contributing to his despration. I am afraid of a person who possesses absolutely no scruples about destroying the lives of whomever gets in the way of his selfish needs without even giving it a thought.

A part of the principle of our judiciary is to place a wall of separation between ordinary people and those who represent a clear danger. Sadly, these forums are full of people who think the entire purpose it to get revenge against disobediece, but personally, I'd rather keep some space between me and those who are a danger to me, and I am not particularly driven to torture them in the process.

I don't expect you to understand.
Well help me understand. You are giving an opinion. I'm asking how you accomplish this. You sometimes seem to say "things" but just leave it hanging. If you are going to say something should be done, say how. Offer some alternatives or examples. That's all i'm asking. You and a couple other people in these forums react by going straight from debating to likening people to dictators, calling people close-minded, saying things like "I don't expect you to understand" or just by taking their toys and going home altogether if others question you or disagree. So...once again...how are you going to accomplish this? It's not that difficult of a question. Help my close-minded, unintelligent a$$ out. Got a solution? Throw it out there. Maybe some of your genius will rub off on me.

BTW. Paragraph 3...last sentence. What does that mean? Seriously. I'm either really dumb or you are just so smart that only you can understand what you are saying. Can you clear that one up for me too? Thanks!

Last edited by JDTD; 01-17-2009 at 02:12 AM.. Reason: cut down length
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2009, 04:22 AM
 
Location: Florida
18,290 posts, read 18,539,506 times
Reputation: 20968
Agree with you once again SCGranny
One thing that has always struck me as ridiculous is that an unsuccessful murder (attempted murder) is not considered as serious as a successful one.
The intent was the same and had the perpetrator not been incompetent or unlucky in some way, it would have been the same.
The incompetent just get rewarded with a lesser punishment and the competent punished.
That is, of course, not an unusual situation in this country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2009, 04:38 AM
 
Location: Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, New York
195 posts, read 669,079 times
Reputation: 89
I remember there was one down there in Florida!
A woman was gang raped by 10 teens and those teens forced the victim's son to rape her...
I thought you only see this in other "savage" countries...But, yeah, it happened right here in America!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2009, 10:21 AM
 
339 posts, read 627,385 times
Reputation: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold View Post
Agree with you once again SCGranny
One thing that has always struck me as ridiculous is that an unsuccessful murder (attempted murder) is not considered as serious as a successful one.
The intent was the same and had the perpetrator not been incompetent or unlucky in some way, it would have been the same.
The incompetent just get rewarded with a lesser punishment and the competent punished.
That is, of course, not an unusual situation in this country.
Very, very true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2009, 11:20 AM
 
5,273 posts, read 11,910,304 times
Reputation: 5750
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCGranny View Post
There is a lot of fuzzy thinking going on, IMHO, that causes the lines to be blurred.

Physical harm is one thing that should be judged to the maximum. Intended or not, degreed or extreme, physical harm is egrigious, because it costs the victim and their family - either in loss of life or loss of function. But I consider "physical harm" to also be the drunk driver who slams into an innocent on the road, causing them physical harm even death. The impaired driver usually gets a much lighter sentence than the person who shoots his vctim, but why? Because he can blame his choice of impairment on everyone and everything but himself, the committer of the crime.

But I also believe that those who indulge in theft -either by B&E or by fraud - are just as culpable as a gang member performing a driveby. They BOTH take what is not theirs, and harm the victim by stealing what is HIS - what he worked very hard to get or keep, and what will never be refunded or replaced - whether in the former physical-harm instance, or the latter theft instance. It is still a harmful instance. I've had my good name ruined three times by people who stole my identity, and not only did they destroy my credit, but they took from me what was not theirs, but was mine by dint of my efforts. One was fired from his job (he was a cop) but in none of the three instances were the perpetrators incarcerated nor did they have to repay the monies they had stolen from me.
It costs a LOT of money and time to come back from such an instance.

I have a funny idea about a lot of it too though. I think that those who harm others either physically or fiscally, should be forced by the courts to provide retribution and renumeration to their victims. Drunk drivers, thieves, rapists, murderers, all should be forced to continue to earn money (even if they are incarcerated), to have their wages garnisheed, and to pay back their victims - everything from funeral costs for those they killed, to the last $.25 they billed to each individual credit card. With that threat hanging over their heads, how many would even start a life of crime (aside from the idiots who say "I'll never be caught")? But no - we talk about 'closure' being only that action of incarceration, which does not impact the criminal enough to make him change his ways. To HE-double-hockey-sticks with THAT - GIMME BACK WHAT YOU STOLE! Do you think if they made a drunk or stoned driver WORK and pay his salary to the family that he injured, or pay them for the car that he destroyed, there wouldn't be a lot fewer of them out there, knowing that they can do as they please and get off with a 'slap on the wrist' until they kill someone - and even then only get a couple of years in prison? Same for a burglar or a car thief?

As for the third category, "victimless crimes" - this is simply a "moral" determination, when individual rights to be stupid are made into crimes. The ONLY crimes, IMHO, are when you take something from someone else - their life, their living, their property, or their innocence.

Will you marry me?

Jez kidding, but as usual, good thoughts on your part.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2009, 11:42 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,556,197 times
Reputation: 35864
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDTD View Post

BTW. Paragraph 3...last sentence. What does that mean? Seriously. I'm either really dumb or you are just so smart that only you can understand what you are saying. Can you clear that one up for me too? Thanks!
A part of the principle of our judiciary is to place a wall of separation between ordinary people and those who represent a clear danger. Sadly, these forums are full of people who think the entire purpose it to get revenge against disobediece, but personally, I'd rather keep some space between me and those who are a danger to me, and I am not particularly driven to torture them in the process.

Go back and read the posts. Most people here, and most Americans, are so driven by revenge and bloodlust, they are more interested in giving criminals "what they deserve" (a la Cambodia, e.g.), and less interested in simply separating the community from those who would do us harm. What I said was, I place a higher priority on a wall of separation between me and predators, and less interested in making sure that his life is as miserable as it is possible to make it.

Why do you think the yellow brick road to happiness lies in taking people who can be rehabilited, and instead turning them into angry, hate-fille, revenge-driven thugs out to get even with society, and then releasing them?

And you still don't understand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2009, 11:44 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,556,197 times
Reputation: 35864
Quote:
Originally Posted by N.Y.Traveler View Post
..But, yeah, it happened right here in America!
. . . once.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top