Does Nurture Contribute to Criminality

[lizbethrose]

A lot of stock seems to be given in criminal justice to the way a person was raised. Is this always reasonable? Should judges even take someone's childhood into consideration in deciding a criminal case? Most people from lousy homes don't end up criminals, after all, although they may not be the greatest people in the world. What is the sort of abusive home that creates criminals? More than one question, I know, but they are all related.

[Duality]

society creates alot of psychological turmoil which it must then attempt to alleviate. so if you are in a system and something is caused by the system you created it doesnt really make sense to take it into account because then you would have to logically negate and destroy your own system. society is unconsciously mainly centered around the create a problem then offer the solution profit-profit mindset anyway.

people have individual weaknesses where you cant ever assess any case that accurately anyway. it really doesnt matter at this point as the system is set up largely to create a profit margin and lock away societal undesirables anyway.

[James S Saint]

society creates alot of psychological turmoil which it must then attempt to alleviate. it really doesnt even matter at this point as the system is set up largely to create a profit margin and lock away societal undesirables anyway.

So true.

What a judge "should" be doing is deciding the best course of action. In that endeavor, a childhood review might or might not be relevant. But as Duality inferred, magistrates do what brings the best profit margin for their masters.

[PavlovianModel146]

society creates alot of psychological turmoil which it must then attempt to alleviate. it really doesnt even matter at this point as the system is set up largely to create a profit margin and lock away societal undesirables anyway.

So true.

What a judge "should" be doing is deciding the best course of action. In that endeavor, a childhood review might or might not be relevant. But as Duality inferred, magistrates do what brings the best profit margin for their masters.

Right, because putting people in prison is profitable for the State. It certainly saves all kinds of money to feed, house, clothe and administer medicine to people for years, or even the remainder of their lives depending on the crime.

The only, "Masters," judges really have is the judges of Higher Courts, and the voters, I guess, in the case of Judges who gain their gavels by way of vote.

Furthermore, if the goal was solely to get rid of undesirables, and to do it at a substantial profit to the taxpayer, why wouldn't they just kill them?

[PavlovianModel146]

A lot of stock seems to be given in criminal justice to the way a person was raised. Is this always reasonable? Should judges even take someone's childhood into consideration in deciding a criminal case? Most people from lousy homes don't end up criminals, after all, although they may not be the greatest people in the world. What is the sort of abusive home that creates criminals? More than one question, I know, but they are all related.

I don't think it's ever reasonable, particularly in crimes based upon an undeniably conscious act.

[Duality]

society creates alot of psychological turmoil which it must then attempt to alleviate. it really doesnt even matter at this point as the system is set up largely to create a profit margin and lock away societal undesirables anyway.

So true.

What a judge "should" be doing is deciding the best course of action. In that endeavor, a childhood review might or might not be relevant. But as Duality inferred, magistrates do what brings the best profit margin for their masters.

Right, because putting people in prison is profitable for the State. It certainly saves all kinds of money to feed, house, clothe and administer medicine to people for years, or even the remainder of their lives depending on the crime.

The penal industry is one of the most lucrative/developed industries in the US and many other developed nations. tons of jobs and tax revenue generated from/for it. also not all crimes lead to incarceration whereas things like traffic fines and petty crimes serve mainly to generate tons of revenue for the state. Certain laws like drug and anti-racketeering serve mainly to lock away minorities and other impoverished lower income groups for the state.

"Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. These policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, but instead yielded high rates of confinement for nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. Only 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges. half of all persons incarcerated under state jurisdiction are for non-violent offenses."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

The only, "Masters," judges really have is the judges of Higher Courts, and the voters, I guess, in the case of Judges who gain their gavels by way of vote.

The only masters judges have is corporate bankers business owners lobbyists and whoever else finances the campaigns of politicians.

[PavlovianModel146]

The penal industry is one of the most lucrative/developed industries in the US and many other developed nations. tons of jobs and tax revenue generated from/for it. also not all crimes lead to incarceration whereas things like traffic fines and petty crimes serve mainly to generate tons of revenue for the state. Certain laws like drug and anti-racketeering serve mainly to lock away minorities and other impoverished lower income groups for the state.

How do you generate tax revenue from jobs through which the employees are paid with tax money? Any taxes imposed on the employees would simply be the Government taking its own money back.

I agree, to an extent, about the traffic fines and the petty crimes, however, those don't really go to the prisons and it is from the prisons that the bulk of penal spending occurs.

Locking away the impoverished does not really do anything to increase revenues as they are being allocated more Government funds than otherwise would be the case. All you really have to do is look at how much is spent, per prisoner, and that will illustrate what I'm talking about fairly well.

You're preaching to the choir, anyway, I think that, at a minimum, marijuana should be legalized, but sold only in licensed stores and manufactured only by licensed growers.

The only masters judges have is corporate bankers business owners lobbyists and whoever else finances the campaigns of politicians.

If you say so. I doubt if the paltry $3,000 total that was spent on one of our county's Judges in her recent re-election is really enough to sway her bench decisions, but who knows?

[Duality]

I agree, to an extent, about the traffic fines and the petty crimes, however, those don't really go to the prisons and it is from the prisons that the bulk of penal spending occurs.

it is all controlled by the federal/state government nevertheless

Locking away the impoverished does not really do anything to increase revenues as they are being allocated more Government funds than otherwise would be the case. All you really have to do is look at how much is spent, per prisoner, and that will illustrate what I'm talking about fairly well.

The impoverished are the ones least likely to obey the system along with idealists as they have the least to gain from it. it is simply damage control of self-inflicted wounds and disposing of threats to the system and its ideals.

The only masters judges have is corporate bankers business owners lobbyists and whoever else finances the campaigns of politicians.

If you say so. I doubt if the paltry $3,000 total that was spent on one of our county's Judges in her recent re-election is really enough to sway her bench decisions, but who knows?

she wouldnt be there if the governer didnt want her there trust me.

[PavlovianModel146]

it is all controlled by the federal/state government nevertheless

How can the Federal Government control certain laws/punishments/fines Constitutionally reserved for the States. Further, how can the States control laws/punishments/fines State Constitutionally reserved for Municipalities?

The impoverished are the ones least likely to obey the system along with idealists as they have the least to gain from it. it is simply damage control of self-inflicted wounds and disposing of threats to the system and its ideals.

Death would dispose of those threats more effectively. In any case, you said the point was revenue-related, and you now admit that it is not.

she wouldnt be there if the governer didnt want her there trust me.

She predates our current Governor, and the Governor before him. Governors have openly opposed candidates for various positions who have, nevertheless, won, not least of which is their own opposition for the seat of Governor.

[Duality]

it is all controlled by the federal/state government nevertheless

How can the Federal Government control certain laws/punishments/fines Constitutionally reserved for the States. Further, how can the States control laws/punishments/fines State Constitutionally reserved for Municipalities?

I was referring to the budget.

In any case, you said the point was revenue-related, and you now admit that it is not.

I said it was largely revenue-related.

she wouldnt be there if the governer didnt want her there trust me.

She predates our current Governor, and the Governor before him. Governors have openly opposed candidates for various positions who have, nevertheless, won, not least of which is their own opposition for the seat of Governor.

Yea its all part of the game. Just like democrats openly oppose republicans when really its all the same thing essentially

[PavlovianModel146]

I was referring to the budget.

For the Municipalities? They have many of their own tax sources.

I said it was largely revenue-related.

You said that, but then you essentially conceded that it doesn't make the most money. Nor do their living conditions, by the way. Cells could be smaller, they could not have cable, not have access to any creature comforts, not be permitted to go outside, not be permitted to ever leave their cells which would be opened/closed in only three circumstances:

1.) They go in.

2.) They die.

3.) It is time for release.

You could discontinue allowing them access to education, medicine...etc.

There are all kinds of ways the prison system could save money if that was the goal.

Yea its all part of the game. Just like democrats openly oppose republicans when really its all the same thing essentially

Well, shit, I mostly agree about that.

[lizbethrose]

I really didn't want this thread to be about Ohio politics, which I find rather strange to begin with. I was asking how much does nurture, e.g., a home life, contribute to criminality, and should nurture--how a child is raised-- be part of a defense in a criminal trial as so many of us seem to think? Does the fact that a minority boy or girl child lives in a ghetto, with a single crack addicted mother, on welfare, the amount of which is based on the number of kids she has, necessarily teach the child to grow up a criminal?

Shouldn't social attitudes be changed, instead?

But how do you change social attitudes when criminality is 'explained' by on-going blame on nurture as the cause of criminality? Kids seem to now feel that they're 'depraved' because they're 'deprived.' They don't have to live in ghettos, their skin color doesn't have to be a minority designation symbol. They feel they're deprived because they don't have the 'stuff' they think other kids have. So they steal the stuff from the kids that have the 'stuff.' Or they find illegal ways of getting the money to buy the stuff.

I think the technology 'age' and the advertising that goes along with it will do much more to foster criminal behavior in children than skin color and home life circumstances--i.e., nurture. And criminal kids can lead to criminal adults.

[fuse]

Of course the environment contributes to peoples' behavior. But is it really true that so much weight is given in criminal justice to how people are raised? I think that childhood only becomes a major focus in exceptional cases.

[Duality]

I was referring to the budget.

For the Municipalities? They have many of their own tax sources.

No I meant the federal gov ultimately controls the budget.

I said it was largely revenue-related.

You said that, but then you essentially conceded that it doesn't make the most money.

And I also said there were other reasons like removal of threats and ideological opposition.

But how do you change social attitudes when criminality is 'explained' by on-going blame on nurture as the cause of criminality? Kids seem to now feel that they're 'depraved' because they're 'deprived.' They don't have to live in ghettos, their skin color doesn't have to be a minority designation symbol. They feel they're deprived because they don't have the 'stuff' they think other kids have. So they steal the stuff from the kids that have the 'stuff.' Or they find illegal ways of getting the money to buy the stuff.

Its not always about money lots of modern kids grow up alienated because their parents are forced to work 50 hours a week sweatshop labor to feed the greed based imperialist economy. Old people are shuffled off to nursing homes and abandoned cause no one has time or money for them anymore. Growing up in the ghetto there are no opportunities you probably need to sell drugs/prostitute yourself to survive until you get shot and die off. Kids just feel no real connection to the schools or labor system or community as they feel it just exists to exploit them. They see abunch of talking heads and a system that just exists to suck the life out of them. Rage and depression are the results. not giving a shit if you die. mall shootouts sexual harrassment defecating on people bringing semiautomatic weapons to the office are all byproducts of this artifice

[lizbethrose]

Of course the environment contributes to peoples' behavior. But is it really true that so much weight is given in criminal justice to how people are raised? I think that childhood only becomes a major focus in exceptional cases.

I think, if you read your local newspapers, it does. local crime is decided by the local media, it seems. But I'm also trying to integrate various threads. I'm trying to take certain philosophical concepts and apply them to real life. In the US, and in the world, so many of us are 'children of war.' Since that can define our nurture, is it a valid plea in wrongdoing? To me, there's the implication that nurture oftentimes overwhelms nature.

[Moreno]

A lot of stock seems to be given in criminal justice to the way a person was raised. Is this always reasonable? Should judges even take someone's childhood into consideration in deciding a criminal case? Most people from lousy homes don't end up criminals, after all, although they may not be the greatest people in the world. What is the sort of abusive home that creates criminals? More than one question, I know, but they are all related.

Poverty and abuse increase the chances someone will commit a crime. If it seems likely that nurture played a role in making someone a criminal than a different kind of nurture might lead to them not being a criminal. Also there is a sense of unfairness that is being taken into a account by those judges who weigh in nurture in their sentencing.

[James L Walker]

Society and general social inequality within it creates excesses of depravity which individuals deprived of various things living naturally turn to crime as a form of reaction. It is really that simple.

Society of course keeps on ignoring those social inequalities and general depravities which is one of the reason why violence or theft is a prevailing theme that never goes away.

[Moreno]

To me, there's the implication that nurture oftentimes overwhelms nature.

Think of how you or people you know react after a day being shit on by their boss and then getting stuck in traffic for an hour extra. People I know, generally nice people, can be nasty when they get home. If your childhood was a bad day most days, this changes the way you react. If your were treated poorly and it seemd to be by society, this can make one feel outside of that society, that there is no contract of any kind.

[lizbethrose]

What you're all saying is true, and I agree with it. What I'm asking is should all that (what y'all have said) be taken into account in sentencing? No matter what the circumstances of your background were like, if you become a thief, you're a thief and should be punished as a thief, not as a deprived child. I was reading parts of the psychiatrist's report on Casey Anthony just today, for example. His conclusion was that Casey was sane--yet her defense insisted that her father sexually abused her as a child (he consistently denied the allegation.) Are things like that raised in court in order to gain sympathy for the defendant? What difference does it make as to the criminal act?

[Moreno]

What you're all saying is true, and I agree with it. What I'm asking is should all that (what y'all have said) be taken into account in sentencing? No matter what the circumstances of your background were like, if you become a thief, you're a thief and should be punished as a thief, not as a deprived child. I was reading parts of the psychiatrist's report on Casey Anthony just today, for example. His conclusion was that Casey was sane--yet her defense insisted that her father sexually abused her as a child (he consistently denied the allegation.) Are things like that raised in court in order to gain sympathy for the defendant? What difference does it make as to the criminal act?

I think it should be taken into account in sentencing. I do not think this is an easy task and I cannot imagine a formula. However if I find out a 19 year old was subjected to sexual abuse for much of his or her childhood and this person is a thief, I would be much more inclined to work out some kind of parole/treatment rather than prison. In a sense society did not raise this person well and society needs to make up for that, even if society cannot be expected to go into people's homes and make them not commit crimes against their children. Taking the same kind of case, I would be even more likely, as a judge, to reduce or eliminate a sentence if that child was placed, by the state, in a foster home, where the child was raped. But of course you have to take in a lot of factors. If someone seems to be a clear threat to other humans, to some extent it doesn't matter why. to some extent. A serial killer who was horribly abused as a child - and many if not most are - you are still dealing with a serial killer. So being nice to them, puts others at risk if you cut their sentence way down, or even, in many cases, ever let them out. But taking a for me easier set, the set of non-violent crimes, I would be much more lenient with people who had terrible childhoods. There should be more rehabilitation options and whatever there are I would try to use. You would likely also want to take into account if the person seems interested in changing -which is going to be a subjective, intuitive read by the judge and whatever psychiatric expert advice the judge gets. If the person is a career criminal, my sense of their childhood probably weighs less, me being a hypothetical judge. But with first time criminals especially, it would weigh in.

And frankly, people who have a lot, had supportive parents, really piss me off when they commit crimes. That a rich person thinks they really need to be richer strikes me as more of a crime than a poor person whose crimes went to food and bills.

(I am just thining out loud).

As someone who knows quite a bit about the effects of abuse and poverty - together and separately - my take on it is affected by how natural and in a way logical the conclusion young people get that society is spitting on them for their childhoods and how the lack of connection to society makes committing a crime seem more natural to them.

This doesn't mean they are innocent, but I think they should be given a chance to see that society as a whole does not approve of what happened would like some sort of win win to come out of the situation.

All, as I said, a very tough call for a judge, but judges already have to make such calls.

And hell, they let the guy off, with a mild sentence, who killed Harvey Milk was in part because he had been eating a lot of junk food, that this meant he killed with diminished capacity. So judges already - if it is not a crime with federal sentencing guidelines like many of the drug crimes - have a good deal of leeway for interpretation.

[Moreno]

society creates alot of psychological turmoil which it must then attempt to alleviate. it really doesnt even matter at this point as the system is set up largely to create a profit margin and lock away societal undesirables anyway.

So true.

What a judge "should" be doing is deciding the best course of action. In that endeavor, a childhood review might or might not be relevant. But as Duality inferred, magistrates do what brings the best profit margin for their masters.

Right, because putting people in prison is profitable for the State. It certainly saves all kinds of money to feed, house, clothe and administer medicine to people for years, or even the remainder of their lives depending on the crime.

It creates profits for people with tremendous influence over local, state and federal governments.

[Archangel]

A lot of stock seems to be given in criminal justice to the way a person was raised. Is this always reasonable? Should judges even take someone's childhood into consideration in deciding a criminal case? Most people from lousy homes don't end up criminals, after all, although they may not be the greatest people in the world. What is the sort of abusive home that creates criminals? More than one question, I know, but they are all related.

I prefer to think that nurturing never ends. It starts at home, and when one leaves one's parents' home, the State takes over. The issue of upbringing breeding "criminals" is somewhat ironic, considering the general impression one gets upon seeing how the powers that be behave towards those who serve them and among themselves. Corruption, betrayal, deception - it's an integral part of any government, however idealistic. And, since we all sprang from apes, we imitate what we see. So, in a sense, punishing someone for doing something we do ourselves is a sure way to promote crime. It's a vicious circle.

In another sense, concerning punishment, wouldn't it be better to instill some sense into it and make the transgressor fix or alleviate the damage? Someone kills someone, make him/her a slave to the family of the victim? Or, if all are created equal, make him/her save another life or two or ten? All this is feasible and not at all complicated. As an additional plus, it might serve as a means of discipline rather than punishment (revenge) and thus promote what is desired instead of discouraging from the undesired.

Our earliest experiences affect us the most when we ourselves are "early". Later in life we can not use bad and/or abusive childhood as an excuse to do mayhem, because part of growing up is severing ties to that what was and concentrating more on what is and will be. With that in mind, when someone commits a wrongdoing, the judge should consider the childhood, but let it affect his decision in relation to the person's chronological age - he should be more lenient to those in their 20's than those in their 50's. Many people don't immediately grow up when they turn 18, it's a process that spreads through most of their adult life, and many even grow old without ever fully maturing. You live and learn. If you're in a prison, you'll might learn never to pick up a soap if it falls down while you're in the shower, but how can that help you when you get out?

[PavlovianModel146]

It creates profits for people with tremendous influence over local, state and federal governments.

Saying it does not make it so. What profits and from what source?

[Mowk]

I believe the case has been made that "nurture" does contribute to 'criminality', likely more so than "nature", if one is to use classic labels applied to such thinking.

Unfortunately there is often(arguable) the case that child rearing has little to do with 'nurturing'. To what scope does one limit the rearing has taken place in. Is it merely one parents influence, the relationship between child and family, between individual and immediate social circumstance, between individual and educational framework, between individual and the current social system at large? All of the above?

I think It boils down to what the individual believes is "wrong" and those beliefs are formed through experience and interaction within a society and as such are learned behaviors. Criminality is not about being aware of what others consider wrong, it's about what the individual does. Hypocrisy between what is legislated by a State and what is done by a State in retribution, causes and is caused by a justification principle, and quite often it is monetary cost that ends up the justification. We made this notion money up and it becomes the justification. That in this thinking is an insanity; to continue doing the same thing and expect a different result.