Lower-class people are over represented in the statistics on criminal convictions and admission to prison.


Is it twisted biology and bad genes? (like Cyrene would say)


Is it environment?


Is it choice? (like Kriswest would say) Did lower class people all choose to do criminal acts and be over overrepresented in statistics?

It could be the inability to afford a decent attorney who is not bogged down with over 400 cases a year.

That and poor people really can’t bribe anyone.

Mencius said: “In good years, young men are mostly fine. In bad years they’re mostly cruel and violent. It isn’t that Heaven endows them with such different capacities, only that their hearts are mired in such different situations. Think about barley: if you plant the seeds carefully at the same time and in the same place, they’ll sprout and grow ripe by summer solstice. If they don’t grow the same – it’s because of the inequities in richness of soil, amounts of rainfall,or the care given by farmers. And so, all members belonging to a given species of things are the same. Why should humans be the lone exception… (11.7)"

Actually, here is what Sam Crane has to say about this sort of a question:

I think the sort of broad, ardent recidivism would have been largely bred out of the population long ago. Those are the sorts of traits that don’t function well in society and are strongly selected against. Sure, the occasional trickster remains. Experiments in Dictostylium show that there is always a fine balance between the selective advantages of altruism and the selective advantage of those who would exploit it. We certainly can’t rule out that recidivists aren’t tricksters, but at the very least such complex issues are going to have a variety of genetic factors so drawing a clear correlation is bound to be difficult.

On the other hand, we can clearly see an inverse relationship between socio-economic standing and criminality. And that these relationships will assert themselves even after a massive socio-economic upheaval such as in post-Revolutionary France, post-Imperial China, Weimar Germany, and so on.

So even if genetics does play a role that is technically speaking significant, it is dwarfed by non-genetic factors. If we ever get around to clearing up the latter, we can start discussing the former. Otherwise the same problems that plague the latter will creep into the discussion and, well, that yields a metric ton of crap. See intellectually bankrupt articles like “The Bell Curve” for example.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. - Anatole France

One of those things that really doesn’t need elaborated…

it explains why blacks are always violent

The law is made to keep the highest quality women with the highest quality men.

The only true crime is when a poor man infiltrates the ovum of a rich woman. There are no crimes beyond this.

my super accurate marxist analysis? environment, nurture plays a huge role in who we are, you grow up in a lower class society surrounded by crime and stupidity? guess what, you get individuals who usually perpetuate it. you take a middle class family, the family pushes the child more so than the opposite, you get a desirable outcome. as cyrene usually says, genetics play a huge role in who we are, but intelligence is only 0.5 inherited, some geneticists say less. you can obviously correlate low intelligence with criminality but it’s a complicated issue and merely screaming MUST BE GENETICS, is oversimplifying the question.

ps. i digressed from the original question, i think.

they all don’t have oj simpson’s lawyers…


:laughing: Funny post. I like.


It’s quite simple folks with this thread here.

Society thrives on violence, conflict, inequality, blackmail,competition,selfishness,economical demand, mass standardization, prejudice,accumulation of power and the segragation of the pure from who is deemed the impure through class prejudices. ( No matter what the idealists say they cannot get around this pressing reality.)

What happens when you have a group of poor misrepresented, outcasted,disenfranchised, and alienated people within the population who feel utter hopelessness when it comes to the higher classes of the population who treats them merely as property?

(They rebel.) And with that rebellion comes what society calls crime.

( Society’s way of existing on malice, prejudice and hypocrisy is the very thing that breeds crime therefore society has noone to blame when it comes to crime but itself yet through the courts of so called justice society always find it’s scapegoat.)

I would definately support the arguement that enviroment plays a more dominant role in what society deems as crime more so than genetics in contrast.

neither one or the other but each and all.

Shit, where do you want me to start with this one? I think the question is naive and limiting.

I am kinda sick of people misinterpreting my beliefs on this subject. Everytime someone spits back what i’ve ‘said’ about human behavior, they say i’m some kind of hardcore hardcore genetic determinist.

but i’m not. I don’t say that ‘twisted biology’ creates criminals, I say that for a lot of crime, maybe even most crime, its a huge issue of environmental shit, but for a lot of serious criminals like mass murderers and etc that its an issue of TWISTED BIOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT.

I specifically say that a mass murderer with twisted biology, could have twisted biology in a different environment and end up a normal functioning human.

genes determine up to around 50% of our personality, whether we’re a criminal or not, is obviously effected by that, because everything else we could potentially be or not be is effected by genetics.

if we have 2 people with the exact same environment, we know, as a matter of fact, that one of those people may be more or less likely to be a criminal based on genetics. WE know this, because the type of abuse which is ‘responsible’ for creating criminals, somtimes produces, oftentimes produces, people who don’t commit a crime.

If poor people commit crimes more its an issue of poverty. If some poor people commit crimes and other poor people don’t, within the same environment, than the only thing influencing these people is different genetics.

if I need to steal for my family to eat and i’m a woman, I may not engage in the same type of risky behavior as a man (men engage in riskier behavior more often) and thats an issue of genetics, this holds true between two males or two females, in different circumstances people show different levels of bravery, empathy and a bunch of shit like this, which determines how likely you are to commit crimes, which is a huge issue of genetics.

but crime is a result of genetics/environment ALWAYS.

People can’t respond to an environment/change their personality based on an environment without genetic systems meant to take/absorb information from the environment.

rocks don’t end up killers because of physical abuse.

and you’d support it based on nothing because you decried behavorial genetics before you even had a clear understanding of what behavorial genetics even was, let alone the pile of research which shows what you say is wrong.

if environment played more of a role in behavior, than brothers raised apart from each other, wouldn’t be statistically as similiar, the exact same amount, as if they had been raised together.

Heres that for you again: genetic brothers raised never seeing each other, turn out to be as similiar as brothers who were raised together, again and again and again and again and again and again.

We’re talking about beliefs about politics, personal peeves, personality. If what you say was true, we wouldn’t be finding that brothers are similiar no matter what. to the same extent.

Obviously that wouldn’t be true. Obviously step-brothers raised together would be more similiar, but their as similiar as people who never met, strangers.

And twins who were seperated turn out to have bizarre and freakish similiarities, often-times down to weird/twisted personal habits, like dipping toast in coffee.

Not only does genetics play more of a role than you’d like to admit, genetics plays such a huge role, that in research/testing, any of the people who read it should be stunned into saying ‘that can’t possibly be true’

well, it is. When i first read the research on behavorial genetics I said ‘that can’t be true’ because it goes against every bit of human intuition that we have.

Well guess what, human intuition is wrong in this case. Statistics/research when its done in an objective way can’t lie to us, it doesn’t give us ‘feelings’ its just data.

(What this tells us is that environment effects people say like brothers, but its not the shared environment between them, but the unique environment which they experience outside of parenting/interaction at home. Social life, unique experiences and etc)

its around 50% 50% or 45% 55% or 45% 45% 10%somthing else. or 5% somthing else.

theres biology which effects your personality which is outside of genes and environment too, like how the neuro-pathways set themselves up in your head.

The question is naive anyway, any time people ask is it environment or genetics their asking which is more important in making a car run smoothly along the highway: the engine or the gas and wheels.

its a question that makes no sense, because we can’t somehow cut up the ‘environment’ and ‘genes’ into two seperate categories. because we don’t respond to the environment, anymore than do rocks, without genetic systems meant to take information from the environment.

Rocks don’t respond to the environment, they don’t change from environmental stimuli, because they don’t have biological systems devoted/adapted to doing that. humans do.

Why is it naive and limiting? I think the question is very broad and allows for many different views. (like you see in this thread already)

You come across as one.

Are you saying there is a criminal gene? :laughing:

Or different environmental influences.

This is called socialization, it has nothing to do with genetics.

Lower class people have bad genetics?

John B. Watson

No, I don’t come across as a genetic determinist I come across as someone whose educated about research of the effects of genes and environment on behavior, and don’t just assume any random bullshit about environmental factors is true.

^ this is quite ignorant and misinformed and is a pretty famous quote about a ignorant mind-frame. If you think you can take any child and make them into a doctor or artist than its bullshit delusion.

I’m sorry, but you can’t take any child and mold him into a surgeon, thats not the way the world works. Its ignorant to assume it is.

Did I actually say that anywhere? No. I never said there was a gene for having a short-temper either, but there are gene-complexes which make a person more likely to be A, B or C compared to another person.

which includes criminal behavior. most murderers are men if you think that has nothing to do with male genetics than you’re naive beyond imagination. Men are more aggressive on average, engage in much riskier behavior on average, that has a lot to do with genetics.

Secondly, like I already said, rocks don’t respond to the environment, the only reason humans respond to the environment is because we have genetic systems to take information from the environment. Even if what you said was true, that the environment effected people’s personality 90% it’d still only be able to do so, through massive amounts of genetics/biology.

for example, we could never learn a language ever, it doesn’t matter how much socialization there was, without the massive amounts of pre-programming/mental adaptation we have to learn language.

we could never see someone elses face, without a super complex mental adaptation for doing so, which requires super complex mental machinery.

The environment doesn’t effect organisms that don’t have specific biology to learn/respond from it.

More importantly, research/testing that all you environment clowns ignore actually exists. You can run your mouths about “I think this and this is true” but no one should care. Theres systematic testing of adopted brothers raised together, brothers raised together, brothers raised apart and twin studies.

They always show that genetics plays a huge role in determining behavior/personality. BROTHERS, ARE AS similiar, WHETHER THEY WERE RAISED TOGETHER OR IN TOTALLY DIFFERENT FAMILIES. adopted brothers (who share no genetics) raised as brothers, turn out to be as similiar as strangers.

thats just the facts. if what you say was true, adopted brothers raised together would be more alike than real brothers seperated at birth, but guess what; that almost never happens.

so, tough luck.