Can we get to the root of crime? Can it be addressed?

redrock

Hi guys!

I thought a number of very pertinent points were made in the 'other thread' until it sort of derailed into what it wasn't supposed to.

I'd like to work on Fifi_Ireland's original post wondering where has the world gone to?

Crime is high, people are paranoid, etc. Several 'root' causes were mentioned - naturally the socio-economic issues, greed, education (or lack thereof), breakdown of society, hatred, mental issues, etc.

Is crime more prevalent in inner cities, more deprived areas? And 'white collar' crime... where does that fit in? What about the various countries and their political 'stance'? Do socialist type countries have less crime? If so, why would that be? What about dictatorships? Does harsh punishment deter crime? What about recidivism? Some of these questions, we can offer our immediate and 'logical' thoughts, though it would be interesting to see some studies. Any criminologists here?

Can we, as citizens/humans, do anything to redress this situation - what would we like to see happen? What can one expect from the governments?

If willing, I would love to have a discussion/debate/exchange of thoughts on these causes. This is NOT a gun debate thread and I would really prefer not to have any histrionics but enjoy a rational debate - whatever opinions may be!

Hopefully, a few of you will be interested in discussing this!

ComeToTX

My brain is numb from reading the last 6 pages of the "other thread" in the last 10 minutes.

I think this is a great thread and I'll jump in as soon as my mind becomes whole again...

pandora

posted April 14, 2011

By Greg Bluestein
Associated Press
ATLANTA (AP) -- More than 40 percent of ex-cons commit crimes within three years of their release and wind up back behind bars, despite billions in taxpayer dollars spent on prison systems that are supposed to help rehabilitate them, according to a study released Wednesday.
The study by the Pew Center on the States concluded there was only marginal improvement in the nation's recidivism rate even as spending on corrections departments has increased to about $52 billion annually from around $30 billion a decade ago.
About 43 percent of prisoners who were let out in 2004 were sent back to prison by 2007, either for a new crime or violating the conditions of their release, the study found. That number was down from 45 percent during a similar period beginning in 1999.
The stubborn recidivism rates are a sign the programs and policies designed to deter re-offenders were falling short, and lawmakers should consider alternative sentences for nonviolent offenders, said Adam Gelb of the center's Public Safety Performance Project.
"We know so much more today than we did 30 years ago when prisons became the weapon of choice in the fight against crime," he said. "There are new technologies and new strategies that research has shown can make a significant dent in return to prison rates. There are fewer and fewer policymakers who think that spending more taxpayer money to build more prisons is the best way to reduce crime."
Others were skeptical of sentencing reform efforts. The president of the National District Attorneys Association said legislators shouldn't be too quick to abandon tough-on-crime policies in favor of alternative sentencing. Those initiatives only save money in the short-term, New Hampshire prosecutor Jim Reams said.
"The assumption is that these are all choir boys at the prison and if we let them out, all will be well. And it doesn't work that way," Reams said. "We're getting exactly what we deserve when we do this -- we're getting more crime."
The Pew report found that of 33 states that reported data for both 1999 and 2004 releases, recidivism rates fell in 17 states and climbed in 15 states. One state reported no change.
Gelb cautioned that corrections departments alone aren't to blame -- prosecutors, courts, probation officers and faith-based organizations also should be held accountable.
Wyoming and Oregon had the lowest overall recidivism rates for offenders released in 2004, with rates hovering below 25 percent. Minnesota had the highest -- more than 61 percent -- while Alaska, California, Illinois, Missouri and Vermont all topped 50 percent.
The recidivism rate in Kansas dropped by more than 22 percent between 1999 and 2004, while it jumped by about 35 percent in South Dakota over the same period.
The 41 states that provided data for 2004 could save a combined $635 million in one year if they can slash their recidivism rates by 10 percent, the study found. California, the home of the nation's largest prison system, could save $233 million in one year by slashing its recidivism rate by 10 percent.
The Pew results were similar to a 2002 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, but they only tracked a sample of offenders in a few states. The Pew Center said its study, coordinated with the Association of State Correctional Administrators, was the first to provide state-level data from most of the nation's corrections systems.

JonnyPistachio

Good idea Redrock!
I have read that violent crime and property crime are down over the past few years. I find that surprising considering the state of the economy.

I think when we have the amount of poverty and neglectful parenting, we will always have a problem.
Culture is tough too -- do I dare say that violent video games and TV are desensitizing or glorifying violence?

Maybe we look to India, or other countries with lower crime rates?

http://www.ehow.com/list_7293193_countr ... world.html
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_t ... al-crimes/

redrock

I've been checking out abstracts and stuff about crime in the different types of countries (socialist, capitalist..) as I'm interested in this hoping to find some 'general' info and stats. I did find some very interesting articles (some were up to 40 pages long and others only abstracts) but they were mostly comparing say Russia and the US. Whilst interesting, I would like to see how socialist 'model' countries, such as Norway, compare to the US for example. Such different 'way of life' from birth to death, very different approach to punishment/rehabilitation, etc. I do have my thoughts on this (which may be twisted!) but I would like to see what is 'out there' and what 'the learned' have to say. It's getting a bit late here so I may ponder on this tomorrow!

ComeToTX

This scared me this morning. I wish some of these old, racist fucks would just off themselves...

The murderous attack on a Sikh temple in Wisconsin this past Sunday by neo-Nazi skinhead Wade Michael Page was just the latest in a series of terrorist incidents and plots by the radical right in recent months and years. It comes in the midst of explosive growth on the radical right – growth fueled by America’s increasing diversity, its economic problems and the election of the nation’s first black president.

Earlier this year, the Southern Poverty Law Center documented a third straight year of extraordinary growth that has swelled the ranks of extremist groups to record levels. The SPLC is now tracking 1,018 hate groups – a 69 percent increase since 2000.

In addition, the SPLC has documented a powerful resurgence of the antigovernment “Patriot” movement, which in the 1990s led to a string of domestic terrorist plots, including the Oklahoma City bombing. The number of Patriot groups, including armed militias, grew by 755 percent in the first three years of the Obama administration – from 149 at the end of 2008 to 1,274 in 2011.

redrock

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Good idea Redrock!
I have read that violent crime and property crime are down over the past few years. I find that surprising considering the state of the economy.

I think when we have the amount of poverty and neglectful parenting, we will always have a problem.
Culture is tough too -- do I dare say that violent video games and TV are desensitizing or glorifying violence?

Maybe we look to India, or other countries with lower crime rates?

http://www.ehow.com/list_7293193_countr ... world.html
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_t ... al-crimes/

One of the abstracts I read was saying that, though one would think that with poverty and deprivation crime would increase, they were taking the example of the 60s - big boom - where crime increased. So need to look at other factors. I do believe that social breakdown is a major contributing factor.

FiveB247x

Could we? Sure. Will we..absolutely not. Crime is typically a result of poverty and economic pressures which are deep rooted in our capitalist society. As a society we fail to truly address these issues but instead band-aid the problem by making such things "torrible" for the majority while leaving the minority to suffer and deal with the consequences. In terms of the legal aspects, we've shifted laws from correcting wrong-doing and reaclimating into society, into vindictive tools to punish wrongdoing and separate them from the rest of society.

redrock

FiveB247x wrote:

In terms of the legal aspects, we've shifted laws from correcting wrong-doing and reaclimating into society, into vindictive tools to punish wrongdoing and separate them from the rest of society.

Thus the Norwegian model of rehabilitation which seems to be very successful. Studies showed that with their way of handling criminals, ie focused on rehabilitation, the rate of recidivism rate is very low at approx 16%. In the US it's in the order of 50-60% on average (I think).

redrock

ComeToTX - this neo-nazi/far right stuff is very scary. Hate crimes are on the rise in the UK as well. Partly because one recognises this now, but also because of the rise of the far right and racism. I guess when there are less job and 'non whites' are perceived to 'take' those jobs leaving 'native whites' without, it can get quite nasty. Though when one sees, for example, the Sikh community, they have serious ethics when it comes to work, respect and other values (in general, of course). Values which are taught to their kids and this is reflected in their attitude in school, etc.

So would 'stronger' communities with better social ties have less problem with crime?

hedonist

Well, hello :wave:

I think there are a myriad of roots - some connected, some with ripple-effects that result in crime.

I recently heard that crime is down in Los Angeles, yet I'm bombarded with stories of ridiculous and senseless (to me, anyway) crimes each time I turn on the local news. A lot of gang shootings (these idiots have terrible aim) that make me wonder about upbringing, education (both in school and in the home), after-school activities, pop culture. The list could go on.

And I wish that rehabilitation/recidivism weren't such a huge issue, in that it would be much smaller if less crimes were committed to begin with. Also perhaps not imprisoning those for "lesser" crimes, leaving room for those who do. Then perhaps more attention could be paid to those who really need that rehabilitation. It seems the prisons here are overcrowded clusterfucks of just trying to maintain order instead of working toward a better end.

(I hope that makes some sense)

Good thread, redrock!

comebackgirl

Thanks for starting this thread! It seems like there is probably some overlap in terms of motivation for different types of crime, as well as some very vast differences. We see that with the 2 recent mass shootings. The motive in the Colorado shooting is still unclear. The shooting in Wisconsin seems motivated by hate. I'm curious to explore what roles things like revenge, power, culture, mental illness, and socialization play in these types of crimes. It seems like the preventative measures might have some overlap, but they may also be vastly different

MotoDC

Oh Lawdy, we have bitten off a mouthful here. Such a complex topic. redrock, you're sure we can't just yell at each other about weapons caches and 100 round magazines? Much less taxing, intellectually speaking.

@johnnyp -- I would find it very hard to believe that the prevalence of violence and sex in our various avenues of entertainment (including video games) hasn't desensitized us to those things. Do I think it's a primary cause of violence, rape, sexual depravity, etc? Not at all. For most of us -- the vast majority I would even say -- it's just what it is. Entertainment. But I wouldn't be surprised to find that the desensitization was enough to help push to the other side someone who was on the edge anyway.

This doesn't even begin to get the root cause of things, of course. It's just a link in the chain.

redrock

MotoDC wrote:

Oh Lawdy, we have bitten off a mouthful here. Such a complex topic. redrock, you're sure we can't just yell at each other about weapons caches and 100 round magazines? Much less taxing, intellectually speaking. .

I guess it is a quite ambitious topic! So many different things to look at, learn about....

Crime has always been with man, starting even maybe with just 'survival' maybe (ancient man clubbing other ancient man to death to steal his meat because he doesn't have any?) I don't know enough about prehistoric man's society to make an informed judgement on this. But throughout history, greed, power and deprivation seemed to be main causes of crime (from petty theft to murder and anything in between). Is what we are experiencing now just 'natural progression' but this naturation progression is either heightened or tempered in the various communities/countries depending on values?

MotoDC

redrock wrote:

Crime has always been with man, starting even maybe with just 'survival' maybe (ancient man clubbing other ancient man to death to steal his meat because he doesn't have any?) I don't know enough about prehistoric man's society to make an informed judgement on this. But throughout history, greed, power and deprivation seemed to be main causes of crime (from petty theft to murder and anything in between). Is what we are experiencing now just 'natural progression' but this naturation progression is either heightened or tempered in the various communities/countries depending on values?

See, that's exactly it. Is it so much worse now than it ever was? Has man's desire to kill and steal increased or just his capacity? Or neither? If you think about it purely from a cold, numbers perspective, it simply requires bigger weapons to do the same proportionate damage. So yeah we have nukes and automatic rifles now, but we've got a lot more people to "manage", so to speak. 1500 years ago you had a lot less people, so you're proportionately in the same position with a bow and arrow.

It's a twisted way to look at it, I'll grant you, but all I'm trying to do is determine whether our analysis needs to be:
- Why is crime worse now than ever; or
- Why does man commit crime in the first place?

I.e., if we can successfully argue that crime really isn't worse now than ever, then we can restrict our analysis to man's innate weaknesses that lead to crime.

Who Princess

redrock wrote:

One of the abstracts I read was saying that, though one would think that with poverty and deprivation crime would increase, they were taking the example of the 60s - big boom - where crime increased. So need to look at other factors. I do believe that social breakdown is a major contributing factor.

I'm one of the boomers, quite possibly the most documented generation ever. :roll:

I remember reading some time in the 80s that violent crime had increased in the U.S. during the 60s but was beginning to gradually decrease. The speculation was that since violent crimes are mostly committed by adolescents and young adults, the boomers were just coming into those stages in the 60s. Violent criminals usually end up incarcerated or dead. If they survive, they tend to "burn out" (I swear that's the term that was used) on violence. So as we boomers age, the generations following us have smaller numbers of perpetrators. (There's still more than enough of them.)

You can make of that what you will. While socioeconomic factors seem to play a part, I've also seen evidence that some people are just inclined to criminal acts. Stanton Samenow did some groundbreaking research in that area.

I realize that sounds kind of fatalistic. Since I'm an optimist I tend to believe that there are ways we should be able to prevent some crime. In the meantime, I'm hoping I don't run into one of those naturally violent people.

pandora

After raising kids and other parents kids I see how important parenting is.
Examples set, requirements, love most especially, love.
Showing a child empathy and compassion so they learn it first, what it feels like,
then can give it back to the world in the smallest ways and the largest.

So many things get in the way of what good parents do though and it is not a guarantee
a child will not turn to crime. But way too many don't even have a chance
because of the examples they have, the lack of hope in their lives, the lack of
means to make more and better lives.

I agree with who princess though some that I have know almost seemed
doomed or predestined for trouble. I wonder know if it was undiagnosed mental problems.
Some went and were punished and learned from consequence and are doing well.

For me though the root of crime has as many factors as the types of crimes
and then some. And I'm afraid it will probably always be with us.

Zoso

pandora wrote:

After raising kids and other parents kids I see how important parenting is.
Examples set, requirements, love most especially, love.
Showing a child empathy and compassion so they learn it first, what it feels like,
then can give it back to the world in the smallest ways and the largest.

So many things get in the way of what good parents do though and it is not a guarantee
a child will not turn to crime. But way too many don't even have a chance
because of the examples they have, the lack of hope in their lives, the lack of
means to make more and better lives.

I agree with who princess though some that I have know almost seemed
doomed or predestined for trouble. I wonder know if it was undiagnosed mental problems.
Some went and were punished and learned from consequence and are doing well.

For me though the root of crime has as many factors as the types of crimes
and then some. And I'm afraid it will probably always be with us.

I agree.. while there are disenfranchised people there will always be crime. if people see a clear somewhat comfortable future there will be no need to participate in crime. Although that covers the crimes for money, stolen goods etc but assaults for no reason is a while other story. Some people are both with less empathy then others and don't bat en eye lid when it comes to the physical harm of others for control or person gain.

pandora

Zoso wrote:

pandora wrote:

After raising kids and other parents kids I see how important parenting is.
Examples set, requirements, love most especially, love.
Showing a child empathy and compassion so they learn it first, what it feels like,
then can give it back to the world in the smallest ways and the largest.

So many things get in the way of what good parents do though and it is not a guarantee
a child will not turn to crime. But way too many don't even have a chance
because of the examples they have, the lack of hope in their lives, the lack of
means to make more and better lives.

I agree with who princess though some that I have know almost seemed
doomed or predestined for trouble. I wonder know if it was undiagnosed mental problems.
Some went and were punished and learned from consequence and are doing well.

For me though the root of crime has as many factors as the types of crimes
and then some. And I'm afraid it will probably always be with us.

I agree.. while there are disenfranchised people there will always be crime. if people see a clear somewhat comfortable future there will be no need to participate in crime. Although that covers the crimes for money, stolen goods etc but assaults for no reason is a while other story. Some people are both with less empathy then others and don't bat en eye lid when it comes to the physical harm of others for control or person gain.

very true and some of that is also learned through no fault of their own
by parents with the same ...
and they do harm to their child from birth on

Cosmo

My thoughts is there are way to many variables to ever get to the root cause of crime. People are wired differently and everyone's upbringing is different. Basically saying, there are internal factors and environmental factors that result in who we all are and how of decision making skills develop.
Are we predisposed for good or evil, empathy or apathy? Or are we formed by our life lessons? Or both?
If you can find out if someone is at risk of violent or criminal behaviour, what do you do about it?

comebackgirl

Cosmo wrote:

My thoughts is there are way to many variables to ever get to the root cause of crime. People are wired differently and everyone's upbringing is different. Basically saying, there are internal factors and environmental factors that result in who we all are and how of decision making skills develop.
Are we predisposed for good or evil, empathy or apathy? Or are we formed by our life lessons? Or both?
If you can find out if someone is at risk of violent or criminal behaviour, what do you do about it?

This is so true. I think there are the true sociopaths, people who have no empathy and for others and inflict repetitive and very gruesome injury to others, sometimes for the pure enjoyment (serial killers, sadistic rapists, etc). Others have a narcissistic need for revenge, as we often see with mass murderers. Others commit crime mostly because of socialization and opportunity. The factors that address one type of crime probably won't be sufficient for addressing others. It's so multi-faceted.

brianlux

Good thread and good questions. I guess it depends on what you read as to whether crime is up or down. It's hard to know what sources on this are accurate. As for the root of crime I've heard different theories such as

A) It's genetic
It's learned behavior
C) It occurs when there is a lack of resources
D) A combination of those factors

Cosmo

comebackgirl wrote:

This is so true. I think there are the true sociopaths, people who have no empathy and for others and inflict repetitive and very gruesome injury to others, sometimes for the pure enjoyment (serial killers, sadistic rapists, etc). Others have a narcissistic need for revenge, as we often see with mass murderers. Others commit crime mostly because of socialization and opportunity. The factors that address one type of crime probably won't be sufficient for addressing others. It's so multi-faceted.

...
That's the problem... It's like a witch's brew of who shoots up the place and who lets things slide and moves on.
Example: Let's say there are tests that can tell which high school kid is most likely to be psychotic base on brain activity or something. What do we do?
Treat him like a ticking bomb and treat him with drugs? What if he hasn't done anything?
...
It's like the Aurora case... the psycologist detected a disposition of violence and notified the police... but, what can **and SHOULD** the police do? Sure, after the fact it is easy for people to say all the warning signs were there, but should James Holmes been treated like a criminal... when he did nothing illegal prior to those murders? He acquired the guns and ammo legally... what can the police do? If they have to put a cop on him... doesn't that mean they have to put a cop on every person who might commit a crime?
It is a minefield, legally and morally.

comebackgirl

Cosmo wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

This is so true. I think there are the true sociopaths, people who have no empathy and for others and inflict repetitive and very gruesome injury to others, sometimes for the pure enjoyment (serial killers, sadistic rapists, etc). Others have a narcissistic need for revenge, as we often see with mass murderers. Others commit crime mostly because of socialization and opportunity. The factors that address one type of crime probably won't be sufficient for addressing others. It's so multi-faceted.

...
That's the problem... It's like a witch's brew of who shoots up the place and who lets things slide and moves on.
Example: Let's say there are tests that can tell which high school kid is most likely to be psychotic base on brain activity or something. What do we do?
Treat him like a ticking bomb and treat him with drugs? What if he hasn't done anything?
...
It's like the Aurora case... the psycologist detected a disposition of violence and notified the police... but, what can **and SHOULD** the police do? Sure, after the fact it is easy for people to say all the warning signs were there, but should James Holmes been treated like a criminal... when he did nothing illegal prior to those murders? He acquired the guns and ammo legally... what can the police do? If they have to put a cop on him... doesn't that mean they have to put a cop on every person who might commit a crime?
It is a minefield, legally and morally.

That's what makes it so complicated. We can't punish people for what they *might* do, but for what they actually do. Sure, we can and should conduct thorough risk assessments, but they will only take us so far, and so much of the assessment relies on information from the patient and/or family (i.e. access to and possession of weapons, substance use). It's not uncommon for people who are psychotic to experience delusions about persecution and command hallucinations. Those are certainly risk factors, but the large majority of people experiencing psychosis will never be violent. We can involuntarily hospitalize if someone is a danger to themselves or others, but that's a fine line, and hospitalization will be brief. A lot of people are hospitalized, stabilized, discharged, don't follow up on aftercare (and can't be forced to) and then stop meds and the process resumes. I am particularly interested in finding out the details of the Colorado case. I posted this article elsewhere, but think it's relevant to the topic:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525086/

Hugh Freaking Dillon

I think in large part is the parenting factor, the perpetuating cycle. live the life, teach the life. of COURSE not all criminals are of a lower socio-economic status, but I would assume (I don't know the stats) that it would be overwhelmingly in favour of the poorer sect. it is well known in Manitoba at least, that there is an overwhelming majority of Aboriginals in our prisons. "over-represented" as the Aboriginal leaders say.

I stole as a teen for a while, but that was more out of attention and peer pressure. It wasn't major stuff (cigarettes, cassettes, candy, magazines, etc). And it didn't last long.

Our governments CLAIM to care about the less fortunate, but what are they really doing for them? building a nice playground in a shit area isn't going to do anything unless the groundwork has been laid, with people in the community already there with the interest in turning things around. most of those playgrounds just end up as drug dealing spots and covered in graffiti.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

comebackgirl wrote:

We can't punish people for what they *might* do, but for what they actually do.

that's why I'm still looking for those damn pre-cogs. we could use some of those.

redrock

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Our governments CLAIM to care about the less fortunate, but what are they really doing for them?

Not enough though it would seem that what they could can have a positive impact. An example - small but nevertheless very important:

"Commentators have suggested that declines of up to 40% in domestic violence incidents reported in public surveys may be due to the provision of better housing and other services that provide women with a realistic alternative to their relationships, the improved economic and educational status of women, and demographic trends"http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/falling-murder-rate-domestic-violence

http://www.nasams.org/DMS/Documents/119 ... olence.pdf (this is the full study)

redrock

I'm being a bit naughty at work and trawling through various studies.

This has some quite interesting points (though the full study is 30+ pages!). http://ideas.repec.org/p/mib/wpaper/63.html#related
There are plenty of links to other studies/papers in the 'Reference' and 'Citations' part. I guess most of these are a bit too 'academic' and lengthy to serve as reference for the purpose of a debate on a forum!

Godfather.

my take on criminals/crime.....
it all starts with the brain,this topic can and should easly begain with the brain.
some people are criminals right out of the gate even if they don't realize it right away,there is a part od their brain the functions differently than others(risk takers,lack of emotion,steal,kill)with no remorse at all some people commit crimes just for the rush or the thrill of doing it,a friend of mine did 4 years in chino prison for burglery(high end) he very good with alarms and security systems and would break into factorys and wearhouses just for the thrill of getting away with it and he never needed the money he grew up in simi wealthy family, he never got caught for what he called "capers" but he did get ratted out.
another guy named "Dog" loved fighting and hurting people it's just who dog was and it diden't matter who they were.. bikers,self proclaimed tuff guys even cops but in the end thats what killed him.
point is that there was a differance in the way their brains functioned..how they processed guilt or remorse and I believe if that kind of person is faced with poverty they do what they have to without feeling any regreat.
I know that's not the only reason for crime but it is a situation that needs to be looked at as well as good people doing dumb things.

Godfather.

Godfather.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/07/justice/t ... ?hpt=ju_c1

just happened to run across this.


Godfather.

Godfather.

this is some great reading.
http://www.livescience.com/13083-crimin ... thics.html

The latest neuroscience research is presenting intriguing evidence that the brains of certain kinds of criminals are different from those of the rest of the population.

While these findings could improve our understanding of criminal behavior, they also raise moral quandaries about whether and how society should use this knowledge to combat crime.


Godfather.