Criminals: Evil or Just Stupid and Desperate?

[The Sexorcist]

First off, this is my first post ever on here, so I'm pretty stoked! Oh boy, I do hope I meet ever so many friends! Ha!

Seriously, howdy ya'll.

Okay, anyway, I've been thinking about this for a while, and I saw the previous topic, "Alternatives to Prisons" before I created this, so the time seemed right to bring it up.

Crimminals. Evil, or just stupid?

Ever since I can remember, crimminals have been protrayed and seen as "the bad guys"; inherently evil people with no regard for common decency and lacking a moral compass, who willingly rob, rape, molest and steal old ladies purses for the pure thrill of being BAD, and that's it. No motivating force, just pure, black evil oozing from every pore.

Recently, the neighborhiood Safeway where I lived was robbed. I heard gunshots and later on that day, it was on the news with full details. Appearntly the 19 year old guy was addicted to methadone, walked into the grocery store pharmacy with a shotgun, robbed the place and briefly took a hostage. The robber wanted to die by shooting, aka suicide by cops. My roomate knew the kid from high school.

This got me thinking; when I first heard about the robbery, I figuered, "It's just another robbery, whatever." But after I heard why he did it, his addiction to a drug worse than heroin, his desire to die, I beagan thinking; do all or most crimminals have reasons for their crimes?

Here's my theory; all robbers, burglars, drug smugglers, assualts and so on, they are not done because the perps are EVIL, it seems that in 99% of cases there is some reason for the crime. Desperation, addiction, fear, stupidity. Not all, but most crimes.

Thoughts, or examples for against? It seems if this is appplicable, it could serious change the justice system; "three strikes and your out" laws, the severity of some crimes, the entire jail system as we know it. I know this is a braod question, but I think once you dig into it, it opens some seriously interesting questions about our notion of justice.

Thoughts?

(Sorry it's so long)

[Athena]

Why do I think I am qualified to answer this question?

I came so close to murdering people, on several occasions, I think it is wrong to assume murders are so different from those who do not murder.

I was preparing to be a probation office, and communicated with criminals by letters and visits, and researched the system we call corrections, and looked into crime and justice.

My son in law is in prison again, and many people in my life have at least been in jail once or more times.

The subject is too big for one post, but I know the meth issue very, very well!
Like Alzhiemers disease effects people differently, so does meth. Many people die because of the drug. It takes a hold of people so badly they knowingly face death to feed the addiction, and really wish they could quit. This can be true for alcoholics as well, so I recoil when people post they are responsible drinkers. There are no responsible drug or alcohol users, verses irresponsible users, just a variation in how the drugs and alcholol effect people.

Both street drugs and alcohol are involved in crimes. We do not allow drunks to drive. Some states finally determined once a person is drunk it is too late for this person to practice good judgement, and lowered the blood alcohol level that defines too drunk to drive. It is really, really dumb, to acknowledge drugs and alcohol result in bad decisions, and then insist these people should not make decisions that are criminal. I don't mean tolerate crime. I mean, deal with the reality of what drugs and alcohol do to a person's judgement.

And fellows if you get drunk or do pot and avoid trouble, there but for the grace of God go you. You may get away with the risk for many years, and you may not. The more years that pass, are like playing Russian Roullet, sooner or later that bullet is likely to fire. However, I have seen 60 years who smoke. Occassional someone has unusual resistance to the harm of a substance.

[Epistemologist]

Hi, Sexorcist.

I think that when we look at this situation in terms of societal standards represented in the laws that the criminals break, then the criminals are evil in the intersubjective sense. That is, for that society that created the laws e.g. against murder, the murderer is an evil person. If there were a society that condoned murder, then the murderer would be a virtuous person (or at least not evil).

However, if we focus less on the crime and more on the criminal per se, it seems as if yes, your position is correct. Some criminals are not inherently evil and might have killed someone, for instance, just because he/she is afraid.

Also, it might be the case that the society they are living in is evil. For instance, if there were a society (for lack of a better word) that made a law requiring that citizens murder humans and one refuses to do it, then that person is a criminal and therefore evil in that society. Of course, when we look at that person's crime in the broader sense or at least the perspective of our societies, where murder is outlawed, then that person is virtuous.

Anyway, it's hard to tell when a criminal has some confounding factors e.g. fear that force him/her to commit the crime. The obligation of society is to preserve itself by enforcing these laws; it must therefore punish the criminal for the crime regardless of the causes. Yes, sometimes intentions are taken into judicial calculus when determining if an accused is really a criminal but that is only when the intentions are an integral part of the law e.g. murder is only allowable in life-or-death situations. But all in all, society destroys evil deviations, and it is only the obligations of others such as us to evaluate other factors influencing criminals.

[The Sexorcist]

Athena- First off, don't get me started on the damn demon drug. I've known a lot of people who became heavily involved in that shit. Especially here in Colorado, it's a huge problem. I have a problem with people who start using these "harder" drugs. Who doesn't know how incredibly addictive meth, heroin and crack are? It seems people who get into it seem to think they're above becomign addiction, "I know what I'm doing", "Only on the weekends" and whatever other lies they tell themselves. Six months later, they're giving handjobs for another hit of meth. If they get they're shit together and realize their disease and want help, I'll be the first one to help them get it. If not, f*ck 'em. It's their choice.

But I digress.

My original post wasn't specifically about drugs and crime, but about the way "crimminals" seem to be percieved. Watching the news and hearing people just talk about crime, it seems to be a knee jerk reaction to hate and detest all people who commit crimes without subjective reasoning as to why they did what they did. This kind of thinking first got to me when I was debating the Iraq War in high school. I was insisting that we need to understand why Al-Qaidea and radical Muslims in the middle East hate us. Of course, back in late 2003, everyone got all pissed becasue understanding was equal to sympathy for them. Of course, it was a lack of understanding of the region that helped get us into this bottomless pit of a war...anyways. I strongly believe that understanding the nature of crime and the correlation of poverty and crime will go along way to reducing real crime while upholding human dignity and personal freedoms.

Epistemologist- I agree. It's the way in which you view idividual and scoiety. I really liked your examples. Twisting your own perspective to see the view from the other side is always interesting. It is society that dictates whether or not a person is evil, or is there some concrete set of guidelines that seperate the good and the bad? I sdon't know, and I guess that's really what the heart of this debate is.

However, I have to disagree with ya in your last paragraph. While there is obviously no quantifiable (sp?) terms to tell why a crimminal does crime, there are certinaly obvious characteristics that give us clues. The young guy in the Bronx who starts dealing cocaine to make money becasueeducation is lacking and there are no quality jobs for him to make money and remove himself from a ghetto, versus Scott Peterson. Who is the MORE evil, or who is the REAL crimminal? Dealing a deadly addictive drug is certainly not a honorable thing, but considering the circumstances, I can certainly understand why he would, and I can't really say I wouldn't do that same thing if it were me in that set of circumstances. Compared to Scott Peterson murdering his (hot) wife and unborn child. For what? Insurance money, pure greed? I know anyone would see a definate moral difference in these two crimes.

God, I ramble.

[jose]

Quote by: The Sexorcist First off, this is my first post ever on here, so I'm pretty stoked! Oh boy, I do hope I meet ever so many friends! Ha! Seriously, howdy ya'll. Okay, anyway, I've been thinking about this for a while, and I saw the previous topic, "Alternatives to Prisons" before I created this, so the time seemed right to bring it up. Crimminals. Evil, or just stupid? Ever since I can remember, crimminals have been protrayed and seen as "the bad guys"; inherently evil people with no regard for common decency and lacking a moral compass, who willingly rob, rape, molest and steal old ladies purses for the pure thrill of being BAD, and that's it. No motivating force, just pure, black evil oozing from every pore. Recently, the neighborhiood Safeway where I lived was robbed. I heard gunshots and later on that day, it was on the news with full details. Appearntly the 19 year old guy was addicted to methadone, walked into the grocery store pharmacy with a shotgun, robbed the place and briefly took a hostage. The robber wanted to die by shooting, aka suicide by cops. My roomate knew the kid from high school. This got me thinking; when I first heard about the robbery, I figuered, "It's just another robbery, whatever." But after I heard why he did it, his addiction to a drug worse than heroin, his desire to die, I beagan thinking; do all or most crimminals have reasons for their crimes? Here's my theory; all robbers, burglars, drug smugglers, assualts and so on, they are not done because the perps are EVIL, it seems that in 99% of cases there is some reason for the crime. Desperation, addiction, fear, stupidity. Not all, but most crimes. Thoughts, or examples for against? It seems if this is appplicable, it could serious change the justice system; "three strikes and your out" laws, the severity of some crimes, the entire jail system as we know it. I know this is a braod question, but I think once you dig into it, it opens some seriously interesting questions about our notion of justice. Thoughts? (Sorry it's so long)

Methadone Addiction? Methadone is given to ease the cravings of withdrawel from Heroin addiction or did you mean Methylamphetamine
N-Methylamphetamine : on Medical Dictionary Online

[The Sexorcist]

I disagree with the terms of "good" and "evil". Almost every action considered "evil" (except sexual crimes) could have a situation in which it is acceptable. Stealing ,murder, assault, dealing drugs, etc. So is it very helpful to objectively label people who do these things as "evil" or "bad people"? Does that really help solve these problems? Or is just a easy way out of confronting why these things happen? "Oh, well, that murderer is just evil, case closed, lock him up till the next one comes around."

[The Sexorcist]

Yes, it was methoadone. And yes, methadone is often harder to get off than heroin. I'm can't give you any direct links to information about it, but if you dig a little bit, there's a lot of research out there from reputable drug resaerchers that contend than methadone is just as addictive as smack.

If you can find any info on it, hit me up, I'd like to take a look at it.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: The Sexorcist Who is the MORE evil, or who is the REAL crimminal [sic]? Dealing a deadly addictive drug is certainly not a honorable thing, but considering the circumstances, I can certainly understand why he would, and I can't really say I wouldn't do that same thing if it were me in that set of circumstances. Compared to Scott Peterson murdering his (hot) wife and unborn child. For what? Insurance money, pure greed? I know anyone would see a definate [sic] moral difference in these two crimes.

Well, I suppose it depends on what view of normative ethics you choose to take. If you're a deontologist like Kant then you would say that both criminals (of course they're criminals because they broke the laws of their society) are of the same moral standing because they committed equally unjust crimes. However, if you're a teleologist i.e. more along the lines of utilitarianism, then you would look at the consequences of each crime and determine that perhaps Peterson is the criminally worse than the Bronx guy. I think that governments often employ systematic justice and therefore adopt the deontological position, which has both notable benefits and drawbacks.

Quote by: The Sexorcist I disagree with the terms of "good" and "evil". Almost every action considered "evil" (except sexual crimes) could have a situation in which it is acceptable. Stealing ,murder, assault, dealing drugs, etc. So is it very helpful to objectively label people who do these things as "evil" or "bad people"? Does that really help solve these problems? Or is just a easy way out of confronting why these things happen? "Oh, well, that murderer is just evil, case closed, lock him up till the next one comes around."

Labeling them might give first impressions to people like jurors deliberating de jure guilt, but really it makes no difference. That is, they will automatically and naturally be labeled by members of that society that had its laws broken by them. They will be seen as "bad people" if they deviate from the citizens' society. And they will be seen as "good" if they don't. It's an inevitable occurrence that introduces inescapable bias, since we can never be absolutely unbiased in our judicial calculus.

[Osborn F Enready]

I can't answer yet.....

What is the threads definition of "evil"?

What is the threads definition of "criminal"?

There are many laws in this nation right now that make criminals out of innocent people.

There are many people who don't understand the subjective terms good and evil.

Please clarify for me, so I can answer.

Thanks, and welcome Sexorcist.

[jose]

Quote by: The Sexorcist Yes, it was methoadone. And yes, methadone is often harder to get off than heroin. I'm can't give you any direct links to information about it, but if you dig a little bit, there's a lot of research out there from reputable drug resaerchers that contend than methadone is just as addictive as smack. If you can find any info on it, hit me up, I'd like to take a look at it.

Methadone is one of the most difficult drugs to detox from since its effects are long-lasting and it is readily stored in the body's tissue. Methadone is also used as a replacement-opiate therapy for opiate dependency. A legal dependency (methadone) is substituted for an illegal dependency (heroin). Methadone is available in government-approved drug treatment clinics and by prescription in some areas

.Methadone Addiction and Methadone Detox, Stop being a slave to Methadone! Rapid Methadone detox using the Waismann Method

thanks i learnt something new

[Osborn F Enready]

Hopefully, what NOT to allow your government system to do....

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready What is the threads definition of "evil"? What is the threads definition of "criminal"? There are many laws in this nation right now that make criminals out of innocent people. There are many people who don't understand the subjective terms good and evil.

I'd define evil in this context as that which deviates from societal "mean" standards by breaking laws that represent these standards in the intersubjective sense. A criminal, I suppose, is an individual member of that society who breaks a law and thereby makes him/herself evil.

Yes, often laws in many countries make criminals out of innocent people, but that is because you are looking at a society's laws from the perspective of your society, which has different laws. See my example in my previous post. There's also the possibility of someone accidentally being blamed for a crime, and that is because of flaws in judicial calculus caused by inevitable bias.

Yes, good and evil can be seen as subjective terms. However, I think it's more correct to call them intersubjective terms, which means that although they are subjective in the broader, international context, they are absolutes within a given culture/society.

For instance, you could absolutely say that Hitler was evil in anti-Nazi American society because everyone would agree with that claim, but you could only subjectively say it in the world or in some neo-Nazi society because it wouldn't be true for everyone.

[Praxius]

Here's my theory; all robbers, burglars, drug smugglers, assualts and so on, they are not done because the perps are EVIL, it seems that in 99% of cases there is some reason for the crime. Desperation, addiction, fear, stupidity. Not all, but most crimes.

As Osborn said, it depends on what society deems evil and what laws are in place at the time.

There is always a reason.... no matter how crazy the reason, it's a reason none the less..... sometimes it's out of ignorance or lack of proper education. Sometimes it's out of mental instability like depression. Other times it's due to frustration in life, not getting anywhere and feeling that the people around you just don't care..... so why should you? And there you got parental guidance which may have affected the individual's outcome and how they interact with the rest of society.

The case you spoke of, sounded like he wanted help, there wasn't any, or any he could afford, etc.... so he got stuck in his situation and felt there was no way out..... so why not go out with a bang?

Some criminals will do something like serial killing, and then leave you with no explanation as to why. Why? for that reason alone...... for people never to figure it out and usually the most bizzare and horrendous acts are remembered for a long time.... ie: Jack the Ripper.

[Praxius]

I'd define evil in crime as knowing fully well the consequences of one's actions, knowing that it is wrong, but carrying it out regardless of the regard for other living creature's well being.

Anything beyond that is just a crime if society deems it to be.

[brien]

I recently had the opportunity to visit Rikers Island, the notorious detention center in New York City. I was escorted through the "belly of the beast." I did not meet evil people.
I interacted with the families of the incarcerated and inmates alike. Surprisingly, many of these people were just caught up in the machine of corrections. Many of the inmates are there awaiting court hearings because this is primarily a detention center, not a penitentiary. There are some inmates serving sentence of one year or less, yet the violence amoung the inmates is legendary.

What I found was so many people there were incarcerated on drug related crimes. They may be awaiting a hearing on assault over drugs. Or a robbery to get money for drugs. Or merely for selling or using drugs. I met them and their families.

The state of affairs at R I is abominable. Besides it being a dirty filthy facility, the C/O's are entirely jaded and sometimes downright mean to the inmates. They can be polite to the visiting family members, but only when they sense a dependence upon their good graces. It is a power trip to the nth degree.

Society only needs to take a trip through these types of jails to understand that we treat our own citizens worse than we treated the inmates at the former Abu Grab or at Gitmo. I remember the outrage of citizens over Abu Grab and Gitmo and thought back then, if the average American only understood that our own jails are 10 times worse, perhaps we could get some real reform in the criminal codes. But when one experiences places like Rikers Island, one understands the machine that supports the continuation of the penal system. It is easier and less expensive to hire correctional officers rather than trained medical personnel to treat drug related offenders. It is easier to keep drugs outlawed rather than make them legal and treat abusers as a medical case rather than a criminal case. We have all of these jails, and have to keep them filled. We have very little hospitals and those are seriously overcrowded. We need to set up more clinics, legalize all drugs, thereby removing the criminal from the drug issues.

The political and government machine benefits from keeping drugs illegal. It is society and citizens at large whom are the losers. Only when the electorate awakens from its lazy slumber that society will realize the damage we have done in creating criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens. I would recommend a trip through Rikers Island, or your nearest local penitentiary, for every voting member in the consituency of America. Find a inmate to visit so you can see the inner workings of our penal system. It will be then that citizens will perhaps realize that we allow these jails to exist only through the pleasure of our ignorance.

Here are the statistics to illuminate the enormity of the problem:

Drug-Related Crime - Factsheet - Drug Facts

Drugs are related to crime in multiple ways. Most directly, it is a crime to use, possess, manufacture, or distribute drugs classified as having a potential for abuse (such as cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and amphetamines). Drugs are also related to crime through the effects they have on the user's behavior and by generating violence and other illegal activity in connection with drug trafficking. The chart below summarizes the various ways that drugs and crime are related. Drug-related offenses and drug-using lifestyles are major contributors to the U.S. crime problem and are the focus of this fact sheet.

[brien]

Quote by: Praxius I'd define evil in crime as knowing fully well the consequences of one's actions, knowing that it is wrong, but carrying it out regardless of the regard for other living creature's well being. .

So a drug addict who commits robbery to support his habit but doesn't physically harm anyone is evil?

Here are some statistics on drug related crimes.

Drug-Related Crime - Factsheet - Drug Facts

[Chancellor]

Christian theology teaches that all humans are born evil (sinful) by nature. Even Jesus said, "If you, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children..."

The only difference between a criminal and the rest of humanity is that a criminal's particular chosen behavior just happened to violate some local, state (provincial, regional, whatever) or federal (national) law.

[Chaossaber314]

I think the closest we have to psychologically defining evil is in the form of the Anti-Social Personality disorder. To act as though one does not have a conscience is about as close as we can get.

Jeez, just read some of the conversations people have had with Ted Bundy about his murder/rapes. It's pretty chilling.

But not all criminals have anti-social personality disorder just like not all criminals are evil.

[another day]

anti-social personality is different...your thinking of psychopaths/sociopaths.

And I think psychopaths are not evil. They are born without the ability to empathize, feel human emotion. It's not their fault. They are born with a mental disorder - a part of them missing.

[Mia]

Methadone or Crystal Meth? Methadone isn't worse than heroin, it's used to get people off heroin.


As to your real question, I think criminals come in all shapes and sizes. You have the very rare psycopath who doesn't even know why he does what he does, sociopaths who know exactly what they are doing and don't car who they hurt to get what they want, then you have people seduced by the 'easy money' of drug dealing or stealing or whatever and don't want to hurt anyone.

Of course there are crimes of passion, and the mentally ill, and on and on..

There is no one size fits all answer.