Quote:
Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS
Huh?
|
Second sentence got sort of unwieldy.
Option A) Crime is reduced because of efforts made on the poverty front
Option B) Crime goes down because of a societal shift which places pressure on individuals to act responsibly.
I choose option B. Although I would take option A, being satisfied with that isn't enough because it addresses motivations instead of end results.
I care that people are poor. I don't care why they commit crime (I actually do, but not for the purpose of this discussion). I don't care that Cho got made fun of, I don't care that Denmark newspapers ran offensive cartoons. Regardless of alleged motivations, criminal end results are simply unacceptable.
I think we should work on both fronts, and I'm not arguing for a false dichotomy. I realize they're intertwined, but I'd like to see us work toward real solutions for each. Otherwise we end up with one real solution and one temporary solution which is bound for failure when some other stress-inducing catalyst develops.