Hamas endorses Obama

[skylark]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I'm not overly fond of the argument that poverty is a valid excuse for crime, but I realize that they're often relatively inseparable.

I have yet to hear anyone who truly thinks that poverty is an excuse for crime. I think that is a mischaracterization often given to "liberal" arguments so that no one will listen to them. It is more like poverty is part of an explanation (and we have to understand the complicated multiple factors of why someone might decide to resort to crime in order to correct the problem). I think that is often a misperception of some.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by skylark

I have yet to hear anyone who truly thinks that poverty is an excuse for crime. I think that is a mischaracterization often given to "liberal" arguments so that no one will listen to them. It is more like poverty is part of an explanation (and we have to understand the complicated multiple factors of why someone might decide to resort to crime in order to correct the problem). I think that is often a misperception of some.

I'm not sure I've ever heard someone overtly say that crime is excusable because of poverty, but I've heard people come close. When you say that reducing poverty is necessary to reduce crime, it removes responsibility from those who've chosen to break the law, and I simply won't support that. How about we try and reduce poverty by helping people, and crime by punishing people?

Are poverty and crime correlated? Sure. Do they have to be? No.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I'm not sure I've ever heard someone overtly say that crime is excusable because of poverty, but I've heard people come close. When you say that reducing poverty is necessary to reduce crime, it removes responsibility from those who've chosen to break the law, and I simply won't support that. How about we try and reduce poverty by helping people, and crime by punishing people?

How about we stop creating these distinctions for social issues that are so intertwined. We don't have to pick and choose. A mixture of addressing poverty and inequality in education along with holding people accountable for their actions will suffice. But people are so bent on these bullcrap liberal (address the root causes and potentially raise taxes) vs. conservative (blame people so we don't have to raise taxes for what's a personal problem) loyalties that they won't push to integrate these approaches. That's too much like right.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

How about we stop creating these distinctions for social issues that are so intertwined. We don't have to pick and choose. A mixture of addressing poverty and inequality in education along with holding people accountable for their actions will suffice. But people are so bent on these bullcrap liberal (address the root causes and potentially raise taxes) vs. conservative (blame people so we don't have to raise taxes for what's a personal problem) loyalties that they won't push to integrate these approaches. That's too much like right.

I said clearly we should address both issues, but we shouldn't strive to stop one issue as a reason for another. I don't want a society that has low crime simply because poverty has been eliminated. I want this country to have reduced crime resulting from society taking a stand which says there is absolutely no excuse for it.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I said clearly we should address both issues, but we shouldn't strive to stop one issue as a reason for another. I don't want a society that has low crime simply because poverty has been eliminated. I want this country to have reduced crime resulting from society taking a stand which says there is absolutely no excuse for it.

I'd take low crime because of low poverty, but it wouldn't mean I'd let the few criminals we did have off the hook.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I'd take low crime because of low poverty, but it wouldn't mean I'd let the few criminals we did have off the hook.

I would take it too, but it isn't a "real" fix.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I would take it too, but it isn't a "real" fix.

Well, I think it'd would be a fix if it delivered the results, but it's wouldn't be better than a society with low poverty AND a shared sense of ethical behavior and a willingness of its citizens to act on those beliefs.

But we seem to have given up on the idea that we can teach and enforce any uniform sense of citizenship or character.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I said clearly we should address both issues, but we shouldn't strive to stop one issue as a reason for another. I don't want a society that has low crime simply because poverty has been eliminated. I want this country to have reduced crime resulting from society taking a stand which says there is absolutely no excuse for it.

Huh?

[shinerbock]

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

It isn't a matter of choice, though.

There is no predicting which crime prevention measure will actually make crime decrease. And there's no way of knowing that Option B works unless evaluations are conducted that determine that it was Option B instead of Option A and/or other factors (stronger family units, decreased structural inequalities, better schooling, etc.).

But like I said implementing a number of crime prevention and control measures provides a holistic approach. We just have to get tax payers to understand that these prevention measures are not free. Even holding individuals accountable through punishment and advancing family values and morality aren't free initiatives.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I'm not sure I've ever heard someone overtly say that crime is excusable because of poverty, but I've heard people come close. When you say that reducing poverty is necessary to reduce crime, it removes responsibility from those who've chosen to break the law, and I simply won't support that. How about we try and reduce poverty by helping people, and crime by punishing people?

Are poverty and crime correlated? Sure. Do they have to be? No.

In an ideal world, you're right.

However, explaining something, particularly from a sociological/psychological perspective isn't the same as excusing it and I think that's a difficulty that people really have in these discussions. Explaining why a man murders his wife and children by looking at his past, his environment, his own psychological status doesn't make it okay. In the end he still chose to act.

Personal responsibility is a problem. However you get a kid who started hanging out with the guys on the corner back when he was 12. He's 17 or 18 and he gets arrested, what do we do with him? If we lock all of those kids up, they're MORE dependent on the state. However we also can't let criminals run free.

That's why I'm suggesting we address the systems in place when that kid was 11. It's the only way out of a no-win situation.