are criminals made or are they born

sparkling sea

Bandana boy wrote: »

In the main Crime is not subjective ,Many will without a list of what is or is not a crime not follow criminal activity.

While it would be naïve to suggest that Socio-economic factors do not have an impact on many forms of crime –Theft ,Drug dealing etc ,the propensity for violence and willingness to use it is imo Born.
So Criminal activity motivated by Money is Made.
Criminal activity motivated by violence on another is Born.

This is a bit contradictory - don't these activities relate to motivation for making money ?

sparkling sea

keithob wrote: »

maybe discuss the terminolgy of the word Criminal....

Is a criminal a person who does armed robbery on a bank to provide food for his family?

Is a criminal a person who is a corrupt Professional banker and Politician for self financial gain? .ie. Anglo Irish .. Ahern... Golden Circle....

Its impossible to get agreement on what a Criminal is or what is criminal because not all criminal laws are implemented. Also some legislation in itself may be criminal but implemented to protect certain (usually powerful) groups in society.
Sociologist Emile Durkheim asks people to imagine a society of saints, a perfect cloister of exemplary individuals. Crimes, properly so called, will there be unknown; but faults which appear venial to the layman will create there the same scandal that the ordinary offense does in ordinary consciousness. If, then, this society has the power to judge and punish, it will define these acts as criminal and will treat them as such.

himnextdoor

sparkling sea wrote: »

Its impossible to get agreement on what a Criminal is or what is criminal because not all criminal laws are implemented. Also some legislation in itself may be criminal but implemented to protect certain (usually powerful) groups in society.
Sociologist Emile Durkheim asks people to imagine a society of saints, a perfect cloister of exemplary individuals. Crimes, properly so called, will there be unknown; but faults which appear venial to the layman will create there the same scandal that the ordinary offense does in ordinary consciousness. If, then, this society has the power to judge and punish, it will define these acts as criminal and will treat them as such.

Which, for me, provides a good basis for a definition; what constitutes a crime reflects social morality. And is entirely subjective.

A criminal acts in opposition to socially accepted norms and is not deemed a criminal until he/she breaks the law and is tried and convicted, or equivalent, for it.

So, I would say that society defines criminality as a tendency to deliberately act against the interests of society as enshrined by the law.

Or, a criminal is one who knowingly breaks the law. 'Knowingly' in this context meaning in the full knowledge of the implications of breaking the law.

But 'knowingly' is the problem; for me, crime must involve 'intent'. For example, in order to steal there must be intent to deprive the owner of the thing that is stolen; murder requires an intention to kill and for either to be a crime, there must be a law against it. The legal process has to determine intent before it can define the law that is broken.

sparkling sea

himnextdoor wrote: »

Which, for me, provides a good basis for a definition; what constitutes a crime reflects social morality. And is entirely subjective.

A criminal acts in opposition to socially accepted norms and is not deemed a criminal until he/she breaks the law and is tried and convicted, or equivalent, for it.

So, I would say that society defines criminality as a tendency to deliberately act against the interests of society as enshrined by the law.

Or, a criminal is one who knowingly breaks the law. 'Knowingly' in this context meaning in the full knowledge of the implications of breaking the law.

But 'knowingly' is the problem; for me, crime must involve 'intent'. For example, in order to steal there must be intent to deprive the owner of the thing that is stolen; murder requires an intention to kill and for either to be a crime, there must be a law against it. The legal process has to determine intent before it can define the law that is broken.

Defining a crime in a given society is not difficult - defining a criminal is much more difficult. Thats what makes the OP question so difficult to answer I think.

It would appear under your definition that if a person is an inept and gets caught they are a criminal, however if they do not get found out then they are not a criminal?

If an inept person has money or is lucky enough to get an extemely good barrister, one who is better than average at arguing a case, even though the person committed the crime, they are found not guilty, they are not criminal?

In this country a person who commits white collar crime is much less likely to be prosecuted - are they still criminals?

himnextdoor

sparkling sea wrote: »

Defining a crime in a given society is not difficult - defining a criminal is much more difficult. Thats what makes the OP question so difficult to answer I think.

It would appear under your definition that if a person is an inept and gets caught they are a criminal, however if they do not get found out then they are not a criminal?

If an inept person has money or is lucky enough to get an extemely good barrister, one who is better than average at arguing a case, even though the person committed the crime, they are found not guilty, they are not criminal?

In this country a person who commits white collar crime is much less likely to be prosecuted - are they still criminals?

It's not because of my definition, it's because of the subjectivity of the law enforcement agencies.

Selt-interests have to come in to it; is not committing a crime likely to be detrimental to your own well-being, for instance. Suppose a hungry man steals food from McDonalds at the point it's about to be bleached in order to make it inedible, is he detrimental to society or is he just a hungry man? If the man didn't steal food and instead starved to death, would that be detrimental to society? Can there be a choice of 'starve to death' or 'be a criminal'?

That seems to be a conflict of interests to me. It would mean that nature has criminality as its 'base-line'. Steal food or die is not a choice, it's survival and we cannot criminalise people for wanting to survive. Can we?

People who employ accountants employ thieves; accounts effectively 'steal' from the tax-man. Sure, accountants follow rules but can it be said that by depriving the tax-man of revenue, accountants damage the interests of society?

I say yes, it can but the law says that there are socially agreed rules that allow accountants to operate as they do; no law is broken therefore no crime has been committed.

But society can stand that; less tax equals lowered standards of elderly care. Doesn't affect me. Lower standards of education; I left school ages ago. Lousy transport; I live in a city... etc. The will of the people is reflected in its law.

The law also reflects the apathy, ignorance and complacency of the people too.

But you are right, he can get away with murder and you can't. And by my definition, that is detrimental to society, it is immoral; a rule for him and a rule for you cannot be a basis for equality - justice requires equality but justice is another story isn't it?

I'd like to add that I think the law has nothing really to do with criminality; it is simply the mechanism used by those in control that stops us screwing it up for them by screwing it up for us.

Drumpot

Spot on himnextdoor ..

Really . . Society, at any given stage decides, what it believes to be "civil" and what is "criminal" . .

People used to be stoned to death . . Rape was acceptable in certain times, yet we feel we are in a ridiculously civil society . . .

I love to marvel at how complacent and arrogant we can be as supposedly superior race . .

Ironically I think a quote from a movie sums up my feeling on humanity, despite being part of it, I feel completely Alien to the way its run - "You dont see them F**king each over for a percentage" - Lt Ripley - Aliens . .

sparkling sea

himnextdoor wrote: »

The law also reflects the apathy, ignorance and complacency of the people too.

But you are right, he can get away with murder and you can't. And by my definition, that is detrimental to society, it is immoral; a rule for him and a rule for you cannot be a basis for equality - justice requires equality but justice is another story isn't it?

I'd like to add that I think the law has nothing really to do with criminality; it is simply the mechanism used by those in control that stops us screwing it up for them by screwing it up for us.

I do think some legislation relates to criminality, for me though in the main it relates to social control.

Who is being protected and from whom is the problem.

Omentum

We are all born criminals. And we are all born non-criminals. People choose. Why they chose is another issue.

All crimes are violence of some sort. Violence can take a multitude of forms.

No other species is as cruel as man and this is because we can rationalise our future actions.

We are all born with the potential to be violent. It's one of the reason we have evolved. Society has created boundries in which we should act. Some people choose to act within these confines and others don't.