Woman screams at judge.

token101

benway wrote: »

That just ain't true. Many of them, an overwhelming majority from what I've seen, are pretty much born in to it. I've seen it myself with people I grew up with.

OK. So at what point did someone force them into a life of crime? I understand 9,10, 11 year olds at that sort of thing. But you get to 18, you know what's right and wrong. You have a choice to make then. Until you hit 18, your life is essentially a clean slate. You have no record, it gets wiped. So you could feasibly go and get your qualifications/job/trade or whatever like any other decent human being. It's a choice and a cop out not to.

M cebee

do these repeat offenders get a medal when they get to 100 in this country or what's the story?

FruitLover

Chain_reaction wrote: »

So jail them until they're institutionalised and then release them into society again where by that time they'll be even further from living whats considered a normal civilised life.

They're past the point of a normal civilised life as it is. If there's even a slim chance that they might learn a lesson, it's worth it. Even just to keep them locked away from ordinary, decent people for a few years (and hope that they'll grow up a bit in the meantime), it's worth it.

donalg1

M cebee wrote: »

do these repeat offenders get a medal when they get to 100 in this country or what's the story?

No just a badge.

Get to 200 and they get their cheek pinched and called a little rascal by a judge

benway

Bit late, so just two points on that.

token101 wrote: »

Good people don't raise the standard of scum, scum drag them down. That's why this Moyross regeneration will not work. It will spread the problem.

"Scum". That's the problem right there. If some people are "scum" how are their children supposed to react to that? You're looking down on people straight away, whether you know it or not.

The republican ideal has taken a battering in the past 30 years, it's about time it made a comeback.

token101 wrote: »

just to give the less decent a better life?

Just to give everyone a better life. That's the point.

The alternative is that we head towards a situation like we see in the States and UK where there's an ongoing war between the underclass and the rest of society. We're already well along the road, the process picked up pace in the Celtic Tiger era, if you ask me.

amacachi

RachaelVO wrote: »

There probably is a high level of unemployment in council estates, but not everyone who lives in a council house isn't working, especially considering in the boom alot of them were sold so technically they're not council houses.

But given the nature of the thread, I don't think you can equate being unemployed with being a criminal!

The 98% figure was what I was having issues with.

Dudess

token101 wrote: »

But then why even mention it? Why do people even mention tough circumstances if they aren't seeking mitigation?

Because it's a factor in them turning out the way they did - and I think it needs to be addressed in order to prevent the cycle. I'm not saying the horrible bastard is not responsible for what he did, or that he doesn't deserve to be punished. Like I said, an explanation and an excuse are not the same thing.

Benway, he is a scumbag - that is not a blanket prejudice against all who come from backgrounds like his, it's just an apt description for him. You're the one assuming it refers to background. If he was from a respectable family and in a stable job and educated and he did this (which could happen) he would also be a scumbag. His mother being drunk when she yelled at the judge - we don't know for sure, and even if so, she's still a toxic piece of work to do it. The case is horrific - heartbreaking for the young couple involved, their lives are destroyed...

argosy2006

“We’ll petrol bomb the bomb and we’ll shoot your friend”.

They will bomb a bomb and shoot friend, Some knives they had,

Chuck Stone

Some people have no conscience when it comes to hurting others and it has sweet **** all to do with their nurture.

token101

benway wrote: »

Bit late, so just two points on that.

"Scum". That's the problem right there. If some people are "scum" how are their children supposed to react to that? You're looking down on people straight away, whether you know it or not.

The republican ideal has taken a battering in the past 30 years, it's about time it made a comeback.


Just to give everyone a better life. That's the point.

The alternative is that we head towards a situation like we see in the States and UK where there's an ongoing war between the underclass and the rest of society. We're already well along the road, the process picked up pace in the Celtic Tiger era, if you ask me.

I am looking down on them! I make no bones about it! They are scum! They deserve the label! They've not been born with it, they have earned it. You say that this would give everyone a better life, I disagree. I believe it would create a society dependent on handouts. If you happen to be born into less fortunate circumstances, why would you bother aspiring to be anything when you see the worst of society succeeding despite their actions? And for the people paying for all this, why should they really? It might give the law abiding an easier life with less crime, but it won't give a better one. People shouldn't need to be incentivised not to do wrong!

The Republican ideal? Which is? This sounds more like a sort of communist ideal, where everyone is treated equally despite how hard they work or what they contribute. We had a 99% white Roman Catholic society back in those days. There was a small, select elite, and then everybody else. So there was no one to fight with. Now society is far more layered. If you really believe Ireland was a better place 30 years ago, you are delusional and watching too much Reeling in the Years. The underclass would have been in the streets putting the Bishops and Cardinals under the f***ing guillotine if they weren't subdued by state sponsored indoctrination.

Sure that's the way in every society in the world. Races don't always get along, people don't like others who have more money.

lisaface

benway wrote: »

Ever occur to you that someone like that mightn't be thinking straight?

I am SO sick of people ,using or at least trying to justify it with that excuse. The whole idea that somehow alcoholism or mentally ill can be used and abused in court. You can only blame/use those 'issues'/cards to a certain point, common sense comes into play. This woman, irregardless of her 'previous mental state' should be held 'agressive' (or other such term)for how she reacted towards that judge today (as in this year!) An alcoholic knows they are doing wrong when they pick up that bottle, they know they're hurting themselves and those around you. That woman knew deep down what the consequences were when she screamed at the judge, but she did it anyway.. and you're trying to justify her doing so,by playing the "ever occur to you that someone like that (alcoholic) mightn't be thinking straight?"


People really need to stop abusing the mentally ill (alcoholic comes under that) card. It's getting annoying now, Why can't people see that!? (grrrr)

/rant over

benway

Dudess wrote: »

Benway, he is a scumbag - that is not a blanket prejudice against all who come from backgrounds like his, it's just an apt description for him. You're the one assuming it refers to background.

The line between that being an individual descriptor and one for whole families and communities is wafer thin - and I'm certain that a majority, both on here and IRL, when you say "scumbag", will basically think "Irish chav". Would like to see that kind of dehumanising language being dropped altogether.

token101 wrote:

You can look in anyone else in the eye as an equal.

token101 wrote:

I am looking down on them!

Bit of a contradiction there, don't you think?

And you should look up the republican ideal, has very little to do with material things, much more about each citizen being treated with equal dignity and being held to have equal worth as a human being. Not the same thing.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Some people have no conscience when it comes to hurting others and it has sweet **** all to do with their nurture.

Any evidence? Because most of what I've seen goes the other way.

lisaface wrote:

that excuse.

Excuses and explanations aren't the same thing.

Mr. Presentable

From the piece:

Ms McLoughlin said that the men who stayed behind with her warned her not to identify them to gardai, saying: “We’ll petrol bomb the bomb and we’ll shoot your friend”.

What do you suppose is meant by this? Don't the Examiner have an Editor?

laoch na mona

FruitLover wrote: »

He didn't have a choice whether or not to hold a knife to a man's throat and threaten to rape his girlfriend?? What have you been smoking?:rolleyes:

I wasn't talking about him he is clearly a dick
but many like him were made that way because of problems at home and in their societies.
I'm not excusing their crimes but its not as black and white as a lot of people think

I know some people are just ****heads for no reason

shankespony

This was so preventable in the first place and my heart goes out to that young couple whose lives have been destroyed. They have both given up their studies and have split up due to the stress caused by this horrific incident. I blame the HSE and the company that ran the care facility for this individual.
Unknown to them over the previous 6months incidents were occurring not too far away involving this individual and his associates.
He was not in a family foster home but in a HSE designated property run by a private company called Stepping Stones Residential (they have a few properties around Dublin). He was in this property on his own with 2 full time carers who were paid for by you the tax payer through the HSE who couldn’t “accommodate” this individual in their normal system of looking after young people. (my maths on this is 2carers x €20 each per hour comes to over €350k for this private company is this a good use of taxpayers money looking after one delinquent at a time where ordinary carers are losing funding?)
1) The had been incidents over the previous period where neighbours had been assaulted and local children, threats to persons and property by this individual, burglaries, all documented by the Guards
2) The Gardai were not informed that this individual and background were being housed in this quiet area
3) The carers did nothing and he was allowed to do as he wished when he left the house till when he decided to come home.
4) He nearly always flaunted his curfew which then had the Guards waste manpower lookimg for him night after night
5) On the night in question the garda helicopter was used and detectives roamed the area to apprehend this individual and his associates. Who pays for the cost of this? You the taxpayer not the company who have made a fortune from this individuals care.
6) Wherever you live one of these facilities could open next door to you, they don’t even need planning permission, give you prior warning, etc and there is nothing you can do about it and I mean nothing.
7) This individual was a one man walking crimewave to the area.

If the young couple want to contact me for more info on what was reported etc and what people in the local area experienced then they are welcome to pm me.

Show Time

Owen_S wrote: »

The part about his 26 previous convictions is probably worth mentioning in the OP.

Anyone with 20+ convictions should be put away for at least 10-15 years as it is obvious scum like that contribute nothing to Irish society

hondasam

Show Time wrote: »

Anyone with 20+ convictions should be put away for at least 10-15 years as it is obvious scum like that contribute nothing to Irish society

It would depend on what his convictions were for, He is only 17yrs. I would like to know what he has been convicted for first.

Show Time

hondasam wrote: »

It would depend on what his convictions were for, He is only 17yrs. I would like to know what he has been convicted for first.

Not in my book. Anyone causing trouble to the extent that they are hauled before a court of law again and again is obviously a maggot and as such should be treated the same way and locked up for a long time in the most basic of conditions.

hondasam

Show Time wrote: »

Not in my book. Anyone causing trouble to the extent that they are hauled before a court of law again and again is obviously a maggot and as such should be treated the same way and locked up for a long time in the most basic of conditions.

It would have to depend on what he did, it could be for something minor. I'm not saying he is innocent or an angel because it's obvious he is not.

Show Time

hondasam wrote: »

It would have to depend on what he did, it could be for something minor. I'm not saying he is innocent or an angel because it's obvious he is not.

We are too soft on all crime.

hondasam

Show Time wrote: »

We are too soft on all crime.

Yes we probably are and I cannot see that changing any time soon.

DonQuay1

Originally Posted by gozunda
Yeah I agree....sterlisation, lethel injection, prison terms for life (not just a couple of years) - will prevent kids 'inheriting' parental values and aspirations and being raised by those who choose to believe that violent crime is a lifestyle choice

---

I'd go with sterilisation myself. If mammy is to blame then society should act. Why are you obliged to have a dog licence ..... but not a child licence??

Batsy

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Instead of taking responsibility for her failure as a mother she screams at the judge for sending her son down for 6 years as ring leader of a group of burglars who held man at knifepoint and threatened to rape his girlfriend.

He had 26 previous convictions.

Says it all really.


http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/mother-screams-at-judge-for-sentence-handed-down-to-son-545487.html

The Jeremy Kyle/Shameless generation.

Chuck Stone

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Some people have no conscience when it comes to hurting others and it has sweet **** all to do with their nurture.

benway wrote: »

Any evidence? Because most of what I've seen goes

Okay I'll turn this on its head to make a point.

Do you believe that there are always mitigating circumstances to be found in the nurture of a person who carries out heinous acts?

Mickey Dazzler

What a pair of cnuts. Both should be lined up against a wall and shot.

laoch na mona

Mickey Dazzler wrote: »

What a pair of cnuts. Both should be lined up against a wall and shot.

why? he deserves a harsher sentence than he got
she only got done for contempt of court that's not really serious

benway

Batsy wrote: »

The Jeremy Kyle generation.

A whole class of wasters who have nothing better to do than loll about on their sofas in the mid-afternoon, revelling in a deluded sense of superiority to genuinely damaged people, who don't make much more of a contribution to the world than their ego boosting slaggings of people who can't even answer back? Think you might be on to something there, alright.

What I really want to know is whether Jeremy Kyle wakes up in the morning, or whether he slithers in to our world through a haunted mirror. (© Charlie Brooker)

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Do you believe that there are always mitigating circumstances to be found in the nurture of a person who carries out heinous acts?

No, I think that, more often than not, there are explanations to be found, and pointers to how that kind of behaviour might be prevented, but this doesn't negate their ultimate responsibility for their own actions.

The point is that if you want to make it out to be a "nature" thing - genetics or social Darwinism - the onus of proof is on you, and it's a heavy burden, because we've seen in the last century that this übermensch / untermensch type thinking inevitably leads to a dark, dark place.

To date, there's been no definitive proof that there's any genetic or racial causation to crime, Wilson and Herrnstein tried to make that point with the Bell Curve, and failed miserably.

Plus, there have inevitably been political undertows to any such attempts from Lombroso and Herbert Spencer on.

Dudess

I think the people who have to live alongside people like this little sh1t and his mother are the ones who are the best qualified to comment really - it's very easy for people from a middle-class, comfortable background to say it's not totally their fault, it's their upbringing and environment etc. The latter two factors are obviously part of it, but not the whole picture. To say he knows no better is particularly ridiculous.

Bullseye1

Ben you have some good and valid points. But have you ever lived next door to these people? It's not pleasent.

benway

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Ben you have some good and valid points. But have you ever lived next door to these people? It's not pleasent.

O'Devany Gardens is around 200 yards from my front door.

Chuck Stone

benway wrote: »

No, I think that, more often than not, there are explanations to be found, and pointers to how that kind of behaviour might be prevented

You believe that by investigating a psychopath's background we can find fault in us as the whole society. This is the view of most people of a liberal persuasion.

Then there are those who believe that some people are just born with a lack of empathy and are destined to end up a criminal or in some avaricious role. This is the view point of conservatives and 'the right' (unless you are one of them).

I would have been of the former persuasion until more recent times when we've witnessed sociopaths and psychopaths at the helm of our institutions - most of which I would guess came from very normal backgrounds.

In an alternative universe Bush is a manipulative scumbag who lives in a trailer park and knocks off a few people and spends the rest of his life in jail. In an alternative universe Bertie is a want-to-be-loved junkie-dancing-monkey who gets a bullet in the head when everyone figures out what a duplicitous bastard he is.

I reckon nurture has as much to say about where the scumbag ends up on the food chain as it does about whether he becomes one or not.

pragmatic1

Once again the rest of society has to pay for bad parenting. There really should be some sort of vetting process before people are allowed to have kids.

Jezek

pmcmahon wrote: »

i blame black taxi drivers aswell.

are you a white taxi driver?

Chuck Stone

pragmatic1 wrote: »

There really should be some sort of vetting process before people are allowed to have kids.

The problem with that idea is who gets to decide who is allowed to have kids? Let's face it the only way to prevent people from having kids is by sterilising women or castrating men.

In South Africa it would have been black people who were sterilised or castrated, in Israel it would have been Arabs, in 1930's Germany it was have been Jews/Gypsies/Gays/disabled, up north Catholics etc.

It is the elite and powerful who would get to make such a decision and the elite and powerful have shown themselves to be just as psycho/sociopathic as the scumbag on the street imho.

pragmatic1

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The problem with that idea is who gets to decide who is allowed to have kids? Let's face it the only way to prevent people from having kids is by sterilising women or castrating men.

In South Africa it would have been black people who were sterilised or castrated, in Israel it would have been Arabs, in 1930's Germany it was have been Jews/Gypsies/Gays/disabled, up north Catholics etc.

It is the elite and powerful who would get to make such a decision and the elite and powerful have shown themselves to be just as psycho/sociopathic as the scumbag on the street imho.

I get your point but this is a huge problem. The vast majority of scumbags I know have ****ed up family lives and the blame cant be laid on being from a rough urban area because the area I'm from is very rural.

Chuck Stone

pragmatic1 wrote: »

The vast majority of scumbags I know have ****ed up family lives and the blame cant be laid on being from a rough urban area because the area I'm from is very rural.

I have no doubt what you are saying is true but let's put it in perspective.

You take the scumbags at the bottom of the food chain and compare the social damage with they do to the scumbags at the top of the food chain and it is utterly insignificant.

Bottom of the food chain scum-baggery is well policed. Top of the food chain scum-baggery is not policed at all unless you are Bernie Madoff. There is not one property speculator, bankster, politician or civil servant in prison that I'm aware of.

I believe that you, like myself, are in debt to banksters, bond holders, property speculators, SW recipients, PS workers pay and pensions to the tune of something like €40,000 if we were to pay their dues in one lifetime (from memory).

Seriously, who's doing the damage to people's lives here?

gozunda

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The problem with that idea is who gets to decide who is allowed to have kids? Let's face it the only way to prevent people from having kids is by sterilising women or castrating men.
In South Africa it would have been black people who were sterilised or castrated, in Israel it would have been Arabs, in 1930's Germany it was have been Jews/Gypsies/Gays/disabled, up north Catholics etc.
It is the elite and powerful who would get to make such a decision and the elite and powerful have shown themselves to be just as psycho/sociopathic as the scumbag on the street imho.

Yes as you say in order to prevent those who would bring children into abusive and dysfunctional environments it would be necessary to sterilise those who choose to live such criminalised lifestyles

However you appear to be missing the point here - it would be sterilisation as a result of criminal behaviour as decided in law. Not some arbitrary racial policy as you appear to be fixated upon.

It is not the elite and powerful who would need to make such a decision - such undertakings would be the same as the removal of freedoms such as custodial sentences as dictated under the law.

There is a huge difference with the scumbag that threatens a person with knifing and their partner with rape and some remote person in a position of authority that you may dislike.

The actions of psycho/sociopathic individuals and their behaviour tend to be directly targeted at chosen individuals. The psychological impact of these crimes on the targeted individual cannot be measured against or compared with a general hatred of what you may preceive as the the 'elite and powerful'.

slavetothegrind

benway wrote: »

Off the top of my head ...

Schools - do away with exam-based and heirearchical approaches until at least 10 years of age. Half the problem as I see it is that some kids come in to school from a lower base and do worse from the start, and are treated as thickos for the rest of their school-days as a result. Also, less emphasis on academics, more on practical skills, try to find each child's strengths and work from there, before they ever sit an exam.


.

this i have experienced and i totally agree with, a heap of schoolkids all know each other through primary, take an exam on entry to secondary, and then find them selves classed according to that result alone from thicko to nerd.
How do they think this affects children at that age?

that said do i sympathise with the convicted? NO.

Chuck Stone

gozunda wrote: »

it would be sterilisation as a result of criminal behaviour as decided in law.

Criminal? Let's just play with the idea of sterilising people (btw I think it's an utterly barbaric notion but we'll park that for lols).

What criminal acts would result in sterilisation?

Not some arbitrary racial policy as you appear to be fixated upon.

I'm fixated on nothing - you are the one who seems to be fixated on sterilisation. If you think that sterilisation would not affect some groups more than others then more fool you. Consider the prison population in the US with t's gross over representation of black males.

It is not the elite and powerful who would need to make such a decision

Bless, such naivety.

There is a huge difference with the scumbag that threatens a persons with knifing and their partner with rape and some remote person in a position of authority that you may dislike.

You're misrepresenting my argument. I'm trying to get a little perspective into the damage caused by bottom of the food chain scum as opposed to top of the food chain scum. The costs of catastrophic institutional failure has been lumped on the backs of the tax payer and nobody goes to jail. Not one person in this country is in prison as a result of the recent financial mess.

The actions of psycho/sociopathic individuals and their behaviour tend to be directly targeted at chosen individuals. The psychological impact of these crimes on the targeted individual cannot be measured against or compared with a general hatred of what you may preceive as the the 'elite and powerful'.

I don't see the world the way you do I'm afraid. The elite have horse-****ed this country and the damage done is immeasurable.

Of course it's problematic to compare a violent hold up with, say, negligent banking but to imagine that institutional corruption has no victims is idiotic.

Chew on this for a while and see if you can digest it.

The criminal population that we have is also a product of the means through which society responds to the socially harmful behaviour of different sections of the community. Some of these means allow the powerful and socially respectable in Irish society to escape criminal sanction when they engage in socially harmful behaviour.

Ciaran Mc Collough 'Getting The Criminals We Want: The Social Production of the criminal population' in 'Irish Society: Sociological Perspectives'

To anyone following this thread I'd highly recommend reading that ^^ chapter (13).

gozunda

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Criminal? Let's just play with the idea of sterilising people (btw I think it's an utterly barbaric notion but we'll park that for lols).What criminal acts would result in sterilisation?

Yes - Criminal behaviour -why not? This is something that deserves a thread on its own....but I'm sure there are plenty off serious criminal repeat offenders who would be eligible for this in order to prevent children being born into abusive and dysfunctional family environments Unless that is of course you believe as you seem to do that the reproductive rights of such individuals triumph over the rights of any potential children

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'm fixated on nothing - you are the one who seems to be fixated on sterilisation. If you think that sterilisation would not affect some groups more than others then more fool you. Consider the prison population in the US with t's gross over representation of black males.

You brought in racial sterotyping btw. We are not in the US....There is no racial comparison in this country. Lets stick to like apples ok.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You're misrepresenting my argument. I'm trying to get a little perspective into the damage caused by bottom of the food chain scum as opposed to top of the food chain scum. The costs of catastrophic institutional failure has been lumped on the backs of the tax payer and nobody goes to jail. Not one person in this country is in prison as a result of the recent financial mess. I don't see the world the way you do I'm afraid. The elite have horse-****ed this country and the damage done is immeasurable. Of course it's problematic to compare a violent hold up with, say, negligent banking but to imagine that institutional corruption has no victims is idiotic.

No not so...direct crimes against the person ie rape, murder, assault CANNOT be compared to a perceived idea of social injustice whether direct or otherwise. To do so, disgustingly belittles and demeans the victims of such crimes. The thread as posted by the OP was not referring to any 'financial mess" but rather the treatment of scum (and inter alia their victims) - the scum who choose to live dysfunctional and violent lifestyles to the harm of their fellow citizens

Chuck Stone

gozunda wrote: »

Unless that is of course you believe as you seem to do that the reproductive rights of such individuals triumph over the rights of any potential children

False dichotomy ALERT. It's perfectly reasonable to be for the right to bodily integrity and for the rights of children.

No not so...crimes against the person ie rape, murder, assault CANNOT be compared to a perceived idea of social injustice whether direct or otherwise.

I wasn't talking about social injustice per se - more criminal negligence and institutional corruption that causes massive social harm.

Okay.. let's say a bus company doesn't service its vehicles causing mechanical failure an a bus which crashes and causes the death of 12 children (beautiful, upper middle-class children). Is that a crime that would warrant sterilisation of the head of the company? If not why not?

To do so, disgustingly belittles and demeans the victims of such crimes.

Self-righteous indignation ALERT!

The term "self-righteous" is defined by yourdictionary.com as "filled with or showing a conviction of being morally superior, or more righteous than others; smugly virtuous"

Beautiful. That's exactly it. Not virtuous, but smugly virtuous. It is about feeling superior to someone else.

The Psychology of righteous indignation

The thread as posted by the OP was not referring to any 'financial mess" but rather the treatment of scum (and inter alia their victims) - the scum who choose to live dysfunctional and violent lifestyles to the harm of their fellow citizens

Threads shift focus; get over it. Did you even consider the piece I asked you to digest or did it stick in your throat?

gozunda

Chuck Stone wrote: »

False dichotomy ALERT. It's perfectly reasonable to be for the right to bodily integrity and for the rights of children. I wasn't talking about social injustice per se - more criminal negligence and institutional corruption that causes massive social harm.
Okay.. let's say a bus company doesn't service its vehicles causing mechanical failure an a bus which crashes and causes the death of 12 children (beautiful, upper middle-class children). Is that a crime that would warrant sterilisation of the head of the company? If not why not?
Self-righteous indignation ALERT!
Threads shift focus; get over it. Did you even consider the piece I asked you to digest or did it stick in your throat?

I take it you are A LERT then - you seem to be very good at spotting Lerts anyway. This type of response does not constitute a proper answer imo. So I take it you are advocating that convicted and reoffending' rapists, pedophiles and serious dysfunctional criminals should have full reproductive rights no matter how or why they choose to beget children - children who will be raised in dysfunctional and likely abusive environments - interesting. What about the 'rights' of these children not to be subject to the will of such parents?

We are on to bus companies now as well? Please lets try to stick at least to the theme of the thread, even if you do not wish to stick to specifics...(You really have a class fixation havn't you btw! "beautiful middle class children'...nice :rolleyes:). Would a single bus crash be a repeat and habitual criminal offence? In any case in such a scenario I would hope that anyone responsible would be held fully responsible for whatever the cause of the accident - no matter what the class distinction (if any) of the victims.

I do apologise I read your abstracted quote and tbh such material out of context are not worthy of any response imo..

I will repeat for your benefit - direct crimes against the person ie rape, murder, assault CANNOT be compared to a perceived idea of social injustice whether direct or otherwise. To do so, disgustingly belittles and demeans the victims of such crimes.

Try telling such victims that they are "Self - Rightous" as you demeaningly refer to them...

Chuck Stone

Sorry dude. I'm not all that interested in discussing your fascist fantasies and being led down ridiculously fabricated false dichotomy garden paths.

FWIW when convicted child abusers have children they are removed from them at birth. But don't let that dissuade you from your obsession with sterilising criminals.

I'm out.

benway

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You believe that by investigating a psychopath's background we can find fault in us as the whole society. This is the view of most people of a liberal persuasion.

Thank you for those lovely words you put in my mouth. I believe nothing of the sort, but if you want to go to trite assumptions about "liberal" thinking, then knock yourself out.

For the umpteenth time, I don't believe that background factors absolve individual responsibility, but I do believe that the majority of crime is symptom of societal dysfunction. It's no co-incidence that South Africa, or the US have exceptionally severe crime problems, given their history.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Then there are some people who are just born with a lack of empathy and are destined to end up in some avaricious role. These people are known as conservatives and 'the right'.

FYP

On a serious level, there's no certainty that such a thing as psychopathy or sociopathy exists as a predisposition in human beings. Some psychologists think it does, some think it doesn't, but it's certain that the kinds of crude checklists used to "diagnose" these "disorders" are blunt instruments, to say the least.

Interesting fact, there are different thresholds for psychopathy applied in the US in the UK, with the implication that certain people become psychopaths when they clear customs after a transatlantic flight, while others cease to be.

Jon Ronson's The Psychopath Test, is an entertaining pop treatment of the problem.

Personally, I think the American tendency to medicalise personality traits, and to individualise social problems is a smoke-and-mirrors attempt to deny the existence of social problems, and their importance.

Even if we agree that some people are psychopaths, even the promoters of the idea estimate that they account for no more than 1% of the population, so I don't think that this can account for most crime in itself. I agree 100% that the disproportionate focus on lower-class criminality is telling, though.

As for that sterilisation point, finding it hard to believe that anyone would seriously try to argue it in 2012. Arbeit macht frei, wha?

gozunda

benway wrote: »

As for that sterilisation point, finding it hard to believe that anyone would seriously try to argue it in 2012. Arbeit macht frei, wha?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Sorry dude. I'm not all that interested in discussing your fascist fantasies and being led down ridiculously fabricated false dichotomy garden paths.

Chuck Stone and Benway - Congratulations - you have just invoked Godwins rule...very well done on that. No one is bringing in 'false dicttomy' except by your own imagings. There are many scenarios in life that are mutually exclusive fyi.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

FWIW when convicted child abusers have children they are removed from them at birth. But don't let that dissuade you from your obsession with sterilising criminals. I'm out.

Dont worry I am not concerned with removal at birth. The scenario predisposes any act of conception for ALL serious dysfunctional repeat criminals in order to prevent children being born into abusive and dysfunctional family environments . Plus I am in noway concerned with the criminals - rather the prevention of possible damage to a next generation and the potential prevention of familial criminal behaviour.

Plus I do not agree with society having to mop up after such serious criminal repeat offenders AND then have to take their children into care as well, all because they are just misunderstood and its their right to beget children irrespective of the rights of such children not to be exposed to such dysfunctional and potentially abusive environments.

It really is amazing the reaction of some when the 'right' to reproduction' is brought up in a discussion...just dont take it personally ok. >snip<

benway

gozunda wrote: »

Chuck Stone and Benway - Congratulations - you have just invoked Godwins rule

That's because you're justifying eugenics, which was a defining Nazi policy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics

Can't Goodwin your way out of this one, I'm afraid.

gozunda

benway wrote: »

That's because you're justifying eugenics, which was a defining Nazi policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics
Can't Goodwin your way out of this one, I'm afraid.

And as usual BW you have picked up the wrong end of the stick...So Yes indeed Congratulations - you have invoked Godwins rule and indeed very well done on that. :rolleyes:

Eugenics presumes a genetic component. My sole concern is that children of all serious dysfunctional repeat criminals are NOT exposed to abusive and dysfunctional family environments. There is no reference to race or ethnicity (Oh and wiki is not really a particularly good academic resource btw)

For your information eugenics was not invented by the Nazi's and to quote your own source of information (Wiki)

Eugenics was widely popular in the early decades of the 20th century.[5] The First International Congress of Eugenics in 1912 was supported by many prominent persons, including: its president Leonard Darwin, the son of Charles Darwin; honorary vice-president Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty and future Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; Auguste Forel, famous Swiss pathologist; Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone; among other prominent people.[6] The National Socialists' (NSDAP) approach to genetics and eugenics became focused on Eugen Fischer's concept of phenogenetics[7] and the Nazi twin study methods of Fischer and Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer.

LINK

Throwing insults (re Godwins Law) Where you are unable to constructively defend the 'rights' of serious dysfunctional repeat criminals to reproduce irrespective of the consequences on their offspring is fairly pathetic imo

btw It was the PP that brought socipathy / psychopathy into the discussion ... better go back and reread. Thanks