Criminals or victims?

Criminals or victims?

Do victims who later become antisocial, need forgiveness or punishment ?

The whole question of crime and punishment has been subject to debates for hundreds of years, in democracies those opposed to punishment tend, not exclusively, to be people with more socialist political beliefs.

Definitions--- Crime; An action that is against the law.

Anti social behaviour; (this definition is for those in a democracy, within one party states- fascist and socialist- the definition is different.) Deliberate acts which are designed to damage, frustrate or annoy others; without legitimate cause.

Punishment; Sanctions force-ably imposed on anyone because they committing a crime, behave in an antisocial way, or infringed a rule (which may not be a legally defined rule) . This can be loss of liberty, loss of material possession and/or wealth. Generally involves the removal of something f the person being punished may value.

Society; the totality of social relationships among organised groups of human beings-- such a system with reference to its mode of social organisation.- in a democracy this can be interpreted as being the social rules (written or unwritten) and general attitude of the majority.

The biggest question is, do criminals and those who commit antisocial acts, who were also victims in the past, deserve forgiveness and escape punishment or not? Children brought up in deprivation, brutality and a disregard for social rules, those who grew up with no discipline or self control; obviously can not be blamed for their attitudes towards other people and other people's property but society still expects the sane adult to be able to tell right from wrong. If we do not expect this then society will descend into true anarchy, note true anarchy is not the watered down political anarchists version.

If we are to allow criminal acts to go unpunished, because of the previous victimisation of the perpetrator, where do we draw the line? What is justifiable criminality and what is not? If a wealthy young female, with no criminal record, has her car stolen, she is a victim. Does this excuse any acts of criminality or violence she commits in the future? A very badly behaved child drives a parent to exhaustion and this parent shouts at the child “stop or I will hit you” is this justification for the child committing anti-social acts 15 years later? Where do we draw the line?

Prison, as a suitable punishment is questioned, since it is not thought to “reform” enough prisoners. Reform them to the level that they do not re-offend. Prison is not just about punishment or reform, it is also a means of protecting (temporarily) the innocent from future actions of those being punished.

Telling a perpetrator that their actions are understood to be the result of their own victimisation is unlikely to stop the majority from re-offending. Telling a person who indulges in anti-social behaviour, that they are not being punished because they are understood to be “victims” themselves, is also going to have very limited effect on future behaviour. How do we protect the innocent? Consider the logical development of the idea that understanding a motivation (conscious or unconscious) excuses the criminal or anti-social actions; one person commits acts of violence against 10 other people. These are now victims. Forgiveness, understanding and absolution is given to the originator, the 10 new victims then each committee acts of anti-social behaviour on 10 other people. We now have a 100 victims all receiving understanding without punishment. Where does this end?

Some claim only white people can be racist and so it follows that some, with this sort of illogical mind set, will say that the “middle class” can not be victims. It will be claimed that only those from deprived childhoods should be excused punishment for wrongdoing. They will claim it is society that is at fault for the child's development and so society is to blame for the crimes, not the perpetrator. This still leaves unanswered the question, how do we protect the innocent from the future actions of the criminal? A supplementary question has to be, how do we stop the evil and feckless from claiming a deprived childhood, as the cause of their personal greed and wrong doing?

Is society responsible for the anti-social or criminal behaviour of some people? Do we use prisons to protect the innocent and ignore the idea of preventing re-offending? Do we make punishments so severe that no sane person will risk re-offending and being punished again? These are questions we need our political leaders to answer. As populations grow ever and ever larger, as urban dwelling becomes even more condensed regarding numbers in given areas, we need to solve the problems of criminality and antisocial behaviour. Poverty is one situation that can lead to criminal activity, poverty while being constantly made aware of the wealth of others, is a huge incentive to steal. The modern cults of personality, where people with very little talent for purposeful achievement, become very wealthy, leads the impoverished youth to consider that they have an equal right to great wealth. This motivates crime. What can we do to change this?

Drugs fuel crime, drugs make criminals rich and so powerful. The numbers of juveniles, (that is those under age of criminal responsibility,) who indulge in antisocial behaviour, appears to be increasing in densely populated urban areas. Drug use is getting more common among younger (12 to 30 age groups) in all social economic groups regardless of other factors. Even without all the other economic and social influences, these two facts are going to make it vital that the whole question of crime and punishment is solved.

A serious debate, based on logic, reason and behavioural science, is needed; not political expediency, nor inter-party political posturing.