>First of all, there is a social dimension to people's actions. For
>example, can you really blame somebody who has been denied jobs and housing
>for trying to steal some bread? This is a loaded example, but many people
>do have the deck stacked against them unfairly, and in such situations you
>can't expect people to just accept their lot in life. The system does lead
>people to behave criminally, either by criminalizing things which shouldn't
>be a crime, or by putting people in desperate conditions where they see no
>other way out.
Unbelievable! And what planet did you come from?
Get real, Brett. Things like that may happen in schmaltzy readers for Sociology 101, but in real life people commit crimes because they want drugs or sex, to get even or to impress their peers (cf. Jack Katz, _Seductions of Crime_). In so doing, they tend to vicimize their relatives, girfriends, and neighbors - not the privileged ruling class. While the field is far from being level in this country - that is NOT a justification for victimizing other people who are in a similar social-economic situation.
>
>(Question: does anyone know what % of crimes are violent? Or, put another
>way, what % of crimes are against property, such as theft or damage, or
>"lifestyle" like prostitution or drug use?).
According to Nat'l Crime Victimization Survey, theye were 31.3 million victimizations in 1989, of which 8.1 million (about 25%) were crimes of violence (including rape).
>
>Secondly, although I will grant a large degree of personal responsibility
>in many, possibly most, crimes (murder out of jealousy, for example), there
>is still the matter of how to treat the criminal after the fact. How does
>admitting to individual responsibility, in part or in total, justify
>punishment of the criminal? Why lock them up in prison or subject them to
>the death penalty? Why not simply make the criminal repay the victim in
>some way, i.e., restitution. Or, in the case of violent offenders, simply
>remove them from society but make their lives comfortable, or at least not
>miserable.
I can't believe this! Not so long ago, assorted feminists fought hard to have the cops arrested men who abused they spouses or girlfriends, because the standard line was "not interfering in family/private affairs." It was demonstrated time and again that arresting the offender had a greter effect on reducing the re-occurence of violence than counseling or kindred "soft" measures. Today, however, "pwogies" cry to go soft on these criminals. What a topsy turvy world!
wojtek