>>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.
Fine. I'm not saying my examples were any good, but I stand by my general argument - that social factors influence behavior, including criminal behavior. As you point out, this could be a negative influence in the case of peer pressure.
Incidentally, I never made the claim that the victims of crime are necessarily the ruling class, or tried to justify victimizing others.
>>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!
You are misreading me. Just because I don't believe in punishment for its own sake, I still recognize that people who are a threat to someone else or society in general must be removed from society. Others have to be protected, no question. In the particular case you mentioned, abusers should be kept away from the women they've battered, forcibly if necessary.
This is not incompatible with a desire to abolish the death penalty because it is inhumane, or a desire to ameliorate conditions inside prisons.
Anyway, thanks for the stats on violent crime.
Brett