Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Not true.

Really? So we hear politicians telling us about how the Thirteenth Amendment should be subject to "common sense" restriction?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
The number of Supreme Court cases involving every other Amendment of the Bill of Rights (save for the Third Amendment ) tends to disagree with your assessment.

The Supreme Court often refuses to hear 2nd Amendment cases leading to a distortion in figures. Also Supreme Court cases =/= "Most others people accept as settled" as typically those cases involve minutia. Not wanting to remove the right itself. So which other amendements are people calling for the wholesale repeal of? The wording to which amendment is constantly debated in public settings?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
The thing I was highlighting is that obsession over the Second Amendment often correlates with not giving a feth about have anything else in the Constitution. Just look at any thread in the OT about constitutional rights being infringed and you'll see what I'm talking about.

No. It is because people typically agree with the important of a fair trial, the right to assemble peaceably, the right to vote, the right to freedom of speech. But thank you for proving that it is the most hotly contested.


**edit**
In any event this is taking us away from the topic at hand.

Frazzled wrote:He was a thief. Where's the downside?

Frazzled wrote:Whats the issue. he was a thief. He's a waste of skin. Quit being a thief and harming others.

Frazzled wrote:Was he a thief?

Did he serve his time and then was a productive member of society?

If the answers are yes and no then he's worthless and does nothing but harm others. Have compassion for his victims.

Frazzled wrote:He was a thief. Where's the downside?

I know you're just throwing out your usual internet tough guy, thread polluting gibberish, but I'd like to point out for the rest of the thread that the answer to the first question is "No". He was an alleged thief. He had not been tried or convicted. In this country we have a presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty. He didn't have a day in court, let alone a conviction.

Ouze wrote:
I know you're just throwing out your usual internet tough guy, thread polluting gibberish, but I'd like to point out for the rest of the thread that the answer to the first question is "No". He was an alleged thief. He had not been tried or convicted. In this country we have a presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty. He didn't have a day in court, let alone a conviction.

You do not seem to comprehend that this legal fiction does not forbid the general public from drawing their own conclusions about a case. By your logic we would also be forbidden from assuming Bryce Williams was guilty of the murders last week - just because he died before a court could find him guilty does not mean that we are required to turn a blind eye to anything he had done.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Really? So we hear politicians telling us about how the Thirteenth Amendment should be subject to "common sense" restriction?

You're confusing what politicians and people say with what happens in the judicial world. And your example of the Thirteenth Amendment is cute, but pointless, especially considering I was talking about the Bill of Rights. However, the Thirteenth is rarely cited in cases, and for good reason, but other Reconstructions amendments are certainly talked about today.

The Supreme Court often refuses to hear 2nd Amendment cases leading to a distortion in figures. Also Supreme Court cases =/= "Most others people accept as settled" as typically those cases involve minutia. Not wanting to remove the right itself. So which other amendements are people calling for the wholesale repeal of? The wording to which amendment is constantly debated in public settings?

Again, you're comparing apples to oranges.

For one, there is no legitimate politician calling for the wholesale repeal of the Second Amendment. Furthermore, if there was, the Supreme Court can't do it, Congress would have to start that process. Second, do you have proof that the Court actively refuses to hear Second Amendment cases, or are you just relying on confirmation bias? Anyways, that doesn't change the fact that judicially, the Second Amendment is not hotly contested (especially after Heller) like you're claiming.

No. It is because people typically agree with the important of a fair trial, the right to assemble peaceably, the right to vote, the right to freedom of speech. But thank you for proving that it is the most hotly contested.

They do? I disagree and my evidence is this thread.

I am reminded of the episode where Wesley Crusher stepped on Frazzled's lawn.

 Sigvatr wrote:
First of all, a theft is a theft. Period. It's a crime and a crime you can go to jail for. In his case, it wasn't the first time he broke the law, but rather the third...or more. He declined to eat which most likely is the primary death cause given that his body was in a very weakened state. That "poor guy" is a criminal. Hands down.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

If you don’t understand what that means, just ask yourself how long he would have spent in jail if he was a wealthy white kid from a good family, who was caught shoplifting $5 of stuff just for the fun of it. Your argument that he did it, and therefore he’s paying the proper price is extremely simplistic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The law is not, nor should it be run on the basis of economics. If it were then we could save money by using a .22 to execute criminals immediately after sentence (or we could just dispense with trials, that would be cheaper again)

Huh? Of course the law is run on economics. Most prison systems will run, unofficially, probation drives where they push to have as many people as is practical granted probation, basically to clear out the prisons and so reduce the number of guards needed to save budgets.

At the same time the legal system runs with insanely inflated prison sentences, basically so that people will cop a plea instead of risking long sentences if they fight the charge in court. This is done just to reduce the cost of trials.

You can argue the law shouldn’t be run on economics, and what a lovely world of justice and reason that would be. But here in the real world, it does not work like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rowboatjellyfanxiii wrote:
This is why everyone (including themselves) look down on America.

Yeah, racism is entirely an American thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
If the answers are yes and no then he's worthless and does nothing but harm others. Have compassion for his victims.

Yes, it’s madness that there’s people thinking about the mother who lost a son, while the shopowner who lost a bottle of mountain dew is ignored.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I kind of agree, he shouldn't have died but I wouldn't feel sorry for the guy.

It was $5. He was held in gaol for four months, when he dies. Holy fething gak, just don’t.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:
In New York maybe. It's definitely not normal where I'm from.

It's not normal anywhere. His mental illness probably complicated bail conditions.

As you insist on continuing this off topic tangent;

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
You're confusing what politicians and people say with what happens in the judicial world.

No. You are confusing the phrase "people" with "the judicial world".

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
And your example of the Thirteenth Amendment is cute, but pointless, especially considering I was talking about the Bill of Rights. However, the Thirteenth is rarely cited in cases, and for good reason, but other Reconstructions amendments are certainly talked about today.

Yet the language is settled and clear. The discussion is on an amendment to it. Not a re-interpretation. Not asking to read it in a way to place "common sense" limits on it, not asking to license it, not asking to show good cause to exercise it, not asking to level additional taxes on it - "you're comparing apples to oranges"

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Again, you're comparing apples to oranges.

You got the wrong end of the stick and you insist on running with it.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
For one, there is no legitimate politician calling for the wholesale repeal of the Second Amendment.

Interesting that you chose to ignore the plethora of politicians happy to undermine it, or call for the banning of a type of weapon.

Also you mis-read "people" as politicians this time.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Furthermore, if there was, the Supreme Court can't do it, Congress would have to start that process. Second,

I am aware of that. Again you confused what I had said and focused solely on cases before the court.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
do you have proof that the Court actively refuses to hear Second Amendment cases, or are you just relying on confirmation bias?

Jackson v San Francisco (ban on handguns)
Drake v. Jerejian (restriction on self defense carry)
Kachalsky v New York (challenge to 'good cause')
Three more; http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/24/us-usa-court-guns-idUSBREA1N12820140224 (names of cases omitted)

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Anyways, that doesn't change the fact that judicially, the Second Amendment is not hotly contested (especially after Heller) like you're claiming.

Still holding the wrong end of the stick.

Some interesting comments on this thread since I last posted. Some good, some not so good, and some comments that were pretty fethed up

I would like to think that in 2015, a wealthy democracy like the USA, with a long history of the rule of law, would deem it essential to show compassion to people with mental health issues, especially if it is proven they were not responsible for their actions, due to their illness.

Sadly, if some comments are anything to go by, there's still a long way to go.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
would deem it essential to show compassion to people with mental health issues, especially if it is proven they were not responsible for their actions, due to their illness.

There was compassion. The deceased was set to be in a treatment facility for his condition. Had it yet been established he was not responsible for his actions? This is another example of the lack of funding essential for treating mental health.

nkelsch wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Oh, yes. The only way for him to repay stealing $5 worth of groceries is his death.

Not only that, he was held in that jail for 4 months, and had still not gone to trial. Over $5.

I'm not saying he shouldn't have been arrested or anything, but is human life really that cheap to you. That he should die, just because he stole stuff worse less the clothes I am wearing now (and I do not buy expensive clothes).

Not that he should die, but that he's an absolute waste and not worthy of resources.
Again feelcompassion for his victims. help ex cons who are trying to rehabilitate. Criminals, until they reform themselves,are only worthy of being dog food.

Quit feeling for the bad guys already.

Then I hope police lock up all speeders and abuse their rights until they die. I mean they are criminals and speeding harms way more people than petty shoplifting. People actually die from extenuating circumstances of aggressive driving and speeding... I can't find a google article where someone ever died due to shoplifting.

Anyone who speeds for any reason should have their life taken away from them and turned into food for animals.

Am I doing it right now?

Speeding is a tax revenue generator primarily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:
What do you think the penalty should be then? How long of a jail or prison sentence is long enough? Just long enough to ensure that the rest of their life is ruined by being unable to get a decent job, making them more likely re-offend and be a burden on society for the rest of their lives?

2,500 years for the second offense. You are eligible for parole after the first 250.
Alternatively they can take the option of "transport" to barbarian colonies in New Mexico or alternatively, Belgium.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Think on the worst thing you've ever done Frazzled, something you've felt guilty about.
OK now you have me confused. Those are two separate things. I'm a lawyer. What is this "quilt" you refer to?

I'm sure you haven't lived a perfect life, none of us have. At some point you did somebody wrong, and I want you think about what that worst thing is. Do you think it was worse than taking $5.00 from them? If so shut up.

Nope not gonna.

In fact just shut up in general.

Is sweetums annoyed I don't give a flying feth about criminals? Aw, did I hurt your feelings? Rodney says you can rub his belly if it makes you feel better.

You speak of compassion but the persona you've built here is consistently incapable of it.

Thanks! I didn't expect the compliment. You're allright after all.

I just really hope this is the internet tough guy trolling it seems like. Either way it certainly is an illustration of the attitudes I outlined in my previous post in this thread.

As the immortal bard once said. Mercy is the weak. We do not train to be merciful here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Is it normal to lock someone up for 4 months without trail over a $5 theft? Justice system needs to act a bit quicker than that.

Evidently in NY they squeeze youth for selling loose cigarettes. And I thought we were hardcore in Texas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
In some country you lose a left hand, in some country you get caned a 100 time. I think we need to bring back caning
Give aid within first before given aid to some country that really doesn't like us

Candy canes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

Frazzled wrote:He was a thief. Where's the downside?

Frazzled wrote:Whats the issue. he was a thief. He's a waste of skin. Quit being a thief and harming others.

Frazzled wrote:Was he a thief?

Did he serve his time and then was a productive member of society?

If the answers are yes and no then he's worthless and does nothing but harm others. Have compassion for his victims.

Frazzled wrote:He was a thief. Where's the downside?

I know you're just throwing out your usual internet tough guy, thread polluting gibberish, but I'd like to point out for the rest of the thread that the answer to the first question is "No". He was an alleged thief. He had not been tried or convicted. In this country we have a presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty. He didn't have a day in court, let alone a conviction.

Blah blah, details details.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I am reminded of the episode where Wesley Crusher stepped on Frazzled's lawn.

Is that the one where TBone wandered up and peed on his shoe?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlexHolker wrote:

Ouze wrote:
I know you're just throwing out your usual internet tough guy, thread polluting gibberish, but I'd like to point out for the rest of the thread that the answer to the first question is "No". He was an alleged thief. He had not been tried or convicted. In this country we have a presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty. He didn't have a day in court, let alone a conviction.

You do not seem to comprehend that this legal fiction does not forbid the general public from drawing their own conclusions about a case. By your logic we would also be forbidden from assuming Bryce Williams was guilty of the murders last week - just because he died before a court could find him guilty does not mean that we are required to turn a blind eye to anything he had done.

Indeed. I mean the guy who shot the two news reporters was never convicted. He's innocent until proven guilty.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Racial bias?

African Americans, especially poor African Americans, are more likely to be jailed than their white American counterparts. They also make up a greater percentage of the prison population than any other group, in the USA. These are cold hard facts. Granted, the reasons for this are complex, but undeniable facts none-the-less.

Thiscouldn't possibly be related at all to the idea that African Americans commit more crimes than other "colors"...could it?

"FBI arrest rates are one way into this. Over the last three years of data – 2011 to 2013 – 38.5 per cent of people arrested for murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault were black."

And yet they only represent about 13% of the US population.

Something isn't adding up....hmmm....

 TheMeanDM wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Racial bias?

African Americans, especially poor African Americans, are more likely to be jailed than their white American counterparts. They also make up a greater percentage of the prison population than any other group, in the USA. These are cold hard facts. Granted, the reasons for this are complex, but undeniable facts none-the-less.

Thiscouldn't possibly be related at all to the idea that African Americans commit more crimes than other "colors"...could it?

"FBI arrest rates are one way into this. Over the last three years of data – 2011 to 2013 – 38.5 per cent of people arrested for murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault were black."

And yet they only represent about 13% of the US population.

Something isn't adding up....hmmm....

I honestly believe it has everything to do with poverty and not color.

Poverty is proven to be a major contributing factor for crime. Its also known that Blacks have a higher % of poor people than white people. Thus, it is entirely unsurprising that black people have a higher crime rate. Now, the reasons black people are more poor is almost certainly lingering effects of historical racist policies, combined with poor ability/desire to move into a higher class.

This isn't caused by bias in the justice system. The higher incarceration and arrest rate is simply a symptom of a different problem. Demanding we reduce the rate of black people that get arrested is actually introducing bias into the justice system, as it would mean you are encouraging letting certain law breakers slide because of their race. "Awww, the poor guy, we'll let him slide this time because he's black."

What should be done instead, is real action to improve the economy and reduce poverty. While at the same time heavily enforcing the laws on the books, not lessen them or try to instigate racial quotas.

So because a person is poor makes them more likely to commit a crime?

I know a fair # "working poor" and they are not out committing all manner of crimes.

While poverty may be a difficult situation (been there)...it is one than can be worked through.

Being poor does not excuse or justify the choice that people make when they *choose* to break the law.

Its certainly not an excuse to break the law. But it is known to be a huge cause of crime. People are lazy and take the easy way out, it might be easier to rob convenience stores and burgle homes, or sell/move drugs, than do the right thing by finding and holding down a job.

Once more, I agree its no excuse.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I honestly believe it has everything to do with poverty and not color.

Others have said it and I fully believe it; justice is where you buy it.

Crime, I would say, is not caused by anything.

When certain cold fronts meet certain warm fronts, they *cause* a tornado to happen.

Summers in the Northern Hemisphere are *caused* by the sun's rays which hit that part of Earth more directly than at any other time of the year. It is winter in December in the Northern Hemisphere, because that is when it is the South Pole's turn to be tilted toward the sun.

I know you say you believe that crime is a choice. Glad we agree on that

But I don't think you can say in the same post that crime is *caused* by poverty.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
As you insist on continuing this off topic tangent;

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
You're confusing what politicians and people say with what happens in the judicial world.

No. You are confusing the phrase "people" with "the judicial world".

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
And your example of the Thirteenth Amendment is cute, but pointless, especially considering I was talking about the Bill of Rights. However, the Thirteenth is rarely cited in cases, and for good reason, but other Reconstructions amendments are certainly talked about today.

Yet the language is settled and clear. The discussion is on an amendment to it. Not a re-interpretation. Not asking to read it in a way to place "common sense" limits on it, not asking to license it, not asking to show good cause to exercise it, not asking to level additional taxes on it - "you're comparing apples to oranges"

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Again, you're comparing apples to oranges.

You got the wrong end of the stick and you insist on running with it.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
For one, there is no legitimate politician calling for the wholesale repeal of the Second Amendment.

Interesting that you chose to ignore the plethora of politicians happy to undermine it, or call for the banning of a type of weapon.

Also you mis-read "people" as politicians this time.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Furthermore, if there was, the Supreme Court can't do it, Congress would have to start that process. Second,

I am aware of that. Again you confused what I had said and focused solely on cases before the court.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
do you have proof that the Court actively refuses to hear Second Amendment cases, or are you just relying on confirmation bias?

Jackson v San Francisco (ban on handguns)
Drake v. Jerejian (restriction on self defense carry)
Kachalsky v New York (challenge to 'good cause')
Three more; http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/24/us-usa-court-guns-idUSBREA1N12820140224 (names of cases omitted)

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Anyways, that doesn't change the fact that judicially, the Second Amendment is not hotly contested (especially after Heller) like you're claiming.

Still holding the wrong end of the stick.

You're just adorable, aren't you?

You're just proving what I said in my original comment: people care more about the imaginary violations of the Second Amendment than they do about the very real violations of just about every civil right that occur every day (or as you like to call it, 'minutia'). Just read the comments in this thread.

I believe my post says its a "contributing factor". Nothing so broad as "crime" ever has one singular cause.

Poverty would be what tempts many many people into crime, but ultimately they still choose to engage in it of course.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Glad you keep that racial bias rocking. Keep it classy.

Glad you keep your head in the sand on racial issues. Keep it classy.

I thought America was a post-racial society?

Still a lot of work to do IMO, but I definitely think the USA has progressed a long way, and continues to progress.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Poor guy had mental health issues and by all accounts, should never have been within a 100 miles of a cell.

A judge ordered that Mitchell should have been moved to and treated at a state-run mental-health facility after finding that he was not competent to stand trial, but the hospital didn't have any vacancies.

http://www.businessinsider.com/mentally-ill-man-held-in-jail-for-4-months-on-suspicion-of-5-theft-found-dead-in-cell-2015-8#ixzz3kDTbypuA

I agree (but not with the tone of The Guardian article) that he should not have been in a jail cell. Mental health services in the United States needs serious investment and reform. That is what should be taken out of this incident, not the race baiting.

Wasn't my intent to race bait, and the Guardian is notorious for its casual anti-American stance at times, but agree that mental health services need to improve.

Unfortunately, improving mental health services for prisoners is not exactly a vote winner at election times.

I'm sorry, what were you lying?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbtniHk5o6E

Anytime Al, Anytime

Mental health services are indeed being reduced...sad to say.

Here in Iowa we had 4 long term state funded facilities.

Our dicta-- er...um...governor...arbitrarily ordered 2 of those facilities to close.

There is a lawsuit against him because it is believed that the state must legally maintain 4 of them.

Having worked in mental health and on a psych floor of a hospital....I have seen first hand how desperately we need more, not fewer, facilities.

 Grey Templar wrote:
This isn't caused by bias in the justice system. The higher incarceration and arrest rate is simply a symptom of a different problem. Demanding we reduce the rate of black people that get arrested is actually introducing bias into the justice system, as it would mean you are encouraging letting certain law breakers slide because of their race. "Awww, the poor guy, we'll let him slide this time because he's black."

No-one is actually requesting that you set quota to arrest less black people. I don't know where you get that from.

The incarceration rate is being used just to start a conversation, and one that hopefully leads to working on the root cause, poverty, as you rightly point out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
So because a person is poor makes them more likely to commit a crime?

Umm, yes. Holy gak is that really a question?

I know a fair # "working poor" and they are not out committing all manner of crimes.

A single instance of some guy turning out okay means nothing. As a wargamer, you should have a basic understanding of how weak an argument that is.

Being poor does not excuse or justify the choice that people make when they *choose* to break the law.

It isn't about justifying the crime. People who break the law need to face court.

But outside of that, we can still ask the question of what sort of factors lead to an increase in crime. Poverty is the major driver, and so efforts that reduce poverty can in almost all circumstances be expected to reduce crime.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I know you say you believe that crime is a choice. Glad we agree on that

But I don't think you can say in the same post that crime is *caused* by poverty.

Sure, it's a choice. But it shouldn't be too hard to figure out how in some circumstances more people are likely to make that choice.

Consider, for instance, a man on a diet. Everytime he he breaks his diet it is his choice, the food isn't jumping in to his throat. He is often hungry, but he has willpower and is staying on his diet. Until one day along his drive to and from work they build a drive thru donut store. Now, it would still be his choice to go in to the donut store, but it doesn't take any kind of amazing insight to realise this man is much more likely to break his diet than he was before the donut store was built.

Then bring that out to a whole population. There's 150 million guys on diets, and everyday every single one of them is driving to work. 100 million of them see no donut stores, but 50 million of them drive past that donut store every day. Which group, as a percentage, is more likely to break their diet?

I firmly stand by my statement that poverty does not *cause* crime.

There is no cause and effect relationship.

You are either completely misunderstanding what a cause and effect relationship is....or you are purposely beeing obtuse.

Here...let me illustrate it for you:



It is not "I became poor which caused me to start robbing people".

*****

And yes....I do not believe that just because you are lower income or poor that you are automatically more likely to cause a crime.

If you look deeper into the psychology of it...I suspect that you will find either a victim mentality or an entitlement mentality at work in the offender.

They will not take responsibility for their choice and instead place blame on their circumstances. "I had no choice! I was desperate!" Or something like "The world owes me so I'm just gonna take what it owes me."

* * * * *

Single instance, eh? Wow....thanks for trying to belittle and completely change my statement.

* * * * *

Such a laughable example. The presence of a donut store merely provides another opportunity that already exists in the man's world. You said he already resists the temptation offered by all the other donut shops. One more does not magically and immediately *cause* him to just drop everything and go stuff his face.

Ever hear the phrase "You've seen one, you've seen them all."

An empty stomach *causes* a bodily reaction to induce a hunger response in the body...which *causes* you to seek food. You choose what food to eat. The *effect* is your body gets nourisment...whether its healthy or not is your *choice*.

Losing your job *causes* you to enter into poverty. What you *choose* to do while in poverty is entirely up to you.

You can choose to find a way to pull yourself out (which may require change and work) or you can *choose* to do other things....like playing the victim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
****

I would also pose the question: is it more of a cultural bias/attitude rather than an income one?

It's celebrated when a black mother publically challenges their child to follow the law and be a good, responsible citizen.

Why is this?

Shouldn't that be the norm rather than the exception? Is it such a rare occurance to find?

People comment on these videos and make it seem like its the second coming of Christ in importance.

As I said...that kind of parenting shouldn't be unusual...but society (and even the black community) make it out to be something phenomonal.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I firmly stand by my statement that poverty does not *cause* crime.

There is no cause and effect relationship.

You are either completely misunderstanding what a cause and effect relationship is....or you are purposely beeing obtuse.

Then you stand at best by grand delusion that flies in the face of conventional wisdom, common sense and all available research. At worst you stand by an intentional game of deflection by semantics, a dishonest attempt at making some vague ghost of a point by picking only specific definitions of words with no regards to context.

Poverty does not "Cause" crime in the same sense that say ripping the heart from someone's chest causes them to die, this is plainly obvious in that there are poor people that are not criminals. Rather it "Causes" crime in the same sense that smoking causes cancer, some people get cancer without smoking and some some smokers never get cancer. All that said smoking causes cancer by virtue of being a dominant risk factor, and having specific carcinogenic effects that can be found to be at the root of specific cancers in analysis of those cases.

Poverty reduces options, restrains resources, shrinks investment in society, makes one less risk averse, makes one less important to authorities and shortens the time span on which one thinks. These are factors that all other things being equal make crime a more viable and likely if not in some cases near mandatory option. You could for any given poor criminal do an analysis of the events that led up to them committing the crime and their mindset when they committed it and are likely find a great many links in both to things that are a result of their poverty. Certainly some poor criminals, although a minority may have not have motivations and circumstances in committing their crime that link back to their poverty directly, but that they're an exception doesn't disprove the rule.

Eureka!

Poverty does reduce options. Agree 100%

Ansolutely.

But there are still positive and negative options to choose from!

That is what I am trying to say.

It may cause you to have fewer options....but you still have them.

It is what you choose to do that determines your fate.

It does not cause you to be a criminal!

Alright, I'm confused here, what is it you are trying to prove.

That poverty does not *cause* you to become a criminal.

You choose to be the criminal based on the choices from opportunities presented to you.

I am also wondering if there may be a....cultural bias...in the black culture that encourages people to play the victim or to believe they are entitled....which leads them to *choosing* to become criminals and break the law (all manner of illegal choices, not just biolent crimes)--as opposed to changing their circumstances and opening up more choices.

This thread sure went to a weird place.

You don't hear black mothers telling their kids not to commit crimes for the same reason you don't hear "the good muslims" denouncing terrorists - because you aren't listening. And also in the former case because you aren't in their homes listening to them talk to their kids, so I don't know how you were expecting to hear it. At least I hope you aren't.

Unfortunately, there's a bias in white culture towards pretending that race doesn't exist or isn't a factor in anything, even when we have studies showing that white people are unconsciously regarded as more competent. Certain extremely capitalistic white cultures even like to maintain the fiction that people are supremely rational actors and aren't influenced by anything. Anthropologists believe this is because it allows the privileged in these societies to believe they are that way because they are simply better than the less privileged, while allowing the less privileged to sometimes believe that if they just do all the right things they can become privileged too. All this occurs within the context of an economy deliberately manipulated to ensure a certain level of unemployment.

Basically, white culture has a problem, and it's time we started owning up to it. We can change it for the better if we work together.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
This thread sure went to a weird place.

You don't hear black mothers telling their kids not to commit crimes for the same reason you don't hear "the good muslims" denouncing terrorists - because you aren't listening. And also in the former case because you aren't in their homes listening to them talk to their kids, so I don't know how you were expecting to hear it. At least I hope you aren't.

Unfortunately, there's a bias in white culture towards pretending that race doesn't exist or isn't a factor in anything, even when we have studies showing that white people are unconsciously regarded as more competent. Certain extremely capitalistic white cultures even like to maintain the fiction that people are supremely rational actors and aren't influenced by anything. Anthropologists believe this is because it allows the privileged in these societies to believe they are that way because they are simply better than the less privileged, while allowing the less privileged to sometimes believe that if they just do all the right things they can become privileged too. All this occurs within the context of an economy deliberately manipulated to ensure a certain level of unemployment.

Basically, white culture has a problem, and it's time we started owning up to it. We can change it for the better if we work together.

White culture? So you are saying this doesn't happen in... every dang country? Come on dude, stop talking filth. Im pretty sure Indians aren't white, but I bet they have rich and poor too. Chinese? Nah they are a huge sharing nation where the poor don't exist. Lets not get started on those pesky Malaysians and their non existent rich and poor divide... Stop hating yourself for no reason, being white doesn't mean you are evil unintentionally.

As for the rich, why hate on them? If you don't like the fact you aren't rich or people aren't also rich how do you fix that? People who are ahead are simply more capable, they will always find ways of being ahead.






That came off as really rude sorry, but you cant argue wealth divide is a white/western issue only when it's present throughout history from all cultures.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
This thread sure went to a weird place.

You don't hear black mothers telling their kids not to commit crimes for the same reason you don't hear "the good muslims" denouncing terrorists - because you aren't listening. And also in the former case because you aren't in their homes listening to them talk to their kids, so I don't know how you were expecting to hear it. At least I hope you aren't.

Unfortunately, there's a bias in white culture towards pretending that race doesn't exist or isn't a factor in anything, even when we have studies showing that white people are unconsciously regarded as more competent. Certain extremely capitalistic white cultures even like to maintain the fiction that people are supremely rational actors and aren't influenced by anything. Anthropologists believe this is because it allows the privileged in these societies to believe they are that way because they are simply better than the less privileged, while allowing the less privileged to sometimes believe that if they just do all the right things they can become privileged too. All this occurs within the context of an economy deliberately manipulated to ensure a certain level of unemployment.

Basically, white culture has a problem, and it's time we started owning up to it. We can change it for the better if we work together.

White culture? So you are saying this doesn't happen in... every dang country? Come on dude, stop talking filth. Im pretty sure Indians aren't white, but I bet they have rich and poor too. Chinese? Nah they are a huge sharing nation where the poor don't exist. Lets not get started on those pesky Malaysians and their non existent rich and poor divide... Stop hating yourself for no reason, being white doesn't mean you are evil unintentionally.

As for the rich, why hate on them? If you don't like the fact you aren't rich or people aren't also rich how do you fix that? People who are ahead are simply more capable, they will always find ways of being ahead.

Can I point out here that for some reason you are replying to me talking about white culture but don't react similarly to TheMeanDM talking about "black culture"? If I'm self-hating, is s/he black-hating?

Anyway, it's not "self-hating" to think your culture isn't perfect and could be improved. There's plenty of messed up stuff in our culture. We can make it better. Part of that is noticing rhetoric like this, where human self-determination is used to abdicate responsibility for the results of our actions.

Also, since it's on my mind I want to mention that breaking the law isn't intrinsically immoral. I'm not going to judge this guy, even if he was of sound mind, for breaking a law in a system that does a lot to screw him over. It strikes me as incredibly petty to tut-tut about him stealing $5 from a store while other people steal billions and get away with it.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I firmly stand by my statement that poverty does not *cause* crime.

There is no cause and effect relationship.

You are either completely misunderstanding what a cause and effect relationship is....or you are purposely beeing obtuse.

Well yes, obviously the daemon of poverty doesn’t physically assume control of a person’s body and make him steal and be rude to old ladies on the bus. That seems to be your about the entirety of your point, and it’s such a ridiculously obvious thing that it cannot possibly be the reason you’re posting in this thread.

Instead, you seem to be saying that over and over again, for no other reason that to try and drag the conversation away from the simple and important reality that poverty drives crime. What you are doing is disingenuous, and worse it’s boring. So stop it.

It's celebrated when a black mother publically challenges their child to follow the law and be a good, responsible citizen.

Why is this?

Shouldn't that be the norm rather than the exception? Is it such a rare occurance to find?

Umm, black mothers who raise their children to be law abiding are the norm. Most black kids aren’t criminals, and I suspect you know that and the racist implication is accidental, so we’ll just look past it.

Anyhow, the reason that everyone applauded that mum grabbing her kid is because it was caught on tv, and was funny.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I am also wondering if there may be a....cultural bias...in the black culture that encourages people to play the victim or to believe they are entitled....which leads them to *choosing* to become criminals and break the law (all manner of illegal choices, not just biolent crimes)--as opposed to changing their circumstances and opening up more choices.

This is an idea that's been floated around for a few decades. Long story short its basically complete and utter bs, start to finish. The apparent problems with black culture all happened to start when jobs started leaving the areas that had high black populations, mostly inner city.

So what you saw was actually a culture adapting to poverty and high unemployment. They weren't positive adaptions in most cases, but they weren't inherently black adaptations either. You'll note now that some predominantly white areas, such as the rust belt, are starting to look at multiple generation unemployment with no economic recovery forseeable, many of the same negative cultural elements are developing there as well.

You want to fix any of these cultural problems, put decent jobs in the areas.