Dealing with crime

[NorthernOUFC]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5195910.stm

Given todays releasing of the latest crime figures and John Reid's announcement that thousands more prison places are to be created what are people's thoughts on dealing with crime??

Does prison work or should alternative methods be employed??

[French William]

Originally posted by NorthernOUFC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5195910.stm

Given todays releasing of the latest crime figures and John Reid's announcement that thousands more prison places are to be created what are people's thoughts on dealing with crime??

Does prison work or should alternative methods be employed??

I'd quite like to see chain gangs. Don't know how practical it is, but I think it's a good combination of community service and still taking away someone's freedom.

Punishment that benefits society in some form other than just removing the criminal :up:

[iamian]

Originally posted by French William
I'd quite like to see chain gangs. Don't know how practical it is, but I think it's a good combination of community service and still taking away someone's freedom.

Punishment that benefits society in some form other than just removing the criminal :up:

totally

and there should be punishments that pay back what they've taken from society too...

in terms of things they've stolen & damaged etc...

[Lee]

theirs a couple of things that need combatting, firstly the reasons behind the need/want to commit crime, and secondly the re-offender rates. prisons isnt tough enough for some of them. it doesnt put the fear of god in them and make them wanna go onto the staight and narrow.

i dunno if the government do this but there needs to b som sort of work based rehabilitation scheme where ex offenders are givent the oppertunity to get back into work and not use crime as a way of supporting themselves

[French William]

Originally posted by iamian
totally

and there should be punishments that pay back what they've taken from society too...

in terms of things they've stolen & damaged etc...

How would that work though?

[M.C.E]

National service should be brought back imo.

[Lee]

Originally posted by MARC!
National service should be brought back imo.

nah, its two years out of young peoples lives where they could be studying.

i do think offenders should go to some sort of boot camp, bad lads army style

[French William]

Originally posted by Lee
nah, its two years out of young peoples lives where they could be studying.

Some countries have a system of national service where you can choose to do a year's military service, or 6months service as a civil servant, eg. governmental admin type jobs, or jobs in OAP care homes etc.

I think it's a good idea :up:

[iamian]

Originally posted by French William
How would that work though?

fuck knows i'm just an ideas man :p

[M.C.E]

Originally posted by Lee
nah, its two years out of young peoples lives where they could be studying.

i do think offenders should go to some sort of boot camp, bad lads army style

Sorry, i mean national service for scum bags ;)

[Yosef Ha'Kohain]

Originally posted by Lee
theirs a couple of things that need combatting, firstly the reasons behind the need/want to commit crime, I can't stand it when they say the youth of today turns to crime because it's bored.

I personally believe that capitalism breeds crime, in a society thats values materialism many people are left feeling inferior... This insecurity is the product of an immoral society.

We're told from a young age that if we are to be seen as a success we need to achieve materialisticly; a nice house, good job, fancy car... If someone is unable to achieve this they are seen as a failure.

Life doesn't work like that, a road sweeper isn't a bad person because he doesn't work in a fancy office... both are valued jobs - yet we don't see it that way.... Society needs to review its aspirations if it is to get rid of crime.

Until then we need to work on rehabilitation and real jail sentences.

[Lee]

Originally posted by French William
Some countries have a system of national service where you can choose to do a year's military service, or 6months service as a civil servant, eg. governmental admin type jobs, or jobs in OAP care homes etc.

I think it's a good idea :up:

i reckon if you arent gonna go into further education that would be quite good

[M.C.E]

Originally posted by Joe
I can't stand it when they say the youth of today turns to crime because it's bored.

I personally believe that capitalism breeds crime, in a society thats values materialism many people are left feeling inferior... This insecurity is the product of an immoral society.

We're told from a young age that if we are to be seen as a success we need to achieve materialisticly; a nice house, good job, fancy car... If someone is unable to achieve this they are seen as a failure.

Life doesn't work like that, a road sweeper isn't a bad person because he doesn't work in a fancy office... both are valued jobs - yet we don't see it that way.... Society needs to review its aspirations if it is to get rid of crime.


Very well said :up:

[French William]

Originally posted by Joe
I can't stand it when they say the youth of today turns to crime because it's bored.

I personally believe that capitalism breeds crime, in a society thats values materialism many people are left feeling inferior... This insecurity is the product of an immoral society.

We're told from a young age that if we are to be seen as a success we need to achieve materialisticly; a nice house, good job, fancy car... If someone is unable to achieve this they are seen as a failure.

Life doesn't work like that, a road sweeper isn't a bad person because he doesn't work in a fancy office... both are valued jobs - yet we don't see it that way.... Society needs to review its aspirations if it is to get rid of crime.

Until then we need to work on rehabilitation and real jail sentences.

Good points, but I don't fully agree. Crime is just as prevalent in non-capitalist and poor countries, where there isn't the materialistic lifestyle to aspire to. I think you'd have been better saying capitalism breeds greed, and even then greed doesn't always necessarily breed crime.

[Lee]

it depends what type of crime is bein commited, if its crime for financial gains then i agree, our capitalist ways can be blamed for that, but what about crimes of shear violence and vandalism, theres somet seriously wrong with society when people are commiting random acts of violence. its not jst in our country though but its out of control.

this is where i think a boot cam would be excellent. if people of a certain age, say 16 - 18 are commiting these types of crimes then they shold be sent to a boot camp where they get ironed out and have some decent morals put into them

[NorthernOUFC]

Originally posted by MARC!
Sorry, i mean national service for scum bags ;)

Personally I don't think there is a single solution. Different people will respond to different styles of punishment.

For many prison is an occupational hazard, a worthwhile risk for a career of crime which offers significantly higher benefits than the alternative opportunities available to them. Thus unless you either fundamentally change the 'prison experience' (virtually impossable given todays human rights dominated environment) or find ways to provide them with realistic alternative careers there's a neverending cycle of crime.

In many cases rehabilitation is a more appropriate punishment as it hopefully deals with the major cause of the receipient turning to crime (ie drugs etc).

Agree entirely that prisoners / those on community service should be doing public works projects (gardening, litter picking etc - just generally improving the environment we all live in)

The above deals entirely with reactive ideas rather than looking at pro-active ideas to turn people away from crime before it's committed. I can't be arsed to think about this at the moment so will leave it until later :lol:

[Lee]

another point to discuss regarding sentencing.

i heard t'other day that they were thinking about doing away with parole for criminals who have committed violent acts such as rape murder and alike.

personally i think this idea should have came about years ago

[Yosef Ha'Kohain]

Originally posted by French William
Good points, but I don't fully agree. Crime is just as prevalent in non-capitalist and poor countries, where there isn't the materialistic lifestyle to aspire to. I think you'd have been better saying capitalism breeds greed, and even then greed doesn't always necessarily breed crime. It depends how you define crime...

Stealing bread in a trans-feudal/modernised society so that your family can eat is a crime - but it is crime motivated by survival... Stealing an ipod so that you can earn cash money is motivated by greed.

If we look at nations like Ireland and Yemen we find a much lower crime rates per capita, I believe this is so because there exists within these societies a very different ethos.

Both are highly religious nations and very moralistic, both don't have the individual’s occidental drive to succeed - Ireland has a legacy intellectuals and poets - yet they're just as proud of their farmers and distillers.

Religion plays a strong role in crime statistics... In the west we have rebelled against the rigid authoritarian structure of religion and created its diametric opposite... Liberalism... Liberalism has also had a huge impact on crime statistics... the combination of liberalism and capitalism are proper morality fucks.

How can you expect anything other than crime when we’re told from childhood to adulthood that we must succeed, while simultaneously being told there’s no such thing as right or wrong – just human nature.

[Mad4it]

Originally posted by Joe
It depends how you define crime...

Stealing bread in a trans-feudal/modernised society so that your family can eat is a crime - but it is crime motivated by survival... Stealing an ipod so that you can earn cash money is motivated by greed.

If we look at nations like Ireland and Yemen we find a much lower crime rates per capita, I believe this is so because there exists within these societies a very different ethos.

Both are highly religious nations and very moralistic, both don't have the individual’s occidental drive to succeed - Ireland has a legacy intellectuals and poets - yet they're just as proud of their farmers and distillers.

Religion plays a strong role in crime statistics... In the west we have rebelled against the rigid authoritarian structure of religion and created its diametric opposite... Liberalism... Liberalism has also had a huge impact on crime statistics... the combination of liberalism and capitalism are proper morality fucks.

How can you expect anything other than crime when we’re told from childhood to adulthood that we must succeed, while simultaneously being told there’s no such thing as right or wrong – just human nature.

Very good post that. I am not a religious person but i agree with the morals that are tought in books like the bible etc as i read and learnt about them when i was a child and when I have children I would encourage them to embrace religion although I wouldnt force it upon them. At the end of the day, if you can istill the meaning of right and wrong into a child, then society will be better for it in the future.

[brid]

In my opinion we need a two pronged approach.

Firstly the seeds of social change need to be sown so we can emulate countries like Japan. That place is one of the safest places on earth probably due to a strong feeling of social and personal responsibility to the 'group', be it the people around them or their families.

In britain we have an 'everyone for themselves' greed culture, fuelled by the media and perpetuated by the government.

Secondly we need the government to come down like a ton of bricks on REAL criminals - and turn prison back into something that is so scary that nobody wants to go to. These days its all about early releases and PS2's from what i hear. I have no idea why the government spends so much time and effort trying to generate money from speed cameras, or hanging around outside clubs to catch kids with a few pills .... when they could be going after violent criminals and yobs.


At the end of the day, Britain is becomming once again the sick man of europe - people are proud to be british .... for what exactly?

I'd rather be french, italian, spanish or German thanks.

[Yosef Ha'Kohain]

we have a higher crime rate per capita than america... now that is depressing.

however I agree with what you said, our crime rate is massively over inflated by the inane crimes we're prosecuted for... Graffiti is a great example of this, I know a handful of writers that the police have wasted over £50,000 trying to catch.

Surely the police have more threatening criminals to waste that level of money on.

Instead of throwing money at the problem they should be taking camerons advice and hugging them;)

[forks]

It seems to me that the whole debate is hijacked by politicians who are terrified to seem "soft on crime" every time I hear the words 'tough' and 'zero tolerance' it makes me depressed.
If all your parents did was 'punish' you and put the fear of god in you then you might act lawfully but you would have no respect for them and do whatever you could if you thought you could get away with it.
It's about respect for others and that can only be earned.
Anyone who is a charva would be law abiding if they had been born into the upper middle classes and gone to public school etc etc.
There are no evil people

[Yosef Ha'Kohain]

Originally posted by forks
There are no evil people bollocks. :D


other than your closing point you were speaking a lot of sense. :up:

[Rossy]

I think that he means people who are inherently evil at birth.

In one sense I think that our laws need to be revised but I don't think that the people in power are really capable of doing so.

[Yosef Ha'Kohain]

Originally posted by Rossy
I think that he means people who are inherently evil at birth.

In one sense I think that our laws need to be revised but I don't think that the people in power are really capable of doing so. and I'm saying think you can be born inherently evil.

[Rossy]

Originally posted by Joe
and I'm saying think you can be born inherently evil.

I don't have any idea what that post means but at a guess, yeah obviously people can't be born inherintely evil. Still some massive cunts about though.

[Yosef Ha'Kohain]

Originally posted by Rossy
I don't have any idea what that post means but at a guess, yeah obviously people can't be born inherintely evil. Still some massive cunts about though. I think you can.

Do you believe we are all born identically? Our bodies all differ greatly - to assume our brains will be identical is absurd... we're are born as individuals and we react to the world in unique ways... to assume that we will react in a positive manner seems a bit of a fantasy.

[forks]

born evil implies that some people are beyond redemption. Your idea of inherantly evil people leads to the gas chambers. should we weed out and kill the evil babies?

[forks]

and our bodies don't differ greatly. look at lobsters they have bodies which differ greatly from ours. or carp.

[Yosef Ha'Kohain]

Originally posted by forks
born evil implies that some people are beyond redemption. Your idea of inherantly evil people leads to the gas chambers. should we weed out and kill the evil babies? Why would I waste my time answering a question that could never be answered.... what I'm trying to say is that I doubt there would ever exist a technology that could determine ones thoughts, then look into the future to see how his personality would react to events that were yet to happen.

Are you trying to suggest that at birth we are all born with the same brain and that if two individuals were raised in identical conditions they would develop identical personalities?

[Yosef Ha'Kohain]

Originally posted by forks
and our bodies don't differ greatly. look at lobsters they have bodies which differ greatly from ours. or carp. Is it not different species of lobsters and carp that differ greatly?

And even if you were right, the extent of the difference is inconsequential - the fact that our DNA creates a unique body that will never be reproduced means that we are all born unique.

[forks]

Originally posted by Joe
I doubt there would ever exist a technology that could determine ones thoughts, then look into the future to see how his personality would react to events that were yet to happen.

that's not the question. the question is if there was would you use it?

[Yosef Ha'Kohain]

Originally posted by forks
that's not the question. the question is if there was would you use it? haha ok if the technology existed and I knew that the person would go onto kill millions - then yes I'd support the killing of that baby... or at best a life behind bars.

[forks]

what if you were an afrikaans south african and it was Nelson Mandela in the cot. Would your sword of the lord splice him in twain?

[Yosef Ha'Kohain]

Originally posted by forks
what if you were an afrikaans south african and it was Nelson Mandela in the cot. Would your sword of the lord splice him in twain? we're talking about acts of evil - I don't remember mandela being responsible for a genocide on any scale?

infact his truth and reconciliation was one of the most divinly noble acts of the modern era.

[French William]

Originally posted by Joe
we're talking about acts of evil - I don't remember mandela being responsible for a genocide on any scale?

infact his truth and reconciliation was one of the most divinly noble acts of the modern era.

His point was, if if you used the technology to kill evil babies, what's to stop someone using it to kill babies that would have different ideals to them.

[Yosef Ha'Kohain]

Originally posted by French William
His point was, if if you used the technology to kill evil babies, what's to stop someone using it to kill babies that would have different ideals to them. but his question wasn't about future technologies that could be used to practise eugenics... it was whether or not society should keep alive those born inherently evil.

if that was the point of his question - its a strange tangent that has nothing to do with the debate at hand :)

[French William]

Originally posted by Joe
its a strange tangent that has nothing to do with the debate at hand :)

I know, but he's just making you dance.

[forks]

my point was how do you decide what (and who) is evil. different societies might decide differently.
If the 1000 year reich had come to pass you might have been classed as inherently evil.
my point really is that no one is born evil. only society determines what is evil. there may be some people born psychopathic who you would like to eliminate but the desire to eliminate someone could be seen as evil in itself and who is to say that at some future time (in a war perhaps) a psychopath might not be useful.

[Yosef Ha'Kohain]

Originally posted by forks
my point was how do you decide what (and who) is evil. different societies might decide differently.
If the 1000 year reich had come to pass you might have been classed as inherently evil.
my point really is that no one is born evil. only society determines what is evil. there may be some people born psychopathic who you would like to eliminate but the desire to eliminate someone could be seen as evil in itself and who is to say that at some future time (in a war perhaps) a psychopath might not be useful. Thats a good point...

In Greek society if a male child was to excel it was believed that he needed a teacher/lover - so an older male would take the role as boyfriend and tutor - this wasn't like the camp relationships of today but an overly masculine experience... The child was usually around 11.

Similarly many pagan cultures believed mass sacrifice to be completely natural and saw no harm in massacring millions of humans (ripping their hearts out and offering them to the gods).

Then along came Judaism which taught the world right from wrong; thou shalt not murder, love thy neighbour, thou shalt not sleep with 11 year old boys and so and so forth.... From this point in history man has steadily built upon these ethics creating a strong moral backbone.

Societies aren't evaluated on their individual values (set by say the Nazi’s) but are compared to this moral spine that man developed, humanists within Nazi Germany spoke our against the wrongs of the Reich and had the Nazi’s succeeded eventually they’d start questioning their values as these values were compared to the past…This has happened in every modern society that has supported genocide, slave trades, etc.

If you attempt to argue that evil fluctuates from one society to the next then you are excusing all actions as "human nature".

Just as we now know the distance of the moon from planet earth - we also know right from wrong... We're no longer cave dwellers, history has shaped us into highly developed being and a conscience is one of the most admirable developments of man.

It is this conscience that would enable us to determine whether an infant was born inherently evil.

[French William]

What an arrogant reply!! The world was savage and amoral until Judaism came along and taught us all how to be proper humans?

You can't compare knowing the distance between the earth and the moon with knowing the difference between right and wrong. One is a calculable scientific fact, the other is an intangible and fluid set of beliefs. I think conscience is something that is innately human, and although it may have evolved and changed over time, I think it's always been present. Take your Ancient Greece point for example, did they not show conscience in doing what they thought was best for a young man by giving him the guidance and love of an older more experience man? It was a different time and a different society, with a different moral conscience, and so different values of right and wrong. Just because we might view sleeping with an 11yr old as wrong now, that doesn't mean it was evil or wrong at the time.

I think that shows that people aren't born inherently evil. The people that you would perhpaps kill at birth today, would have been the scholars/artists/warriors of ancient Greece.

It's all a question of nature/nurture, which is something that's been argued and debated for decades, and I'm not sure there's any concrete answer.

[Yosef Ha'Kohain]

Originally posted by French William
What an arrogant reply!! The world was savage and amoral until Judaism came along and taught us all how to be proper humans? Disprove me.

Judaism gave the world a conscience... prior to Judaism there was no such thing as equality - the weak served the powerful.... Judaism taught the world to love thy neighbour.

Originally posted by French William
Take your Ancient Greece point for example, did they not show conscience in doing what they thought was best for a young man by giving him the guidance and love of an older more experience man? No, the relationship was fostered to strengthen the nation. You're reviewing an ancient civilisation through a modern perspective.

Unless you're a creationist there is no escaping that the human conscience is a value spectrum that has evolved over time, it is tangible - but it does not regress - there may be temporary fluctuations but it always rectifies these problems.

It is unlikely that genocide will ever be acceptable as man learns from his errors, this is not to say that genocide will never occur; as it will... but there will be elements within that society that compare their present to mans past and eventually someone will speakout... History would prove my theory correct - yours is theoretical speculation :D

Originally posted by French William
I think that shows that people aren't born inherently evil. The people that you would perhpaps kill at birth today, would have been the scholars/artists/warriors of ancient Greece.In the ancient world those that we consider inherently evil may well go on to be leaders of that society as the world was a very barbaric place - the slaughter of millions was an acceptable act if it meant expanding your kingdom.... But over 3500 years we have evolved - just as we no longer swing from trees - we also no longer consider genocide to be an acceptable past time.

[French William]

Originally posted by Joe
Disprove me.

Judaism gave the world a conscience... prior to Judaism there was no such thing as equality - the weak served the powerful.... Judaism taught the world to love thy neighbour.

I'm not disputing the values and/or qualities of Judaism, just your assertion that the world would have been lost without it. It's absolute arrogance to think that the world's collective conscience is thanks to Judaism teaching right and wrong. There are many religions older than Judaism, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism etc. and they all had their own differing, but equally valid, sets of values. You mention equality, which is a good point, because I'm sure there were many Jewish slave owners/traders, so where does equality fit into this? There are also religions based on a caste system, where's the equality in that? Equality is a moral principle that has developed over time, as man's conscience has developed.

Originally posted by Joe
No, the relationship was fostered to strengthen the nation. You're reviewing an ancient civilisation through a modern perspective.

Whether it was done to strengthen the boy's character, or the empire's power, I think it still shows elements of moral conscience. And of course I'm viewing it from a modern perspective, how could I otherwise?

Originally posted by Joe
Unless you're a creationist there is no escaping that the human conscience is a value spectrum that has evolved over time, it is tangible - but it does not regress - there may be temporary fluctuations but it always rectifies these problems.

Human conscience is not tangible. There's absolutely nothing you can say to show that it is. It's in intangible, varies from person to person, country to coutnry, and there's no solid evidence to prove it exists or what it is. There's no science behind conscience. The way you're writing makes it seem you think our conscience is some kind of genetic imprint that could be identified at birth, and there's no evidence to suggest this.

Originally posted by Joe
It is unlikely that genocide will ever be acceptable as man learns from his errors, this is not to say that genocide will never occur; as it will... but there will be elements within that society that compare their present to mans past and eventually someone will speakout... History would prove my theory correct - yours is theoretical speculation :D

History would prove this particular paragraph correct, and I wouldn't dispute it, but it's not exactly what I was getting at, and I'm not sure why you keep bringing genocide up. It's not a question of conscience, rather psychopathic maniacal behaviour, and a country in a mind-set prepared to bend to a dictator or god-like figure. Of course people question Genocide, and questioned it at the time, becuase it would be nearly impossible for an entire populace to be subdued in a brain-washed, figure-lead state, but ths doesn't really prove or disprove anything we've mentioned about conscience.

[Yosef Ha'Kohain]

Originally posted by French William
There are many religions older than Judaism, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism etc. and they all had their own differing, but equally valid, sets of values. Judiasm is older than both Buddhism and Hinduism; and while Jainism lay some of the foundations that Judaism rests upon - Judaism was the religion that released these values to the world.

Jainism was an unrealistic vision of what man should aspire to be, Judaism was an achievable state that man was capable of becoming.

Judaic values are the pulsating heart of both Christianity and Islam and it is these two religions that spread throughout the world and provided man with a conscience... Jainism had no real impact on the evolution of mankind.

Originally posted by French William
Jewish slave owners/traders, so where does equality fit into this?What does the actions of individuals have to do with the teachings of a religion?!?!?!?

Originally posted by French William
Equality is a moral principle that has developed over time, as man's conscience has developed.Man didn't suddenly wake up with the notion of equality - it was introduced to him and while there is evidence of such teachings that predate Judaism.... It was Judaism that introduced this idea on mass to the world.

Originally posted by French William
Whether it was done to strengthen the boy's character, or the empire's power, I think it still shows elements of moral conscience. No it doesn't, 90% of the Greek civilisation was kept in poverty and the girls were second class citizens, young male soldiers received such attention so that they could become powerful soldiers that could contribute to Greek society.... it has fuck all to do with conscience.

Originally posted by French William
Human conscience is not tangible. There's absolutely nothing you can say to show that it is. It's in intangible, varies from person to person, country to coutnry, and there's no solid evidence to prove it exists or what it is.I meant to write intangible :dunce:


Originally posted by French William
There's no science behind conscience. The way you're writing makes it seem you think our conscience is some kind of genetic imprint that could be identified at birth, and there's no evidence to suggest this.That’s not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying conscience is something that has developed over the course of history and it will continue to evolve as it is an infinite concept.

Take the commandment thou shalt not murder, since its introduction to the world it has become a universal standard… It is highly unlikely that there will come a time in man’s story when murder is considered justifiable (as a standard has been set)… However there may come a time when killing (which is justifiable by modern standards) may become unacceptable… Conscience is affected by intelligence and as man acquires knowledge his conscience expands.

However, it is my opinion that there people born with the capacity to commit crimes against society, science suggests that brain circuitry of many psychopaths differs from the average man… Why does that concept seem so alien to you? Just as we look different on the outside – we are also different on the inside.

Originally posted by French William
I'm not sure why you keep bringing genocide up. It's not a question of conscience, rather psychopathic maniacal behaviour, and a country in a mind-set prepared to bend to a dictator or god-like figure. Of course people question Genocide, and questioned it at the time, becuase it would be nearly impossible for an entire populace to be subdued in a brain-washed, figure-lead state, but ths doesn't really prove or disprove anything we've mentioned about conscience. If you’re suggesting that one can be born a psychopath then surely you’re supporting my argument.

And I use genocide as its an extreme example of evil.

[French William]

I'm pretty sure Hinduism and Jainism (not sure on Buddhism) are older than Judaism, but it's a moot point, and not the core of my argument. Obviously religion has had a major impact on conscience. Even going back to polydeity societies like Greece and Rome, they still lived according to their various gods' perceived whims and ideals.

You started off saying that someon can be born inherently evil, and I think there are two important distinctions: psycopathy, which I would class as a genetic defect in someone's brain (I completely agree we're all as different on the inside as we are on the outside); and a lack of consience, which I would class as comething that is learned, taught or instilled and not something you are genetically born with or without.

Conscience has developed over time, and is entirley flexible. I disagree that it can't 'regress', although I wouldn't necessarily call it regression. For example, taking another human's life, you have called it killing and murder, which is interesting. Killing is the actions of taking a life, whilst murder is the crime of taking a human life. Killing was more accpeted millenia ago, as you have said, in human sacrifice and battle. Then as conscience developed and adapted, killing became frowned upon, barbaric, savage, and then illegal. It can still be justifiable, for example in war, but what about acts of euthanasia? This is illegal, and is technically murder, but whiule one person's conscience might tell them that it is a much better thing to relieve someone of their suffering and end their life, another person might see this as an egregious killing, and murder.

Perhaps in the future the majority's conscience will be that killing is right, even though it contradicts religious practice?

[psycaholic]

Originally posted by French William
Good points, but I don't fully agree. Crime is just as prevalent in non-capitalist and poor countries, where there isn't the materialistic lifestyle to aspire to. I think you'd have been better saying capitalism breeds greed, and even then greed doesn't always necessarily breed crime.


i aggree it not like joe crack loard makes a few mill then says "you kow what im rich now i'll give up" lower down the scale though a lot just see crime as an easy buck tbh with the pathetic sentencing that we get in this country and the clear up rate the police have it's no wonder crim's are running amock

[Yosef Ha'Kohain]

I believe that all this religious rumination has acted as distraction from the debate at hand, if we are to examine the argument in detail we’d discover that religion helped carve out the fundamentals of human conscience - but the advancement of secularised understanding has given impetus to the redefining of these values.

Language is homologically correlated with conscience, the majority of us are born with the ability to develop the two - but without instruction they remain a redundant neural asset.

It is through the exploration of the relationship between nature-v-nurture that we find a neural imprint on mans reaction to stimulus... Conscience (or at least the ability to form a conscience) is a heritable emotion (just as the ability to love, be joyous and be miserable are), those that you categorise as psychopaths lack this heritable character trait.

Now if we delve into the evolution of the conscience there is an unquestionable progression, we take the knowledge of our forefathers and apply it to the standards of today - I cannot think of an example where mankind as a single entity regressed to antediluvian morality.

There have been attempts at regression; Adolf Hitler believed Judaism to be the cause of equality, which countered his belief of inequality amongst races - ultimately resulting in his belief that Judaism was a smear against the progression of mankind... His rhetoric was vociferously opposed as history had provided man with a set of robust values and once these values had been established they were near impossible to erase.

[psycaholic]

yeah but we're just talkin common sence really arn't we i mean think about it thats all the 10 commandments really are!

[Yosef Ha'Kohain]

Originally posted by **********
yeah but we're just talkin common sence really arn't we i mean think about it thats all the 10 commandments really are! before they existed they weren't common sense, 99% of all ancient civilisation practised the diametric opposite of what Judaism taught.

But religion was a distraction that was diluting the core debate... so lets not wander off track again ;)

[forks]

yes there was no crime when we had National Service.
There was also no crime when we used to hang people for stealing a sheep.
what we need to do to eradicate crime is to be unutterably cruel and barbaric to criminals. This would teach them about how deserving of respect our society is. hand chopping, eye gouging, letting the victims family loose on them armed with razor blades. lets go the whole hog. torture is too good for them. hanging drawing and quartering, that would stop muggers dead in their tracks.
this is the sort of society we should be aiming at.





our criminal justice system is mainly there to protect the haves from the have nots, thats the reality.