A Way To End All Crime

67 posts

Flag Post

I just read a book that made me really think about this. In this book the government was really ran BY the people. If you stole from someone that person had the right to kill you for breaking into their own home whilst still having a military. Of course this book is a fiction but do you really think there is a way to end all crime?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by champion17:

do you really think there is a way to end all crime?

Certainly.

Exterminate all sentient life on the planet.

If that’s a bit extreme for you, another potential solution is to eliminate free will planet-wide and establish a single control-bloc for the resultant drones.

Of course the other potential solution is to eliminate all laws and rules planet-wide so that no action is ever a crime, and enforce against the future creation of laws, rules, or conventions with extreme prejudice. The resulting chaos will topple any advanced civilisation, or civilisation at all for that matter. Even anarchy has rules.

Any other attempted solution is going to run afoul of differences of opinion between sentient minds, as well as “the grass is greener” syndrome. Or even run afoul of someone plain not paying attention when controlling something dangerous.

 
Flag Post

But does it have to be that extreme? Do you ever believe someone can deal with their own problems? If enough people die others with start living more peacefully?

 
Flag Post

During the 18th century Britain formulated a series of laws referred to as the Bloody Code. This was partly a response to the number of thefts caused by the grinding poverty of the times, especially in inner city areas. The death penalty could be, and was, imposed for stealing goods to the value of one shilling, which even in those days was a paltry amount. Children as well as adults were hanged, yet these draconian laws had little impact on the crimewave.

In many cases, to reduce crime you have to look at the underlying causes, but that’s going off topic. History suggests that the death penalty by itself is not necessarily a deterrent.

If you are interested in this topic, keep an eye on what happens in India over the next few years. Rape has been treated as a minor crime for far too long, but due to a wave of street protests the government has tightened up laws, and at least four individuals are awaiting execution. There have been a number of highly publicised rapes recently, and there may well be more men on their way to the gallows soon. It will be interesting to see what effect that has.

 
Flag Post

^Ok. I was just interested to see what people would say. I think it would work while others do not.

 
Flag Post

Has the chance to get killed ever stopped people from trying to commit crimes?
There are still some countries that have capital punishment for certain crimes and people are still committing them.

 
Flag Post

If it was going to work, the US’ “stand your ground” or Castle laws allowing homeowners to shoot burglars would have meant the total end of attempts to break into and steal from private property.

That hasn’t exactly been the case.

It’s human nature again. You’re fighting human nature when you are trying to dissuade people from these sorts of activities. It’s about as successful as completely dissuading resistance during an occupation and for pretty much the same reasons.

 
Flag Post

Make everything legal, thus no crime.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by champion17:

do you really think there is a way to end all crime?

Certainly.

Exterminate all sentient life on the planet.

You only need to exterminate the humans. No one ever should have to repent for things they have not done and as a matter of fact, animals do not commit any crime. At least barely, if you count the rare occasions where a bear will maul someone to death as a crime. Pun intended.

 
Flag Post

Yes, my apologies Luette. Badly phrased choice of words on my part. “Sentient and self-aware” would be a much better way of putting it. A bear is (debatably) sentient but has no self-awareness.

I tend to be leery of just putting ‘human’ though, because we’re nearing an age in which humans are unlikely to be the only sentient and self-aware beings around. I try not to drag that sort of high-tech around into threads with me; just bringing it up here to explain how my thought processes color my word choices.

Still, you’re right in that I was too quick to pounce on the unworkable OP, and didn’t put enough thought into my exact choice of words. We’ve got enough people round here lately who don’t quite grasp how to wield English, without adding to the troubles.

 
Flag Post

we should focus on sending more ppl to jail

trying to stop what causes ppl to turn to crime is too hard :(

 
Flag Post

Not to mention impossible in some cases. Many crimes are crimes of inattention; a momentary distraction at the wrong moment, and you are guilty of Driving without Due Care and Attention.

We will of course do what we can to minimise the chances of someone turning to crime, and to reeducate then when they do offend, but trying to eliminate all crime is a hopeless cause without resorting to extreme methods that eliminate the human race, eliminate independent thought for the entire species, or completely destroy civilisation.

A case of the cure being worse than the disease itself.

 
Flag Post

The so-called “human nature” argument is moronic. There is no such thing as “human nature”. If there was such a thing as human nature then all humans would possess it and all would then act in the same manner.

Any so-called human nature would be a result of genetics. Genetics produce what you are not who you are. The only ones pushing that genetics produce who you are are the ones that don’t want to take responsibility for their choices and want to say that they were born that way. If there were such a thing as human nature then identical twins/triplets/etc. would have to act the same way as their genetics would cause them to.

By the way, saying that it is a result of human nature would be trying to do away with the idea of independent thought and telling people to just accept that there is nothing that they can do about it.

What separates humans from the other species of animals is the ability to use higher reasoning and/or logic.

If every single human came to the same conclusion or answer to something, but they did so by themselves using reasoning and logic they are still individuals.

Just accepting things without thinking about them, i.e. faith, or doing things just to join the crowd, i.e. pop-culture, or blaming things on genetics are all things that are taking away from being an individual.

Yes, it is possible to eliminate all crime. It is not a high probability, but it is possible. You just have to get all humans to use their ability for higher reasoning.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

we should focus on sending more ppl to jail

trying to stop what causes ppl to turn to crime is too hard :(

Imo, most often people cause ppl to turn to crime.


Yes, it is possible to eliminate all crime. It is not a high probability, but it is possible. You just have to get all humans to use their ability for higher reasoning.

It reminds me of something (wink) (wink).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jim_vierling:

jim, it appears you are looking at human nature in a much too limited & defining manner.
It is: the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits of humankind, regarded as shared by all humans

Are you going to deny we all have some forms of commonality?
I guess ya do. LOL
.

The so-called “human nature” argument is moronic. There is no such thing as “human nature”. If there was such a thing as human nature then all humans would possess it and all would then act in the same manner.

I’m guessing that you are inferring we do so ALL OF THE TIME?
Now then, THAT is moronic.
However, I’m happy that ya want to disagree w/ a host of ppl who “believe in” human nature.
I guess your doing that is just…..well, is human nature.
.

Any so-called human nature would be a result of genetics.
AND nurture….maybe?
.
Genetics produce what you are not who you are.
A host of psychologists & geneticists seem to disagree.
.
The only ones pushing that genetics produce who you are are the ones that don’t want to take responsibility for their choices and want to say that they were born that way.
You mean like….THOSE DREADFUL GAYS?
.
If there were such a thing as human nature then identical twins/triplets/etc. would have to act the same way as their genetics would cause them to.
Don’t know much about those twins/trips (and whatever “etc” would be); any testing done on them….do ya?
But, what part of NURTURE are ya not familiar with?
.
By the way, saying that it is a result of human nature would be trying to do away with the idea of independent thought and telling people to just accept that there is nothing that they can do about it.
NO…that really isn’t what human nature is.
Look at it as more like that it predisposes someone to be PRONE to behave in a GENERAL manner.
.

What separates humans from the other species of animals is the ability to use higher reasoning and/or logic.


If every single human came to the same conclusion or answer to something, but they did so by themselves using reasoning and logic they are still individuals.

So?
We are separate from lower species;
we CAN come to some SAME conclusion or answer to something…..WHAT?; do you seriously think this WILL HAPPEN?
And, do you seriously believe there is all that much truly INDEPENDANT reasoning & logic by “individuals”?
We are much more of a “pack/herd” mentality (by nature) than most of us would like to admit.
.
Just accepting things without thinking about them, i.e. faith, or doing things just to join the crowd, i.e. pop-culture, or blaming things on genetics are all things that are taking away from being an individual.
So?
It is done by the shit-loads…on a daily basis…by a huge number of ppl…in varying ways…to varying degrees…w/ various forms of humor & sadness.

Here’s a tiny secret about “human nature”: it abhors individual thinking. Such scares the shit out of the “tribe”.
.

Yes, it is possible to eliminate all crime. It is not a high probability, but it is possible. You just have to get all humans to use their ability for higher reasoning.

FUCK.
I’m kicking off a write-in campaign to elect YOU as POTUS.
YOU have got yer shit to—ge—th—er.
YOU have a great ability to spout rhetoric that ppl will gobble up….
ya know, things like: if you are willing to work hard enough, YOU CAN BE ANYTHING in America you want to be.
Just be sure to use your higher reasoning;
that thing we all have that is utterly equal amongst us all;
because we are a rational, reasoning, higher species.
 
Flag Post

Sadly not everyone will always come together for the greater good.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by champion17:

Sadly not everyone will always come together for the greater good.

HEY NOW.
There is bumper sticker that will sell millions.
We can probably form a whole new religion based on that thought.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by champion17:

Sadly not everyone will always come together for the greater good.

HEY NOW.
There is bumper sticker that will sell millions.
We can probably form a whole new religion based on that thought.

Lol.
 
Flag Post

@ karma

“the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits of humankind, regarded as shared by all humans”

Name one that is shared by all humans.

Even if you say something along the lines of emotions, not all humans experience the same emotions regarding the same situation. Which again goes to the term “human nature” being utter bullshit.

If you say the desire to survive, that varies between humans and is not present in some. some people want to die as opposed living in the circumstances that they are in. Some people would risk their lives to save others while some would not. You can not say that it is the nature of all humans.

By using the term nature in human nature you are saying that it is predetermined that humans will act/behave in a certain way under the same circumstances. That would require a genetic component.

Nature = what you are, Nurture = who you are. What you are and who you are are not the same thing.

Since nurture determines who you are your behavioral characteristics would be dependent upon what you are nurtured by or what you learn on your own through figuring things out through things like trial and error. Which by definition would not be by nature.

You might want to find out who is paying for that host of psychologists and geneticists.

No, I don’t mean gay people. I have no problem with someone being gay or straight. I am talking about anyone that wants to say that they are not responsible for their actions because they were born that way. It is a cop-out regardless of whether their actions are right or wrong. But if homosexuals are really dumb enough to put stock into a gay gene then they are playing right into the hands of the religious scum. If it is genetic then it would/could be considered a defect and there would/could be a cure developed. It is a choice and they should just tell the religious nut cases to fuck off.

Again, nature and nurture are two different things.

Flight or fight? Humans can choose neither. Humans can choose to discuss the situation. That is part of the ability of higher reasoning which goes against the whole “human nature” position.

No, I do not think that there is all that much independent thought or reasoning. That is a huge problem that needs to be rectified.

The “pack/herd” mentality is a result of being scared or used as a predatory tool. It is not a result of nature. It is a result of past necessities of gather together to survive for protection against predators and to hunt as predators. It still occurs due to being told about all the scary things out there waiting to get you. Those may be monster stories from childhood or from the current news. That is not nature it is nurture.

You really should search for nature vs. nurture they are not the same thing.

Really, the asshole, lowlife, pieces of shit running things hate it when someone actually thinks for themselves, I am shocked. Fuck them. They need to be removed from life.

As for the last part of your reply, go fuck yourself. Not original but sums it up very well.

 
Flag Post
Name one that is shared by all humans.

As a trait that is present in the majority of people across cultures. There will always be outliers.

Nature = what you are, Nurture = who you are.

Not quite. Nature is your innate self while nurture is how you were shaped by experiences. People are a combination of both.

Since nurture determines who you are your behavioral characteristics

It influences, not determines.

I am talking about anyone that wants to say that they are not responsible for their actions because they were born that way.

That would depend on what you’re talking about. While people do make their own choices you cannot ignore biology. A person with a brain tumor might act ways they otherwise would not if it affects particular areas.

If it is genetic then it would/could be considered a defect and there would/could be a cure developed.

An interesting topic but not for this thread.

 
Flag Post
If it is genetic then it would/could be considered a defect and there would/could be a cure developed.

The development of the hippocampus is genetic. As it is genetic, the hippocampus could/would be considered a defect and there could/would be a cure developed. No more long-term memory.

The development of the sensorimotor cortex is genetic. As it is genetic, the sensorimotor cortex could/would be considered a defect and there could/would be a cure developed. Severe damage and large-scale loss to voluntary muscle control.

The development of Ruffini’s corpuscles is genetic. As it is genetic, Ruffini’s corpuscles could/would be considered a defect and there could/would be a cure developed. We don’t need a major component of our ability to touch and feel, after all.

All the above were created through our genetics. They could be prevented from forming yes, but the consequences for the lives of anyone who never developed them then trying to lead what most consider a ‘normal’ life would be extremely severe and debilitating.

 
Flag Post

It is possible to end all crime by flaying any caught offenders of any crime and leaving them to die of infection, at the same time pouring almost all your budget into the police force and giving them permission to do whatever the fuck they want, including execute people they don’t like and spying on people 24/7.

See: Draco, Big Brother

 
Flag Post

@ vikaTae

“All the above were created through our genetics. They could be prevented from forming yes, but the consequences for the lives of anyone who never developed them then trying to lead what most consider a ‘normal’ life would be extremely severe and debilitating.”

All of those things are part of what you are not who you are. They are a part of making you a human being. They may or may not be part of other animals as well. If you do not or could not use any of those parts you would still be human.

A body in a persistent vegetative state is still a human. That is what it is. There is no who it is left. A person dies and the body is still there. It is a human, albeit a dead one, that is what it is. There is no who it is anymore.

To be able to form who you are through nurture, nature would have to provide what you are from genetics in that it needs to function. Without the genetics that make you a human you would not be a human. That does not mean that those genetics make you who you are.

@ Kasic

“Nature is your innate self while nurture is how you were shaped by experiences. People are a combination of both.”

Innate self? That does not even make sense. Are you referring to the made up concept of a soul?

If you are using the definition of innate, then you are saying that humans are pre-programmed to act a certain way.

Innate characteristics would be things like what color your hair or eyes are. Physical characteristics that are part of what and not who you are.

Genetics may make it easier for you to do something than it is for someone else, but they do not mean that you will do it. Not all 7 foot tall people want to play basketball. their height is part of what they are not who they are.

Not all women want to give birth. Their reproductive system is part of what they are not who they are. Why is it that more often than not women that are more educated tend to have less or no children? Nurture anyone?

Your environment and how you perceive it, think about it and/or interact with it are what shape you. Also whether or not you actually think about your environment and use that reasoning ability that your brain makes possible.

Think about the “raised by wolves” stories. The human basically thought that it was a wolf and acted as such because its environment determined who it was.

If identical twins were separated at birth and adopted by different parents their environments, their interactions with them and whether they think about them or not that would shape who they are. They would not be the same person.

You do realize that if you were cloned that clone would not be the same who as you, don’t you? That was a messed up sentence.

I do agree that certain defects, diseases and injuries that affect the brain would/could hamper the thought process. However, people that have them do not always behave the same way either. There is no ‘innate’ behavior.

If I were to break my arm, it may cause me to not do some things or favor that area of my body, but those are results of the who I am reacting to my environment.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jim_vierling:

@ vikaTae

“All the above were created through our genetics. They could be prevented from forming yes, but the consequences for the lives of anyone who never developed them then trying to lead what most consider a ‘normal’ life would be extremely severe and debilitating.”

All of those things are part of what you are not who you are. They are a part of making you a human being. They may or may not be part of other animals as well. If you do not or could not use any of those parts you would still be human.

A body in a persistent vegetative state is still a human. That is what it is. There is no who it is left. A person dies and the body is still there. It is a human, albeit a dead one, that is what it is. There is no who it is anymore.

To be able to form who you are through nurture, nature would have to provide what you are from genetics in that it needs to function. Without the genetics that make you a human you would not be a human. That does not mean that those genetics make you who you are.

Then you are happy to conclude that there is no functional difference between a living human and a dead human? It’s what you’ve basically said up there.

I’m assuming then, that you do not feel murder or manslaughter should be crimes, since they do no harm whatsoever?

There is no ‘innate’ behavior.

Plenty of innate behavior, at least if you look at living humans, whose brains are still functioning.

A very, VERY good case to study is the one that forms the name of this book:

The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat.

There are two dozen recorded tales in that book, all of them actual patients, with full study of the nature-based or nature combined with damage based structures in the brain which radically altered or shaped unusual deficiencies, capabilities or complete changes in one or more aspects of personality and/or basic cognition as a result of structural differences in the brain.

Then there are the cases with implanted neuroprosthetics where if the implanted rig slips, the patient’s whole personality and outlook changes because new connections are made in the circuitry. (sorry about the link, Nature uses a paywall, I have the original paper in dead tree, but that’s no use to you, and the paywall is $90)

I have plenty of other examples if needed, showing how a person’s personality, who they are at the most fundamental level, is defined, defined by their brain’s circuitry. Any changes to that circuitry, literally change the person, permanently, regardless of their will otherwise.

 
Flag Post
Innate self? That does not even make sense. Are you referring to the made up concept of a soul?

No, I’m not. It does make sense. Everyone has their own biology which arises from random combinations of genes. That does not change – it is how they are born.

If you are using the definition of innate, then you are saying that humans are pre-programmed to act a certain way.

Yes, I am. If we fully understood exactly how our brains worked and were able to analyze them you could predict people’s responses. Nurture (environmental influence) affects us by both causing physical changes developmentally and by providing us with experiences to refer back to.

If identical twins were separated at birth and adopted by different parents their environments, their interactions with them and whether they think about them or not that would shape who they are. They would not be the same person.

Due to the nurture aspect. However, if you’ve read any sort of twins studies, you’ll find that there’s a huge correlation in their lives even though they were raised separately. Their intelligence, preferences, lifestyle, and everything else are eerily similar, distinctly more so than siblings. They are not the same person because their experiences and perception differ, but they are far closer to each other in nature than others.