Crime

[ThePresence]

This is an exerpt of Michael Crichton's introduction to his book "The Great Train Robbery". Interesting to say the least. A great writer IMHO.

From this comfortable prespective, it was absolutely astonishing to discover that "the criminal class" had found a way to prey upon progress - and indeed to carry out a crime aboard the very hallmark of progress, the railway. The fact that the robbers also overcame the finest safes of the day only increased the consternation.
What was really so shocking about The Great Train Robbery was that it suggested, to the sober thinker, that the elimination of crime might not be an inevitable consequence of forward-marching progress. Crime could no longer be likened to the Plague, which had dissapeared without changing social conditions to become a dimly remembered threat of the past. Crime was something else, and criminal behavior would not simply fade away.

A few daring commentators even had the temerity to suggest that crime was not linked to social conditions at all, but rather sprang from some other impulse. Such opinions were, to say the least, highly distasteful.

They remain distasteful to the present day. More than a century after The Great Train Robbery, and more than a decade after another spectacular English train robbery, the ordinary Western urban man still clings to the belief that crime results from poverty, injustice and poor education. Our view of the criminal is that of a limited, abused, perhaps mentally disturbed indivdual who breaks the law out of a desperate need - the drug addict standing as a sort of modern archetype for this person. And indeed when it was recently reported that the majority of street crime in New York City was not committed by addicts, that finding was greeted with skepticism and dismay, mirroring the preplexity of our Victorian forbearers a hundred years ago.

Crime became a legitimate focus for academic inquiry in the 1870s, and in succeeding years criminologists have attacked all the old stereotypes, creating a new view of crime that has never found favor with the general public. Experts now agree on the following points:

First, crime is not a consequence of poverty. In the words of Barnes and Teeters (1949), "Most offenses are committed through greed, not need".

Second, criminals are not limited in intelligence, and it is probable that the reverse is true. Studies of prison populations show that inmates equal the general public in intelligence tests - and yet prisoners represent that fraction of lawbreakers who are caught.

Third, the vast majority of criminal activity goes unpunished. This is inherently a speculative question, but some authorities argue that only 3 to 5 percent of all crimes are reported; and of reported crimes, only 15 to percent are ever "solved" in the usual sense of the word. This is true of even the most serious offenses, such as murder. Most police pathologists laugh at the idea that "murder will out".

Similarly, criminologists dispute the traditional view that "crime does not pay". As early as 1877, an American prison investigator, Richard Dugdale, concluded that "we must dispossess ourselves of the idea that crime does not pay. In reality, it does." Ten years later, the Italian criminologist Colajanni went a step further, arguing that on the whole crime pays better than honest labor. By 1949, Barnes and Teeter stated flatly, "It is primarily the moralist who still believes that crime does not pay."

Our moral attitudes toward crime account for a peculiar ambivilance toward criminal behavior itself. On the one hand, it is feard, despised, and vociferously condemned. Yet it is also secretly admired and we always eager to hear the details of some outstanding criminal exploit. This attitude was clearly prevelant in 1855, for The Great Train Robbery was not only shocking and appaling, but also "daring," "audacious," and "masterful."

We share with the Victorians another attitude - a belief in a "criminal class," by which we mean a subculture of professional criminlas who make their living by breaking the laws of the society around them. Today we call this class "the Mafia," "the syndicate," or "the mob," and we are interested to know its code of ethics, its inverted value system, its perculiar language and patterns of behavior.

 

[ThePresence]

So you really ARE uneducated louts!

 

[hypn0tik]

Cliffs?

 

[Mill]

Read the Great Train Robbery in the 8th grade. Good book.

 

[1sikbITCH]

Originally posted by: hypn0tik
Cliffs?

Crime isn't born out of necessity. It's just fun!

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: 1sikbITCH

Originally posted by: hypn0tik
Cliffs?

Crime isn't born out of necessity. It's just greed.

Fixed.

 

[imported_LoKe]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: 1sikbITCH

Originally posted by: hypn0tik
Cliffs?

Crime isn't born out of necessity. It's just greed.

Fixed.

:thumbsup:

 

[Nebor]

Did they ever catch those guys who stole like $44 million from that British money storage facility?

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Did they ever catch those guys who stole like $44 million from that British money storage facility?

This?

 

[fitzov]

I was never a big believer in social conditions causing people to do things, but it's pretty easy to imagine that if you didn't have any food, whatever inhibitions you had about stealing food would be diminished. Then people want to say things like, "Even if he had a minimum wage job he could still buy bread." True, but then when the culture you live in proudly flashes its bling everywhere you go, there's another reason for people that don't have it to want it too. Perhaps it is greed, but alot of people that aren't criminals are also greedy.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: fitzov
I was never a big believer in social conditions causing people to do things, but it's pretty easy to imagine that if you didn't have any food, whatever inhibitions you had about stealing food would be diminished.

True, yet alot of people from poor social conditions are not criminals either.OTOH, there are wealthy criminals from great social conditions. What's the common denominator? Greed. I think that's his point.

Then people want to say things like, "Even if he had a minimum wage job he could still buy bread." True, but then when the culture you live in proudly flashes its bling everywhere you go, there's another reason for people that don't have it to want it too.

Okay, so jealousy? Isn't that almost the exact same thing as greed?

Perhaps it is greed, but alot of people that aren't criminals are also greedy.

And vice versa as well. There are greedy people who are not criminals but there are wealthy people who are. Bottom line? Greed.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: fitzov
I was never a big believer in social conditions causing people to do things, but it's pretty easy to imagine that if you didn't have any food, whatever inhibitions you had about stealing food would be diminished.

True, yet alot of people from poor social conditions are not criminals either.OTOH, there are wealthy criminals from great social conditions. What's the common denominator? Greed. I think that's his point.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought his point was that criminal behavior is simply people acting out of greed rather than as a result of social conditions, but then you can just ask why someone might be greedy. Were they born that way? A sociologist is going to try and answer the question by looking at the common factors in the culture that correlate with greedy behavior. All that saying criminals are greedy is to make it a moral issue--to say that criminals are morally bad. Greed is one of the seven deadly sins, after all.

Then people want to say things like, "Even if he had a minimum wage job he could still buy bread." True, but then when the culture you live in proudly flashes its bling everywhere you go, there's another reason for people that don't have it to want it too.

Okay, so jealousy? Isn't that almost the exact same thing as greed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think so. Envy is being angry or resentful that someone has something you don't. Greed is merely the hog at the trough that can't get enough slop--he doesn't care about the other pigs. One could have a gazillion dollars and still want more, but not really care if some other person has two gazillion.

Perhaps it is greed, but alot of people that aren't criminals are also greedy.

And vice versa as well. There are greedy people who are not criminals but there are wealthy people who are. Bottom line? Greed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If his point is that criminals are acting out of greed, then the fact that there are non-criminals who are greedy implies that being a criminal doesn't follow from being greedy--there is some other condition that makes one a criminal. I think his point would have to be that criminal behavior probably indicates greed, not that it is a sufficient condition for it.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: fitzov
I thought his point was that criminal behavior is simply people acting out of greed rather than as a result of social conditions, but then you can just ask why someone might be greedy. Were they born that way? A sociologist is going to try and answer the question by looking at the common factors in the culture that correlate with greedy behavior. All that saying criminals are greedy is to make it a moral issue--to say that criminals are morally bad. Greed is one of the seven deadly sins, after all.

I think most people are greedy to a certain extent, although not everyone acts on their greed to the point of criminal behavior. The real question here is why are some people acting on their greed in a criminal manner while others do not (even though they may share the same feelings), but the fact remains that the motivation is their greed.

I don't think so. Envy is being angry or resentful that someone has something you don't. Greed is merely the hog at the trough that can't get enough slop--he doesn't care about the other pigs. One could have a gazillion dollars and still want more, but not really care if some other person has two gazillion.

I see the difference. But in this case it's almost the same thing. I want more of what he's got.

If his point is that criminals are acting out of greed, then the fact that there are non-criminals who are greedy implies that being a criminal doesn't follow from being greedy--there is some other condition that makes one a criminal. I think his point would have to be that criminal behavior probably indicates greed, not that it is a sufficient condition for it.

I agree with that.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: fitzov
I was never a big believer in social conditions causing people to do things, but it's pretty easy to imagine that if you didn't have any food, whatever inhibitions you had about stealing food would be diminished.

True, yet alot of people from poor social conditions are not criminals either.OTOH, there are wealthy criminals from great social conditions. What's the common denominator? Greed. I think that's his point.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought his point was that criminal behavior is simply people acting out of greed rather than as a result of social conditions, but then you can just ask why someone might be greedy. Were they born that way? A sociologist is going to try and answer the question by looking at the common factors in the culture that correlate with greedy behavior. All that saying criminals are greedy is to make it a moral issue--to say that criminals are morally bad. Greed is one of the seven deadly sins, after all.

Then people want to say things like, "Even if he had a minimum wage job he could still buy bread." True, but then when the culture you live in proudly flashes its bling everywhere you go, there's another reason for people that don't have it to want it too.

Okay, so jealousy? Isn't that almost the exact same thing as greed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think so. Envy is being angry or resentful that someone has something you don't. Greed is merely the hog at the trough that can't get enough slop--he doesn't care about the other pigs. One could have a gazillion dollars and still want more, but not really care if some other person has two gazillion.

Perhaps it is greed, but alot of people that aren't criminals are also greedy.

And vice versa as well. There are greedy people who are not criminals but there are wealthy people who are. Bottom line? Greed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If his point is that criminals are acting out of greed, then the fact that there are non-criminals who are greedy implies that being a criminal doesn't follow from being greedy--there is some other condition that makes one a criminal. I think his point would have to be that criminal behavior probably indicates greed, not that it is a sufficient condition for it.

being a criminal and greedy aren't mutually exclusive: you can be one not the other. the difference between a criminal and an average greedy person is that the criminal is willing to go to nearly any extent to achieve his monetary goals(murder, laundering, etc.)

 

[fitzov]

being a criminal and greedy aren't mutually exclusive: you can be one not the other.

If criminal behavior probably indicates greed, then they wouldn't be. 'mutually exclusive' means that each condition implies that the other condition does not hold. I think what you wan't to say is that neither one is necessary for the other--but if you're saying that criminal behavior indicates greed then you are saying that greed is a necessary condition of criminal behavior. In other words: 'if he's a criminal, then he's greedy.'

 

[JS80]

stop it you two, my brain hurts.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: fitzov

being a criminal and greedy aren't mutually exclusive: you can be one not the other.

If criminal behavior probably indicates greed, then they wouldn't be. 'mutually exclusive' means that each condition implies that the other condition does not hold. I think what you wan't to say is that neither one is necessary for the other--but if you're saying that criminal behavior indicates greed then you are saying that greed is a necessary condition of criminal behavior. In other words: 'if he's a criminal, then he's greedy.'

yeah, meant to say that greed doesn't make you a criminal