So does punishment/imprisonment reduce crime?
And if not, why does it not only still exist but gets worshiped?
shareJust in theory alone, non-life imprisonment has to increase crime. Most crime is economically motivated, and imprisonment drastically worsens a person's economic status and future viability. Thus you have extreme recidivism, career criminals, and more homeless desperate people.
shareI question how much crime is economically motivated especially when considering how much goes unreported. Sexually motivated crimes makes up a considerable percentage of reported crimes and we might be astonished as to how much sexually related crime goes unreported. While incarcerated sexual offenders certainly cannot harm innocents on the outside.
shareI was immediately seeing an argument that sexual assault still can very possibly descend from economic factors, in many instances (obviously not all). Economically disenfranchised people who see themselves as unable to attract a partner may be more likely to grow angry at the opposite sex, perhaps even seeing them as "gold diggers," and engage in sexual violence against them.
I did see an agreement with this when I looked up "causes of sexual violence"
Poverty[edit]share
Poverty is linked to both the perpetration of sexual violence and the risk of being a victim of it. Several authors have argued that the relationship between poverty and perpetration of sexual violence is mediated through forms of crisis of masculine identity.[41][42][43][44][45]
Bourgois, writing about life in East Harlem, New York, United States, described how young men felt pressured by models of successful masculinity and family structure passed down from their parents' and grandparents' generations, together with modern-day ideals of manhood that also place an emphasis on material consumption. Trapped in their slums, with little or no available employment, they are unlikely to attain either of these models or expectations of masculine success. In these circumstances, ideals of masculinity are reshaped to emphasize misogyny, substance abuse and participation in crime and often also xenophobia and racism. Gang rape and sexual conquest are normalized, as men turn their aggression against women they can no longer control patriarchally or support economically.[43]
Important in some geographic areas and not noteworthy in quite a few other areas. I see quite a number of sexual crimes make the news where I live and most of the time being poor had nothing to do with the reason for it. College professors, teachers, business people among others being perpetrators. They had the desire and the control over others to commit these crimes. The worst of it in my mind are the ones that got caught were sloppy or the victim found their resolve to do something about it so I feel for every crime made known that the perp was too slick or the victim too fearful so nothing ever gets done about it in many other instances.
shareKeep in mind crimes are more likely to be reported in the media (absent any shock value) when they happen in scenarios where they are less likely, such as a rape by someone who could theoretically bag a mate easily, or theft by someone who is wealthy (Winona Ryder shoplifting, for example).
Hell, a Kardashian baby is bigger news than more murders and rapes in poor areas of Chicago.
It's not interesting to report on the most common circumstances. The outliers and exceptions get the emphasis, and honestly, for good reason.
> Important in some geographic areas and not noteworthy in quite a few other areas. I see quite a number of sexual crimes make the news where I live and most of the time being poor had nothing to do with the reason for it.
And adding to that, the flip side is that poverty does not necessarily generate violent crime. Appalachia has its poor areas, some desperately poor. But crimes are generally of the drug and property varieties. The rates of violent crimes -- murders, robberies, rapes, etc -- are pretty low. Culture and other factors are important; what's true in East Harlem can't be automatically generalized to other places.
But still, most violent AND nonviolent crime is motivated, ultimately, by economic factors. Just "most," and that's been a well-known concept for a long time, probably hundreds of years if not more.
share@Froggie
An excerpt from: https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/crime-and-economy-what-connection
“But there's little evidence to suggest that good economic times have much effect on crime. Crime rates rose every year between 1955 and 1972, even as the U.S. economy surged, with only a brief, mild recession in the early 1960s. By the time criminals took a breather in the early 1970s, crime rates had increased over 140 percent. Murder rates had risen about 70 percent, rapes more than doubled, and auto theft nearly tripled.
By the same token, a bad economy doesn't always bring more crime. Crime rates fell about one third between 1934 and 1938 while the nation was struggling to emerge from the Great Depression and weathering another severe economic downturn in 1937 and 1938. Surely, if the economic theory held, crime should have been soaring.”
I also tend to agree with Bull’s comment regarding the poor in Appalachia.
> But still, most violent AND nonviolent crime is motivated, ultimately, by economic factors. Just "most," and that's been a well-known concept for a long time, probably hundreds of years if not more.
Well-known, yes; but that doesn't mean it's true. It's also well-known that international disputes are caused by misunderstandings which can be resolved if the parties talk it out and come to understand each others' needs. And it's also well-known that increasing funding to schools reduces academic disparities among schoolchildren (i.e., raises the performance of the duller kids to be closer to that of the brighter ones.
All of those are ideas which have *some* truth in *some* circumstances. and, I suppose, satisfy emotional needs for some people. But they, like quite a few other similar ideas, are quite frankly liberal canards which don't withstand scrutiny against real experience. And I've had enough experience in academia, from both sides of the lectern, to know that they're offered to students as "truth" by some who know better.
Funny thing about Appalachia, to jump back to that for a moment. I grew up there, left the area, then ended up moving back to deal with a family crisis later, and I never got around to leaving. In between, I lived in DC and for a while worked within walking distance of the White House. And I got panhandled more on one typical work day in DC than in all my years in Appalachia combined. It just doesn't happen here. Theft, scamming the system, and drug dealing (the opioid crisis is nothing new here) are all common; but the idea of walking up to strangers and asking them to hand over their hard earned cash seems to be repugnant to everyone. Different culture? Different circumstances? Different people? Whatever.
And to that I say bull hockey, caca, feces, whatever one chooses! Being poor does not make a person immoral. Sitting on one’s duff crying “woe is me” and gathering together like a pack of wild dogs will do the trick. We will always have the poor, but blaming gang rape and sexual conquest on their socioeconomic status is a cop out. Immorality knows no pocketbook...too many elitists with power have committed these crimes.
shareEconomic forces figure into almost everything we do, kspkap.
Calling something "immorality" is a meaningless cop-out because "immorality" doesn't actually describe anything other than "I don't like it, it's wrong."
I'm sticking to reality, not just general demonizing of people who commit crimes.
It's a proven historical fact that the majority of crime is economically motivated.
Why do you think men commit the majority of crimes? BECAUSE MEN GENERALLY EXPERIENCE MORE SOCIOECONOMIC PRESSURE THAN WOMEN!
Either that, or you have to accept that men are just "inclined" to be "immoral" and have no actual explanation behind it other than vague terminology that describes nothing at all.
I cede the debate. I hope we shall agree to disagree. Are we good?
share