Crime

[Unveiled Artist]

So you believe, that removing crime doesn't do much to change the overall quality of life. It only removes one of many problems. That is quite true.

Yet, isn't it true that man is making efforts to tackle these problems progressively - crime, disease, poverty, and yes, scientist are even working at tackling death... believe it or not.
You are saying you don't think they can. I agree with you.

When you say, "Outside of religion, our bodies are meant to die out anyway", what do you mean?

Removing crime to build a perfect utopia is unrealistic. It leads to a false sense of security since we will die one way or another. As for the quality of life, I didn't mention that. The "intention" of removing "all" crime leads to a false sense of security.

I mentioned that it's not wrong to find solutions just to find an "ultimate goal" is unrealistic.

Many religious theology have some sort of continuation or after life goal to where after awhile all attachments, suffering, and all of that will cease. I disagree because outside of these theology, I feel we will die regardless what religion we take up.

 

[Nimos]

So, it would seem money and the need for it, is one contributor to crime. Is that partly what you are saying?

Well partly, we need money to obtain things or to survive, however you want to put it. But if things have no value people wouldn't care to steal them.

The implants don't amount to a solution though, since the criminal acts are still being carried out.
We can be sure too that the crooks will find a way to beat that system, and be one step ahead of law enforcement.
So far, all the systems put in place to beat crime and terrorism, has been equally challenged by criminals.

Hackers are a dime a dozen. Computer chips are toast to them. Just look at cyber crime for example.

We don't have a system like this. But a criminal having a need to get rid of it, would almost only be because they wanted to do something really bad. And if it's injected or implanted somewhere in your body using nanotechnology, It would probably not be that easy to get rid off. But sure there would probably be people that would try.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Seems that way, doesn't it. Why do you think this is the case? Do you think that's man's unchangeable nature?

Hmmm... I'm not sure it has much with human nature any more than it has to do with all life. Animals test boundaries when they infringe on human territory and go through their trash. Plants test boundaries when they take root in cliff edges. Nature tests boundaries all the time.

People aren't that special in their negative behavior vs. other creatures; the only reason we care is because they are fellow humans, and we can imagine what would go through the minds of these rule breakers. We can also imagine what it would be like to be their victim. We can analyze these things from our biased, human perspective, and this is disturbing for us to think about.

Empathy, combined with fear and self interest- even if it's in the abstract.

 

[epronovost]

Abolish all laws?
So, someone can walk in a grocery store; take what they want, and walk out? Or there would be no law against rape, or abuse?

Well yeah. If you want to abolish all crimes you need to abolish all laws, including the ones you like (and those you don't). That's the easiest way to do it. Else you would need a lot of space and a post scarcity world.

 

[Secret Chief]

The only way to end all crime: decriminalise everything that is deemed a crime.

 

[Revoltingest]

Thanks for sharing. Would you like to share any thoughts on how "it can be managed to some extent"?

Just the usual....laws, cops, courts, security.
Oh, also repealing laws against victimless crimes.

 

[blü 2]

Okay. I take it you are saying you believe crime can be stamped out, and there are solutions

I think a different approach might have a better chance of working ─ one where we focus not only on the victim but also on the offender.

It's a harder sell because it takes priority away from the angry desire for revenge, offends police unions (at least in the US) and tends to be more expensive since it envisages a state-supported minimum standard of life.

A level playing field for education, opportunity, access to health services including mental health, inclusion instead of prejudice and exclusion, adequate welfare support, add up to a different approach that might be worth a try.
Here sounds like a good start. Let's start with education. What did you have in mind? Can you give some examples?

Rather than directly answer your question, here's a >link< to a Glasgow policing policy that sees engaging with offenders as the first step to prevention, and which was much discussed (and I think partly adopted, but I have no details) in relation to the policing of the most disadvantaged parts of London.

As I said, it's a very big topic.

 

[danieldemol]

Okay, so you believe man's brain needs rewiring.

Not in all cases, just in those where a lack of empathy has been diagnosed as the cause of the crime.

So you believe there is a need to change the natural process of evolution? Would that prevent man evolving to a more dangerous criminal?

We can't change random gene mutation for now, but we can repair some of the damage done by bad genes through surgery, and hopefully as surgical technology improves we will be able to repair more damage.

Why has science failed to do what religion has done to change man's thinking, without interfering with his neurons directly?

Its a loaded question, unless you can provide a scientific peer reviewed study demonstrating that JW beliefs can cure sociopathy etc there is no reason to believe your empty claim that religion can change criminal thinking, heck even a scientific study showing JWs are less likely to commit crime than the wider populace would be a starting point in that direction.

Is that not proof that the "empty utopian promises of religion" are only empty to those who, for whatever reason, reject them. Whereas, the promises are a sure reality, since the educational program works - producing the expected results?

Evidence by means of scientific study as explained above?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

@Shadow Wolf perhaps you can elaborate on the education you are considering.
You also seem to think drugs is a key prerequisite to crime. Am I reading you correctly?

Education as in a general education that does include arts and humanities, philosophy, math, science, but also as well tchnology and apprenticeships. What people need to succeed they should be able to get. In this case it is an education and training in desired fields.
Criminalizing drugs is a failure of an approach. It creates crime, it makes violent and dangerous people wealthy and powerful, it drives usage (forbidden fruit temptation), and it makes research drug addiction and treatment considerably and unreasonable more difficult than they should be, and the illegal status is known tor scaring people away from getting help because it means admiting tk using an illegal substance. Nothing good has ever come out of drug prohibition (this includes alcohol). It floods jails and prisons, it's massive drain for tax payers, theu need to all be legalized.

 

[Heyo]

I'm glad you elaborated a bit on the education aspect.
So do you think men commit crimes because they are uneducated about the purpose of laws, or they don't understand why they are given?

There are multiple parts to it.
First is crime statistics. We know that education is negatively correlated with crime. The higher someone's formal education the less likely they are to commit a crime. That alone doesn't inform us about the causation but it seems that education is a good thing.
Second is indeed the knowledge part. People are more likely to follow a law when they know that it is there for a reason. (And it helps when laws are made reasonably.)
Third and most important is the idea of humanistic education. That is, not only the transfer of knowledge but formation of character. Raising kids to become moral adults so that they not only know that and why crime is bad, but intuitively despise it.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I tend to like your approach, of looking at the root causes.
Suppose we zero in on one you mentioned - mental illness. This is a major one. How would one go about tackling the root cause of mental illness? Does anyone know the cause?
Bearing in mind though, that most people who commit robberies are not necessarily mentally ill.

I'm not sure of the statistics, but a high proportion of those who commit crimes will have some mental health or personality issues, some of which might be negated if caught early enough, so presumably early monitoring of behaviours might pick up such better than what is often the case - being removed from mainstream education, and often without the resources to deal with any issues if such is possible. Not being in any field related to mental health issues, I'm not sure if all or even most of such could be dealt with, although it does seem to be the case that such areas are underfunded (here in the UK) so more money and resources aimed at such might help.

Again, the origins of mental illness/personality issues seem not to be fully understood, with definitions and criteria for any particular one changing over time or morphing into something else. But, given the history of psychiatry (which has been as bad as general medicine), we are seeing advances just as we are in general medicine so we should expect some things to get better, if not all. Whether this will be reflected in reduced crime is another matter, since as you point out, most crimes will probably be committed by relatively 'normal' people. The motives for each crime will depend upon many factors, and I suppose not all can be addressed since we are all essentially born different and have different experiences in life so as to produce who we are.

I suspect that how children are brought up has one of the larger influences on how they develop, but I'm sure we all know that opinion varies as to what this should be, such that even those who have the most benign and educated of childhoods, and being as fondly remembered as could be, might stray into crime and this then having more impact, given what the Justice system often does to one.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Crime exists everywhere, and always has, so in practical terms I'd say it's here to stay.
That's pretty meaningless, really, but there it is.

However, crime varies greatly in its likelihood and severity from place to place. So certainly it's possible to impact crime.

 

[nPeace]

Removing crime to build a perfect utopia is unrealistic. It leads to a false sense of security since we will die one way or another. As for the quality of life, I didn't mention that. The "intention" of removing "all" crime leads to a false sense of security.

I mentioned that it's not wrong to find solutions just to find an "ultimate goal" is unrealistic.

Many religious theology have some sort of continuation or after life goal to where after awhile all attachments, suffering, and all of that will cease. I disagree because outside of these theology, I feel we will die regardless what religion we take up.

You think living forever is a dream.
Is that not because you have become accustomed to death?
If it were, you were accustomed to living forever, death would be a shock - unbelievable.
It becomes then, a matter of our perception, and not that something is unrealistic.
You don't know why humans die, anymore than scientists do.

Modern Biological Theories of Aging
Why do we age? When do we start aging? What is the aging marker? Is there a limit to how old we can grow? These questions are often pondered by the mankind in the past couple of hundred years. However, in spite of recent advances in molecular biology and genetics, the mysteries that control human lifespan are yet to be unraveled.

Many theories have been proposed to explain the process of aging, but neither of them appears to be fully satisfactory. The traditional aging theories hold that aging is not an adaptation or genetically programmed. Modern biological theories of aging in humans fall into two main categories: programmed and damage or error theories. The programmed theories imply that aging follows a biological timetable, perhaps a continuation of the one that regulates childhood growth and development. This regulation would depend on changes in gene expression that affect the systems responsible for maintenance, repair and defense responses. The damage or error theories emphasize environmental assaults to living organisms that induce cumulative damage at various levels as the cause of aging.

So dying is not necessarily a must under normal conditions - not normal to an individual's perspective, that is.
Under normal circumstances, people will live forever, without crime, or suffering.
(Psalm 37:10, 11) 10 Just a little while longer, and the wicked will be no more; You will look at where they were, And they will not be there. 11 But the meek will possess the earth, And they will find exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.

Well partly, we need money to obtain things or to survive, however you want to put it. But if things have no value people wouldn't care to steal them.

So going back to the days of sharing - a form of trade, but better, world eradicate that aspect of crime.
In other words, if everyone lived with this spirit...
(Acts 2:44-47) 44 All those who became believers were together and had everything in common, 45 and they were selling their possessions and properties and distributing the proceeds to all, according to what each one needed. 46 And day after day they were in constant attendance in the temple with a united purpose, and they took their meals in different homes and shared their food with great rejoicing and sincerity of heart, 47 praising God and finding favor with all the people. At the same time Jehovah continued to add to them daily those being saved.
No one would worry about crime.
Thus a change of mind and heart is in order.
What that shows, is that what religion can accomplish in one day, based on God's word, nation are still seeking answers on how it can be accomplished, even in an age of advanced technology, where the whole world can communicate virtually.
Isn't that clear evidence that crime will be eradicated, but not by man minus God?

We don't have a system like this. But a criminal having a need to get rid of it, would almost only be because they wanted to do something really bad. And if it's injected or implanted somewhere in your body using nanotechnology, It would probably not be that easy to get rid off. But sure there would probably be people that would try.

Where there is probability, there is possibility, and likelihood, and thus, it is not a solution that is sure to work.

Hmmm... I'm not sure it has much with human nature any more than it has to do with all life. Animals test boundaries when they infringe on human territory and go through their trash. Plants test boundaries when they take root in cliff edges. Nature tests boundaries all the time.

People aren't that special in their negative behavior vs. other creatures; the only reason we care is because they are fellow humans, and we can imagine what would go through the minds of these rule breakers. We can also imagine what it would be like to be their victim. We can analyze these things from our biased, human perspective, and this is disturbing for us to think about.

Empathy, combined with fear and self interest- even if it's in the abstract.

Plants don't decide where they will grow, and animals don't decide they will rob Jane Doe at midnight.
Humans do those things.
Humans can care for the environment, and plant and animal life, which can make life easier for everyone and everything.
So yes, humans are special in their behavior. That why nations are concerned about the damage humans cause to plant, animal, and human life.... and the entire ecological system.

The only way to end all crime: decriminalise everything that is deemed a crime.

That would not end crime. It would be a crime itself, and leads to more crime.

Just the usual....laws, cops, courts, security.
Oh, also repealing laws against victimless crimes.

I think they are doing all of that already. Maybe you are looking at just having a reduced crime rate, in the next decade.
However, I think most people would like to know crime is gone forever.
I believe that will happen in the near future, by removing all law breakers, and enforcing one law.

I think a different approach might have a better chance of working ─ one where we focus not only on the victim but also on the offender.

It's a harder sell because it takes priority away from the angry desire for revenge, offends police unions (at least in the US) and tends to be more expensive since it envisages a state-supported minimum standard of life.
Rather than directly answer your question, here's a >link< to a Glasgow policing policy that sees engaging with offenders as the first step to prevention, and which was much discussed (and I think partly adopted, but I have no details) in relation to the policing of the most disadvantaged parts of London.

As I said, it's a very big topic.

We do appreciate the noble efforts of law enforcement, but as you said, it's a big topic, and a big task, as well.
The drug dealers will be imprisoned, but does that stop their drug dealing? We know the answer.
Yes, it stops the small "fry", but the big boys are only temporarily limited, and they leave their cell with newly acquired knowledge.
Then there is the corruption that exists in the force itself. We cannot rule that out.
We could make a long list of things that, despite noble efforts, keep the fires of crime burning.
The task is just too big, for man to handle.
It's like me against Superman.

 

[blü 2]

We do appreciate the noble efforts of law enforcement, but as you said, it's a big topic, and a big task, as well.
The drug dealers will be imprisoned, but does that stop their drug dealing? We know the answer.

Let's not overlook the enthusiasm of the marketplace for their products either.

Then there is the corruption that exists in the force itself. We cannot rule that out.

That too is criminal conduct, of course.

We could make a long list of things that, despite noble efforts, keep the fires of crime burning.
The task is just too big, for man to handle.

It may be too innate in our nature, or it may be our social structure has aspects that encourage crime. Our cousins the chimps and bonobos are expert thieves and (as it were) adulterers; and they've been known to invade and kill the males of their neighboring chimp tribes.

We may get collectively wiser about these things, or (as you say) we may not.

 

[Nimos]

So going back to the days of sharing - a form of trade, but better, world eradicate that aspect of crime.

Well its not so much about sharing, because I think history and even today shows that it doesn't work and is not the solution. If you take people like Bill Gates, Elon Musk and so forth, they have so much money that it's insane. I know that Bill Gates give a lot of money away to various things, which is good. But still it doesn't really change the fact that the guy still have way more than he and his children and childrens childrens could ever spend

That averages out to approximately $10,959,000 a day, which is also about $456,625 per hour, $7,610 per minute, and $127 per second. That means in the time it took me to calculate that and write it out, Gates likely made tens of thousands of dollars.

And don't misunderstand this as a "those bad rich people", but even when people are decent, which I think they are, as far as I know, sharing is not the solution. It's about solidarity as I see it. And even that is probably impossible as well. So as far as I see it, abundancy is the only solution. Think of it as you wanting a new phone and either you have a machine "Atomic replicator" and you just print one at home. Larger things like cars you could order from a autonomous factory etc. or they would be shared self driving that you just call when you need. If it was that easy to get hold of things, no one would care to steal anything, because they wouldn't have any value.

If that was possible (Would be awesome ) I really think that theft crimes would go to almost zero, probably people would steal art maybe, because those are originals etc. But in general I don't think people would worry about it at all.

What that shows, is that what religion can accomplish in one day, based on God's word, nation are still seeking answers on how it can be accomplished, even in an age of advanced technology, where the whole world can communicate virtually.
Isn't that clear evidence that crime will be eradicated, but not by man minus God?

No, religion wouldn't accomplish anything if it were done this way. Human intelligence, technology and science would. But I have no doubt, that religious people would argue that it was exactly what God was talking about

 

[nPeace]

Not in all cases, just in those where a lack of empathy has been diagnosed as the cause of the crime.

How are you going to track all people who lack empathy?
So you must wait till crimes are committed, to determine if someone lacks empathy.
That not a solution to crime, is it. It's like a replacement for a prison sentence for a crime committed.

We can't change random gene mutation for now, but we can repair some of the damage done by bad genes through surgery, and hopefully as surgical technology improves we will be able to repair more damage.

I wonder how many will volunteer to be guinea pigs.
I think you can only accomplish this by forcing people against their will, to submit to possible brain damage, and other health risks, including death.
Your idea does sound impractical.

Its a loaded question, unless you can provide a scientific peer reviewed study demonstrating that JW beliefs can cure sociopathy etc there is no reason to believe your empty claim that religion can change criminal thinking, heck even a scientific study showing JWs are less likely to commit crime than the wider populace would be a starting point in that direction.

Evidence by means of scientific study as explained above?

The fact is, the educational program works. People have changed their thinking, through that educational program
The program is part of the theocratic rule that promises the Utopia.
Hence there other elements of that theocratic rule that will deal with ASPD and other disorders, as well as genetic problems.
The education is only one part of the process. It does not deal with everything, although it's a big help.
For example, the woman with the 'flow of blood' was not able to get relieve from the medical field, but Jesus healed her, demonstrating his ability to heal any sickness.
So, what I am saying is, the promises of God's kingdom, are a sure reality, since the educational program itself works. It's proof of its substance.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Scripture is irrelevant to science and its theories.

You think living forever is a dream.
Is that not because you have become accustomed to death?
If it were, you were accustomed to living forever, death would be a shock - unbelievable.
It becomes then, a matter of our perception, and not that something is unrealistic.
You don't know why humans die, anymore than scientists do.

I don't believe we will live forever. To many it is a dream.

If you mean decomposition and things like that laymen can study the topic or watch their loved one go through the process of dying.

So dying is not necessarily a must under normal conditions - not normal to an individual's perspective, that is.
Under normal circumstances, people will live forever, without crime, or suffering.

What lives forever?

Scripture isn't science and from what I read your link doesn't seem to provide any means that "we" do live forever.

Unless I'm not understanding the purpose of the link.

 

[nPeace]

Education as in a general education that does include arts and humanities, philosophy, math, science, but also as well tchnology and apprenticeships. What people need to succeed they should be able to get. In this case it is an education and training in desired fields.
Criminalizing drugs is a failure of an approach. It creates crime, it makes violent and dangerous people wealthy and powerful, it drives usage (forbidden fruit temptation), and it makes research drug addiction and treatment considerably and unreasonable more difficult than they should be, and the illegal status is known tor scaring people away from getting help because it means admiting tk using an illegal substance. Nothing good has ever come out of drug prohibition (this includes alcohol). It floods jails and prisons, it's massive drain for tax payers, theu need to all be legalized.

I still don't understand how education relates to ending crime from your viewpoint.

There are multiple parts to it.
First is crime statistics. We know that education is negatively correlated with crime. The higher someone's formal education the less likely they are to commit a crime. That alone doesn't inform us about the causation but it seems that education is a good thing.

That's not what I have been hearing all my life from school days.
I have been hearing that most people with higher education usually are mad, and it seems that is not a myth.
A widespread problem
College students today increasingly suffer from mental health issues and face many barriers to accessing the care they need. Disordered eating and sleeping are on the rise among college students, and over one-third of college students report having trouble functioning over the past year due to depression. In surveys, almost a third of students reports feeling frequently overwhelmed. And these health access problems don’t account for the financial burdens imposed on students that may negatively affect their well-being.

higher education and mental health

Second is indeed the knowledge part. People are more likely to follow a law when they know that it is there for a reason. (And it helps when laws are made reasonably.)

You have found this to be true?
I don't think this is a documented fact.
People are more likely to comply with laws when they think they will get caught, and more likely to break laws when there is a chance they will get away with it.
Why do you think there are so many cameras in ports where merchandise is offloaded?
People aren't even honest with their scales, in a small marketplace.

Third and most important is the idea of humanistic education. That is, not only the transfer of knowledge but formation of character. Raising kids to become moral adults so that they not only know that and why crime is bad, but intuitively despise it.

I would completely agree with education that involves raising young ones with morals. That's why I believe divine education is the best education. It avoids double standards so common in worldly education.
It's not therefore a case, of what applies to Jane, does not apply to Betty.

I'm not sure of the statistics, but a high proportion of those who commit crimes will have some mental health or personality issues, some of which might be negated if caught early enough, so presumably early monitoring of behaviours might pick up such better than what is often the case - being removed from mainstream education, and often without the resources to deal with any issues if such is possible. Not being in any field related to mental health issues, I'm not sure if all or even most of such could be dealt with, although it does seem to be the case that such areas are underfunded (here in the UK) so more money and resources aimed at such might help.

Again, the origins of mental illness/personality issues seem not to be fully understood, with definitions and criteria for any particular one changing over time or morphing into something else. But, given the history of psychiatry (which has been as bad as general medicine), we are seeing advances just as we are in general medicine so we should expect some things to get better, if not all. Whether this will be reflected in reduced crime is another matter, since as you point out, most crimes will probably be committed by relatively 'normal' people. The motives for each crime will depend upon many factors, and I suppose not all can be addressed since we are all essentially born different and have different experiences in life so as to produce who we are.

I suspect that how children are brought up has one of the larger influences on how they develop, but I'm sure we all know that opinion varies as to what this should be, such that even those who have the most benign and educated of childhoods, and being as fondly remembered as could be, might stray into crime and this then having more impact, given what the Justice system often does to one.

What you are saying sounds quite reasonable.
So we can agree that the kind of education given matters? It must be education that effects every aspect of human life, and must deal with what's absolute rather than just merely relative.

Crime exists everywhere, and always has, so in practical terms I'd say it's here to stay.
That's pretty meaningless, really, but there it is.

However, crime varies greatly in its likelihood and severity from place to place. So certainly it's possible to impact crime.

Always has existed? From when? Can you give a specific crime, and when it occurred?

 

[nPeace]

Well its not so much about sharing, because I think history and even today shows that it doesn't work and is not the solution. If you take people like Bill Gates, Elon Musk and so forth, they have so much money that it's insane. I know that Bill Gates give a lot of money away to various things, which is good. But still it doesn't really change the fact that the guy still have way more than he and his children and childrens childrens could ever spend

That averages out to approximately $10,959,000 a day, which is also about $456,625 per hour, $7,610 per minute, and $127 per second. That means in the time it took me to calculate that and write it out, Gates likely made tens of thousands of dollars.

And don't misunderstand this as a "those bad rich people", but even when people are decent, which I think they are, as far as I know, sharing is not the solution. It's about solidarity as I see it. And even that is probably impossible as well. So as far as I see it, abundancy is the only solution. Think of it as you wanting a new phone and either you have a machine "Atomic replicator" and you just print one at home. Larger things like cars you could order from a autonomous factory etc. or they would be shared self driving that you just call when you need. If it was that easy to get hold of things, no one would care to steal anything, because they wouldn't have any value.

If that was possible (Would be awesome ) I really think that theft crimes would go to almost zero, probably people would steal art maybe, because those are originals etc. But in general I don't think people would worry about it at all.


No, religion wouldn't accomplish anything if it were done this way. Human intelligence, technology and science would. But I have no doubt, that religious people would argue that it was exactly what God was talking about

Okay, so please show me how religion has not accomplished anything done according to what the verses said - where all shared because each person was viewed equally as a family member, in God's household, under God.

Also, please provide the mechanism that works by human intelligence, technology and science.

 

[nPeace]

Scripture is irrelevant to science and its theories.

What do you mean?

I don't believe we will live forever. To many it is a dream.

To many, it's not... including scientists.

If you mean decomposition and things like that laymen can study the topic or watch their loved one go through the process of dying.

Why. Not how.
Scientists are trying to understand why we die, and how the process might be reversed.

What lives forever?

God does.

Scripture isn't science and from what I read your link doesn't seem to provide any means that "we" do live forever.

Unless I'm not understanding the purpose of the link.

Yes, evidently you do not understand.
If the body dies, and it's not understood what causes it, it's reasonable to conclude that if we can find out what causes it, then we may be able to prevent the body dying... if we get to the cause.
The cause however, is mentioned in scripture, and will not be able to be reversed by man.
However, God will remove the cause, and reverse death, as promised in scripture.