3 ms·
> impoverished, who tend to have entire families that are impoverished, are far less likely to ever be in these commercial DNA databases. So the people most lik
by jolmg 8y ago
> impoverished, who tend to have entire families that are impoverished, are far less likely to ever be in these commercial DNA databases. So the people most likely to commit a crime
Well if we're going to make overgeneralizations like that, I could guess that the impoverished on average are more honorable than the rich, and less likely to commit crimes. In fact, that honor might even be the cause of their impoverishment. Crime pays and when the richest are so because they're willing to take money from under the table, outright steal it, or "earn" it from selling to addicts, what chance do the people that are trying to earn a living through honest means have? You know there are cemeteries for drug lords where the each tomb is a little mansion?
There's also studies where free money was given away to anyone that wanted to take it. Most looked well off and said they wanted it for purse or whatever taking a ton of bills. Homeless on the other hand would just take a few bucks to buy a hotdog or other necesity, too ashamed to take more.
There's also videos online of people trying to steal packages (the homeowner set up a camera and trap). All looked well off. They didn't look homeless or sketchy in any way. Some were even driving good cars.
Let's not judge people on the amount of money they have.
- lifeformed 8y agoI don't think they were really making a moral statement saying that crimes are committed by bad people, but that crimes are often committed by people in desperate situations and reduced opportunities, which I think is a reasonable, non-moralistic interpretation of the statistics.
- jolmg 8y ago> saying that crimes are committed by bad people That's different, and probably an objectively true statement unless law is written badly or by a thoroughly corrupt government. > but that crimes are often committed by people in desperate situations and reduced opportunities That's what I'm not sure I'd agree with. It's just as logical to think that people (not all) in desperate situations are so because they're restrictive in their actions, taking only opportunities that are in completely in line with their moral ideals. It's also logical to think that people (also not all) that are well off might be so because they took opportunities that might not have been of the highest morality (if not to say that they might have been outright illegal). > which I think is a reasonable, non-moralistic interpretation of the statistics. Can you cite those statistics? What I dislike about that type of thinking is that it leads to prejudice, so I'm not sure it's "non-moralistic" in any case. Anyway even if there is a location where most poor are bad and most rich are good, this seems to be very location and culture dependent. I don't think it's a claim that can be shown to be universally true.