> 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 co

> 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.