4 ms·

Have you considered the fact that practically everyone who commits these kinds of crimes had similar things done to them; often as children, often by relatives?

Have you considered the fact that practically everyone who commits these kinds of crimes had similar things done to them; often as children, often by relatives? Everyone is responsible for their actions. And some people have a long way to go to before they've healed their traumas. But pretending that some are evil and others are not isn't solving the problem. It would be more constructive to ask what can be done to prevent people from becoming this messed up, children from being treated so horribly etc. And how to best help people heal and take back control over their lives.

briandear 8y ago
> Have you considered the fact that practically everyone who commits these kinds of crimes had similar things done to them No excuse. Defending child-killers because they themselves were (potentially) abused as children? That's nonsense. They still killed someone; their past traumas don't give them a free pass to inflict horror and pain on others. The past traumas of the killers doesn't matter to the child they murdered. If you have a past trauma -- go see a doctor. It was in Canada, medical and psychiatric care is supposed to be free right? That they didn't avail themselves to that resource and instead chose to rape and kill a little girl -- that's on them. Rationalizing the actions of child-killers is disgusting.
- function_seven 8y ago
  You're not being charitable with your interpretation of parent's comment. You quoted the first line, then ignored this: > Everyone is responsible for their actions. And some people have a long way to go to before they've healed their traumas. But pretending that some are evil and others are not isn't solving the problem. It's not a rationalization of child-killing. It's a partial explanation as to why some people do that. There's no value judgement being made, just a clinical evaluation of causes and effects. People who commit terrible crimes are responsible for their actions. But it's far too convenient to just label them as evil and move on. Something made them evil. Something wired their brain that way. We are not the authors of our own personalities. Don't misunderstand me. I'm not claiming that all people are redeemable. Some aren't. There are cases where the only rational (and ethical!) thing to do is separate the perpetrator from the rest of civil society, for our own protection. But we do ourselves a big favor if we allow ourselves to question and study the origin of these behaviors. And if we allow ourselves to advance the study of rehabilitation and reform. Just as it is morally correct to protect the society at-large from predators, it is also, I think, a moral requirement to find better ways at fixing broken people. Just like we do with cancer, AIDS, or any other ailment. Expand that to include mental disorders. The brain is another organ. Right now we suck at verifiably correcting for psychological disorders. (Hell, we can't even agree on what constitutes one). Because we're bad at it, we take the safe approach of caging dangerous people. That's fine. It's the best we can do with our current state of knowledge. But we should strive to learn more, so that we can make more accurate decisions on who should remain caged and who is eligible for reform.
  - sifoobar 8y ago
    Thank you.
SamReidHughes 8y ago
> Have you considered the fact that practically everyone who commits these kinds of crimes had similar things done to them; often as children, often by relatives? The connection between child abuse and adult criminality has been studied with twin studies. Genetic confounding plays the starring role. > But pretending that some are evil Try again. You're pretending there aren't evil, broken people out there.
- sifoobar 8y ago
  You can't separate human behavior from environment, period. They've found genes that sort of predict violent behavior, but only if the person carrying the gene is subjected to abuse; which means that the gene probably predicts higher sensitivity to abuse rather than a violent nature. You're pretending that labeling some people evil because they have the wrong genetics is a solution, it isn't.

briandear 8y ago

> Have you considered the fact that practically everyone who commits these kinds of crimes had similar things done to them No excuse. Defending child-killers because they themselves were (potentially) abused as children? That's nonsense. They still killed someone; their past traumas don't give them a free pass to inflict horror and pain on others. The past traumas of the killers doesn't matter to the child they murdered. If you have a past trauma -- go see a doctor. It was in Canada, medical and psychiatric care is supposed to be free right? That they didn't avail themselves to that resource and instead chose to rape and kill a little girl -- that's on them. Rationalizing the actions of child-killers is disgusting.

function_seven 8y ago
You're not being charitable with your interpretation of parent's comment. You quoted the first line, then ignored this: > Everyone is responsible for their actions. And some people have a long way to go to before they've healed their traumas. But pretending that some are evil and others are not isn't solving the problem. It's not a rationalization of child-killing. It's a partial explanation as to why some people do that. There's no value judgement being made, just a clinical evaluation of causes and effects. People who commit terrible crimes are responsible for their actions. But it's far too convenient to just label them as evil and move on. Something made them evil. Something wired their brain that way. We are not the authors of our own personalities. Don't misunderstand me. I'm not claiming that all people are redeemable. Some aren't. There are cases where the only rational (and ethical!) thing to do is separate the perpetrator from the rest of civil society, for our own protection. But we do ourselves a big favor if we allow ourselves to question and study the origin of these behaviors. And if we allow ourselves to advance the study of rehabilitation and reform. Just as it is morally correct to protect the society at-large from predators, it is also, I think, a moral requirement to find better ways at fixing broken people. Just like we do with cancer, AIDS, or any other ailment. Expand that to include mental disorders. The brain is another organ. Right now we suck at verifiably correcting for psychological disorders. (Hell, we can't even agree on what constitutes one). Because we're bad at it, we take the safe approach of caging dangerous people. That's fine. It's the best we can do with our current state of knowledge. But we should strive to learn more, so that we can make more accurate decisions on who should remain caged and who is eligible for reform.
- sifoobar 8y ago
  Thank you.

SamReidHughes 8y ago

> Have you considered the fact that practically everyone who commits these kinds of crimes had similar things done to them; often as children, often by relatives? The connection between child abuse and adult criminality has been studied with twin studies. Genetic confounding plays the starring role. > But pretending that some are evil Try again. You're pretending there aren't evil, broken people out there.

sifoobar 8y ago
You can't separate human behavior from environment, period. They've found genes that sort of predict violent behavior, but only if the person carrying the gene is subjected to abuse; which means that the gene probably predicts higher sensitivity to abuse rather than a violent nature. You're pretending that labeling some people evil because they have the wrong genetics is a solution, it isn't.