![]() |
Ideological Criminals
I'd like to see what CT's opinion is on how we can better combat criminals that are ideologically motivated. I personally think that the best thing we can do is just always be cognizant of them. I don't feel that laws would be any deterrent to them, especially if they are so motivated in their cause that they are willing to die for it. Forgive the comparison, but that was the only way that Gotham/Batman could fight against the Joker in TDK. The Joker didn't care if he went to prison or even if he died. The best the people could do was always be on the lookout for him. Although it's only a movie, I feel that it demonstrates my point.
So what do you guys think? Are there other ways we can prevent these ideological criminals from running rampant (slight hyperbole)? <_< |
Re: Ideological Criminals
Depends on what you define as a crime.
|
Re: Ideological Criminals
Quote:
|
Re: Ideological Criminals
Quote:
|
Re: Ideological Criminals
The Joker was a psychopath. Social rules, laws, and deterrents don't affect the thinking of a psychopath. They can pass any lie detector without fail, even if they lie for every single answer they make. When a psychopath wants to do something, they will set out on any path to achieve it and there really is no deterrent to prevent them from doing so. That's what makes them extremely dangerous to society if they ever choose the path of crime
~Tsugomaru |
Re: Ideological Criminals
Quote:
|
Re: Ideological Criminals
I don't think there's a huge way we can stop them. In my opinion, all criminals act because of an abusive act on them in their past. So, as cheesy as it sounds, if we could all better the community and act more civily I think it would prevent any of it from happening altogether.
|
Re: Ideological Criminals
If only sociopathy were entirely social instead of at all genetic, you might have a useful fix in mind there. A chemical imbalance isn't something that lots more hugs are going to fix.
|
Re: Ideological Criminals
I agree with Devonin. Also, to make society nicer (crappy word choice), the government would probably have to get involved on a fairly large scale. However, those old farts sitting in their leather-backed chairs truly could care less. We as ordinary civilians can attempt to do our part, but the government would probably have to mass-coordinate something for this to have any affect on society overall. While a more positive environment could potentially reduce crimes of other sorts, I highly doubt it could do anything to deter people who are crazy and essentially kill just for the sake of killing.
|
Re: Ideological Criminals
It's interesting how quickly this turned to talk of psychological illness. Guys, what about Martin Luther King, or Ghandi, who are considered heroes explicitly because they broke the law for ideological reasons? Why did we pretty much instantly go down the road of violent crime; and why did we then segway so smoothly into discussing the issue not in terms of ideology at all, but in terms of disease?
|
Re: Ideological Criminals
They can't ever be stopped because Western society is too open to effectively do so. Until a governing power takes complete control of our consciousness there will always be a psychopath out there who is willing to take out as many people as he can just to prove a point.
|
Re: Ideological Criminals
Eastern societies have mind control?
|
Re: Ideological Criminals
All I was implying is that western-style society supports open democracy...
|
Re: Ideological Criminals
Quote:
That's why they stopped using them in court. |
Re: Ideological Criminals
Firstly, I don't think that sociopaths are totally based on genetics. I've never heard of there being any genetic research to that effect in. However, that there is something physically wrong with them such that they can no longer feel empathy, and whatever is physically wrong is something that social interaction can't change, I can buy. However, I still don't believe that this is actually the case for all/most sociopaths.
kilroy: The OP stated that this was about stopping criminals. I can, however, see that if we were to stop ideological criminals outright, then we would probably also stop the good ideologists as well. And freedom. The definition of most mental illnesses usually involve something like "...and they cannot function in society". It being part of the definition of many mental illnesses, anyone who fits outside the norm of any given social standard could be said to have a mental illness. (This is unfortunate, since it makes being different seem bad.) What is NOT inherent in any mental illness, however, is that it be something that cannot be changed, which is the turn this thread has taken. The best way to stop ideologists from doing rash, harmful things, is through discussion. Things like forums. Furthermore, teaching critical thinking and open mindedness are crucial in order for discussion to be of use. And then you need a layer or morals upon which should rest the base of always trying benefit people. Even a sociopath who has no empathy can logically understand that other people have feelings, needs, and desires too, even if they themselves don't feel bad or good when they hurt/help people. People rely on knowledge rather than feelings all the time in situations. Just for example: A person gets aroused when around kids, and he gets even more aroused at the thought of hurting them. In their life, they will be given opportunities to hurt kids where they will likely not get caught. However, it is unlikely that they would do such a thing, because they know that the child will be hurt, and hurting someone else is bad, because knowing that there exists beings in pain is bad. Their feelings about the situation run counter to what they actually want, yet this person will likely never commit child abuse. If that person can do that, then a sociopath, who has no empathy for other people, can also do that. |
Re: Ideological Criminals
Quote:
|
Re: Ideological Criminals
Do you have the freedom to do whatever you want without informing government authorities at all times? Then you're in an open society. Can you vote for political leaders? Then you're in a democracy.
Don't call me out on a technicality when you know perfectly well what I mean. |
Re: Ideological Criminals
Quote:
|
Re: Ideological Criminals
Kilroy, I meant to write something about that a long time ago, but then I realized that the thread was about ideological criminals so I decided not to mention anything about it. I'm pretty sure they meant dealing with the criminals, not the "heroes".
~Tsugomaru |
Re: Ideological Criminals
Quote:
Tsugomaru: The heroes are, formally, criminals, so the two things aren't exclusive. We consider them heroes because we agree with either their ends, or their ends in conjunction with their methods (in other words society considers a pacifistic civil rights activist a hero, or even a violent civil rights activist, on occasion but it doesn't tend to think of pacifistic anarchists as heroes). We agree with their ends or their methods because we have (hopefully) thought about them. We should extend this same courtesy to anyone we evaluate. Civil rights is an relatively easy issue to understand in comparison to some criminal motivations, but that shouldn't stop us from doing things the right way. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Actually, now that I think about it, all criminals have to be, by definition, ideological criminals. Everyone has some motivation for their actions, even if it's very poorly developed. The loftiness of it seems insignificant. So all criminals are people who haven't been persuaded to act in accordance with social customs and laws. Some of them haven't been persuaded because they've never been exposed to critical thinking, or to specific arguments, some because their minds are unsound, some because they're actually correct about some social convention or law being wrong. A reasonable person should sort these out carefully, looking at their ideas rather than trying to make inferences based purely on their actions, because as we have seen a murderer might be an abolitionist or an anarcho-primitivist. Understanding how sane their actions were is a matter of understanding how reasonable their underlying notions are in relation to the persons exposure to different ideas and arguments, and the corresponding reasonableness/correctness of those. Obviously I'm a bit biased, since I think argument is either the solution to everything or the road to the solution, but I would honestly like to exchange some criticism with actual psychologists on this matter, if I could ever find any willing to argue or even admit their arguments are falsifiable. The second is pretty LOL, but tragically people seem to not understand that unfalsifiability is a bad thing, it seems. Oh hey, my 666th post. That's kind of perverted. Oh well, have a youtube video |
Re: Ideological Criminals
To me, this is one of those questions you can not answer, fool-proof.
Even the best idea has its flaws, so I don't think there's a moral way (in modern terms) to stop this 'thing'. Anyways, there's not a best way to handle this type of situation. |
Re: Ideological Criminals
This coming from a lawyer-in-training's standpoint the best way to describe this is say a child has a parent that is terminally ill and is suffering the child may kill that parent to end the suffering that the parent is endeavoring. So that would be considered an ideological crime. Best way to deal with crimes such as my hypothetical is to just let them go because they only wanted their parent to die with dignity and they basically did. So the child was punished enough by killing the parent they shouldn't have to endeavor the pain of having to go to jail just because they did something they felt was morally right just to stop the pain and suffering of a sick and dying parent.
|
Re: Ideological Criminals
Unfortunately, you run into some problems. Where do you set an objective legal standard to determine what is or is not "A crime that we'll let go, because"?
What that person did is either murder or assisting suicide depending on how they did it, and that's illegal, pretty highly illegal too. So you're suggesting, as a "lawyer-in-training" that someone who does something THEY feel is morally right should be allowed to commit crimes? What if I think it's morally right to steal bread from a big chain grocery store because I'm poor and my children are starving? Is that something that should be allowed? If so, how poor do I have to be and how starving do my children have to be, before I qualify to be allowed to steal without punishment? |
Re: Ideological Criminals
Quote:
|
Re: Ideological Criminals
Okay, and what is the objective legal definition of "filled with poverty" Do you have a property value figure? A monthly income figure? If we're talking legal defenses in a court of law, these things need to be very clear.
If my defense is "I should be allowed to have stolen, because I'm very poor" there needs to be a strict border between "poor enough" and "not poor enough" |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:49 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution