Ideological Criminals

[Go_Oilers_Go]

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)? <_<

[ballaw hare]

Depends on what you define as a crime.

[Go_Oilers_Go]

Originally Posted by ballaw hare

Depends on what you define as a crime.

I guess I'm primarily thinking of situations that could put fairly large amounts of people at risk.

[Cloud0005]

Originally Posted by Go_Oilers_Go

I guess I'm primarily thinking of situations that could put fairly large amounts of people at risk.

go bombs!

[tsugomaru]

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

[Go_Oilers_Go]

Originally Posted by tsugomaru

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

Point taken. That's why I was suggesting that really the best we can do is try to be as aware and educated about these people as possible.

[rzr]

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.

[devonin]

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.

[Go_Oilers_Go]

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.

[Kilroy_x]

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?

[dore]

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.

[Kilroy_x]

Eastern societies have mind control?

[dore]

All I was implying is that western-style society supports open democracy...

[Frozen Beat]

Originally Posted by tsugomaru

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

Yes that's true. Lie detectors detect traces of heart rate speedup and stuff like that. If you can learn to deal with that, you can pass them.

That's why they stopped using them in court.

[Cavernio]

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.

[ballaw hare]

Originally Posted by dore

All I was implying is that western-style society supports open democracy...

Um...no. No country in the "west" has an open democracy.

[dore]

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.

[ballaw hare]

Originally Posted by dore

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.

Well my government (u.s.) has the ability to tap my phones or walk into my house anytime they want since the twin towers fell. Second off I can't vote for my leaders on the large scale. The representatives from each state vote for the president, hence why bush won against gore way back when.

[tsugomaru]

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

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

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.

Well, MLK and Ghandi both did illegal things. Consequently, they were technically criminals, and they also went to jail. Neither of them had a problem with that, strangely. If you want to understand it better I would suggest you read Civil Disobedience by Thoreau. It's public domain so you should be able to find it online. I think there's more to it than that, but it should be a good start.

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.

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.

Yes, good point.

And then you need a layer or morals upon which should rest the base of always trying benefit people.

I'm not sure about this. Deterrence frequently substitutes for morality in the form of legal sanctions and even simple normative pressure. There are also developed moral systems which evaluate moral character by a standard other than utility.

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. [...]
If that person can do that, then a sociopath, who has no empathy for other people, can also do that.

Yes, good point. I suspect the problem would be giving them a reason to do so. It seems the label of sociopathy is applied most often to people who have committed actual crimes. Given that I'm not sure I see the substance of the label. I honestly just see a sociopath as a person who has not been persuaded to act in accordance with prevailing social and legal norms. There may be any number of reasons for this, clearly, including an unsound mind which is incapable of discerning valid arguments, but as the label is handed out currently I think it a bit presumptuous. I would put Ghandi, MLK, Malcolm X, John Brown (the abolitionist), and Ted Kaczynski in the same group. They were all ideological criminals. Some were violent, others weren't, some had ideologies we consider respectable, others didn't.

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