Nature vs nurture

You must be more specific. 'Social processes' = zilch. Criminals are criminals because they break the law. Simples

How do those laws get made? Are people criminals before that law was passed?

As I've said before, laws are made by our legislators debating and voting them in. No, people who break laws which do not yet exist are not criminals, obviously... Your attempts to rhetorical question your way to victory are failing

So you acknowledge that what constitutes "crime" and who are defined as "criminals" are results of social processes. So questions as to how this gets defined, what are the power relations involved etc, are legitimate questions.

Nurtured. Your just giving criminals an excuse if you say they've inherited their criminal behaviour, in a way its taking responsibility away from what they've done. Plus there are so many people who are born into bad circumstances, for example parents are criminals, they live in a poor environment and are surrounded by crime but instead lead a positive life & what about serial killers like that doctor Harold Shipman i think who killed hundreds of his patients and had a fairly nice upbringing, yet serial killers are always the ones you never suspect.

I didn't miss anything, you are creating complications which don't exist. The emboldened text confuses moral law with criminal law. Who said anything about morality? I think you'll find they're very different things. A crime is an action or lack of action which goes contrary to law. It really is that simple; you seem intent on over-complicating it.

So what is this response about?

Why don't you go back to the original post and see what I was responding to there.

I did. You appear to be objecting to a discussion about the social nature of crime. I'm trying to find out why. You don't appear to know.

I don't know how to respond to you because your arguments consist of poorly worded generalities - 'social processes', 'social nature'. Your talking out of your arse, my dear friend. Not knowing how to respond to BS is probably a good thing

You still can't articulate why you object. How odd.

Object to what? It's difficult to object to a non-existent argument. You stuff you posts with meaningless generalities. There's no stance and nothing to agree or disagree with at all

You're clearly not used to thinking about sociology, so I'll break it down for you.

People are only criminals due to breaking laws. Laws are not immutable, they are not abstracted from social conditions. The processes whereby things become law are social, i.e. they take place in a particular social, economic and historical context. So in any discussion about criminality and nature/nurture, surely a discussion about the nature of crime and criminality is relevant? For example, secondary picketing in industrial action was made illegal in the 1980s, in the context of the miner's strike. Can it be argued that it is genetics that causes someone to secondary picket? Can it even be argued that its nurture? So for you to dismiss any discussion about how things become to be defined as criminal/not criminal seems a little...bizarre tbh.

I'm sure you've been told this before, but you're full of ****. I have more worthy arguments to attend to. Goodnight.

Good stuff.

Genetically-provoked picketing?

That sort of bull**** may pass on TSR but good luck winning with that in the real world

You took my comments out of the context of a discussion with someone else and twisted their meaning to attack them on a foreign basis to which they were intended - in other words, yours has been a straw man, and not even a well-constructed one. You insult me. It's hilarious that you talk about how the context of legislation is so important while completely ignoring the context of posts made in this argument

Well, the context appears to be your objection to a discussion about the nature of crime and your inability to articulate why.

My objections have been to vacuous posts on your part composed of meaningless genericisms and completely lacking in substance. It's impossible to form a counter-argument to a non-existent argument.