Would some criminals not commit crimes if they were reared in different environment..

I think that's rather the point of the importance placed upon the rehabilitation aspect of most sentences, in England at least.

I think so, but not all criminals are victims of an unfair society. Some, just enjoy seeing the world around them burn

Thank you very much. So what is better ( for us ) to do? Try to "correct" the criminals who are victims of an unfair society, maybe by psychotherapy or teaching social values or giving jobs? Should we still try to "correct" them if they have already committed a large number of crimes, such as tens of murders?

Obviously. A common example would be those people who grow up in poverty, with little to no money to keep them alive, surrounded by crime. For example, southern states in the US where there are areas full of gangs, many struggling teenagers (suffering from a lack of support both financially and personally) join these gangs to make some money for themselves (or their family) as it's their only option most of the time, which leads them committing a lot of crimes such as drug dealing and murders. If these teenagers grew up in better conditions, then there would be no need for them to participate in these offences.

If there is an environment where poverty was not an issue and families were stable and had enough money, then the number of crimes would certainly decrease.

However, whether they should be punished or not is controversial. I honestly think that any person who commits a crime that inflicts pain (doesn't have to be physical pain) on somebody innocent should be punished, regardless of their reasons. Otherwise, if a decree or whatever comes out, accentuating that it is okay for the victims of poverty to commit crimes, then everyone will do it, which will lead to chaos. You cannot let an unfortunate person get away with a crime with the reason being that they are suffering economically, socially (etc), at least not in my opinion.

Thank you very much for your answer. Of course, poverty is a major factor.

However, if you think that those criminals who have been reared in a difficult environment, wouldn't it be even more unfair to punish them just to let other people in the society know that such actions are punishable? Would it be better if we first try teaching them social values or help them with psychotherapy or giving work?

For instance, in many difficult situations in my life, I have had some really good friends to help me. But for course, this is not true for all. If I imagine that I have been reared up in a horrible family, and there were no helping hands available in my difficult situations, and then I chose to be a criminal and ended up in murdering a handful of people, should I then deserve imprisonment or capital punishment or rather some job and psychotherapy ( such as a therapist telling me that I am not intrinsically a bad person, and I can change ) instead? On the other hand, if I imagine my child has been killed by such a criminal, I would want that murdered to be punished. But then I think if that murderer is a product of the unfair society of which I am a part also ( for example, I never stood against the people who have been unfair with that person and which subsequently made him a murderer ), shouldn't the society be reformed or regulated instead ( that would lead to emerging of less criminals in future. )? However, even if the society decides to reform and regulate itself, I would still want that person to be punished for the murder of my child.

That's a paradox.

As above, of course, but there's no possible way of differentiating these people fairly.

Also, you could follow that train of thought and say why is it the fault of someone with bad genetics either? What does make a person responsible for their crime? Since I, as a middle class student from a good family, with a kind disposition, would never even steal an apple, purely by virtue of my birth lottery, why can we justify putting other people in prison for their bad luck?

If you want to go even further, why reward intelligent people, whilst condemning those lucky enough to get a good education? Both are luck, surely?

Society simply can't function like this. People getting away with things because of their background would be no motivation or deterrent. It is an issue, but it can only be dealt with by addressing the roots of social inequality - everyone has to be equal before the law or you're on a massive slippery slope.

It comes down to what is meaningful about the notion of 'self'. This is a very deep question that I won't attempt to answer.

However, I disagree with the bolded parts. If everyone were to be lucky, then yes, crimes would possibly decrease (although this is not entirely definite). However, if a person was to be unlucky, thus giving them the right to commit a crime freely, they would do it with no hesitation (if they had no morals). This would just start a domino effect imo. People will start to claim that they're unlucky "Oh my parents don't fund me anymore, I need money..", "My parents passed away from old age, I need money.." "My husband died of cancer, I need money.." (the list is endless) and therefore, would commit a crime, possibly stealing or killing someone, just for that economic benefit. The world is definitely not fair, I agree with you on that, but we should not give people who suffer the freedom to do something is immoral. Instead, we should focus (like you've mentioned) on making this world far more better, and equal in terms of society to prevent the outbreak of these unpunishable crimes.

As above, of course, but there's no possible way of differentiating these people fairly.

Also, you could follow that train of thought and say why is it the fault of someone with bad genetics either? What does make a person responsible for their crime? Since I, as a middle class student from a good family, with a kind disposition, would never even steal an apple, purely by virtue of my birth lottery, why can we justify putting other people in prison for their bad luck?

If you want to go even further, why reward intelligent people, whilst condemning those lucky enough to get a good education? Both are luck, surely?

Society simply can't function like this. People getting away with things because of their background would be no motivation or deterrent. It is an issue, but it can only be dealt with by addressing the roots of social inequality - everyone has to be equal before the law or you're on a massive slippery slope.

It comes down to what is meaningful about the notion of 'self'. This is a very deep question that I won't attempt to answer.

I think you misunderstood me - I agree with you. The first bolded part is rhetorical, and the second is badly worded, but says we can't let people get away with things because you would have no motivation to succeed, or deterrent to stop people committing crime.

Awkward.. I couldn't catch the rhetoric in it, my bad haha

Thank you very much. You said the most important thing. That we have to address the root of crimes, and try to solve them. But while doing this ( since we can't do this overnight ), say hypothetically, if someone who has had a life of abuse, poverty, mental illness etc and later turned up into a criminal ( the point to note is that if we can change the factors that made him a criminal, we can change his worldview and behaviour ) and one day killed the parents or children of another person in the society, what is the better thing to do for the society for its own good? Of course, there will be little effect on the society's productivity if he gets imprisoned, but then of course if he becomes a social and functioning person, he could contribute to the society as well ( isn't that the principle of society in the first place? ).

... and if they would not, should we still punish them?

Such as, some criminals might have not commit the crime if they did not have a history of abuse by family members or other members in the society. Or some criminals may have not been able to handle poverty, because of their poor social intelligence which might have been affected by his relationship with other family members? Is it possible that they wouldn't commit the crime if they didn't have such a history? ( Of course, it's never 100% down to the genetic makeup of the criminal, since conditions that negatively affect social relationships and to which they were genetically predisposed can be controlled by altering the environment, at least, to a functioning level. Though it may not be true for some cases. )

And if they wouldn't, how can we conclude that it was the criminal's fault ( since, they might not commit the crime if they had a better family or social or economic life ) and we should punish them?

No problem, I'm not the most gifted speaker. What you said was exactly what I mean - it simply can't work because you need a deterrent.

whilst i agree upbringing can dictate to some degree crime behaviour you cannot live in a modern society and not know that its wrong to mug, assualt, stab someone, rape etc etc etc.

Even if mommy and daddy did see little chav son shank a girl at the age of three and go "ahhhhh thats adorable whose my boy innit" the rest of the world does not think the same.

They know their actions are wrong and upbringing or no yes they should be punished.

and you really want to open that flood gate - never mind the insanity plea, youll get every scrote and scum bag goin "innit blood, me mam didnt lov me ya get me blood." and laugh thier way out of the court as some lefty wishy washy prat just goes "oh pip pip cherrio you poor thing of you go have a cucumber sandwich and a croissant"