CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Psychopathy was what I had in mind. Philosophers have pondered for years whether or not man is intrinsically good or evil. I do not agree with any of them, except in the cases dealing with psychopathy. I believe that they are neither good nor bad, their upbringing will dictate which they become.
I know, but that's not what he said. He said one does not have to be taught to be a criminal. If one is never taught, they will act as criminals without knowing, steeling and rape (men only) mostly since those are instinct, there seems to be no murder instinct outside of the psychopathy you stated mixed with some history of abuse. Though I suppose it is possible that some would simply murder from instinct, I've never met one raised by wolves or whatever situation would be necessary for one to have not been taught criminality in some form or another so it is pretty hard to say. I am comfortable saying though that one would indeed take say a loaf of bread from a store without paying when hungry, if they were never taught such behaviour were wrong.
Again though, pscychopathy is not the point. Criminality is.
Terminator: A detailed knowledge of 'mental illness and the law' may convince you otherwise.
Lawnman: Therein you shall find ample evidence that is contrary to your baseless ad hominem accusation.
Terminator: My claim was not baseless. My claim was based on several years of study involving subjects such as law, criminology, psychology, and philosophy.
Was I a subject of your study, and therefore you definitively know the details of my knowledge?
You said that my claim was baseless. While I do not know what you know I do know what I know. I know what the law and various other subjects say about criminals and mental illness. That's pretty much what it is, if a child is a criminal it is either a complete lack of understanding (if they are smart enough to commit the crime, they are probably smart enough to realize that it is a crime) or a mental illness. A prime example of such a mental illness is psychopathy.
I was simply implying that, based on my knowledge of mental illness, criminology, linguistics, and law, a person is not born a criminal but rather becomes one. By the time they reach a certain age, even a young age, they may become criminals - but, depending on their upbringing, that is possibly the result of mental illness.
I did not call into question your knowledge of those fields. What I responded to was your presumption of my knowledge, or lack thereof. Hence your accusation which is directed at me is baseless.
If one is unaware of laws, it is impossible to break them. If an infant kills his mother it is not a crime at all, simply a baby doing something. In this case something bad.
Therefore one must first be taught what laws are in order for them to be considered criminal upon breaking them.
So one can be born with another's subjective view of immorality, but one cannot be born with another's objective view of criminality. Counter intuitive as that seems.
Is there a reason a child would not be held accountable?
My understanding is that a child cannot understand laws, therefore it's the parent's responsibility. It may be because we think kids are cute... but I'm pretty sure lack of knowledge is the reason we don't hold them responsible.
So that would lead one to believe laws are subjective to one's own understanding of laws. Are laws subjective? Or is the law the law regardless?
Is one who gets away with a crime still a criminal? Or does one have to be prosecuted before one could be called a criminal?
A child would not be held accountable because he is not expected to be able to comprehend the law or even his own actions.
I read about a six year old who shot her classmate. Her father was arrested for having left the firearm within reach of his daughter.
The law is the law - regardless of who breaks it or why. If you steal something, you get the punishment for thievery. Whether you did it for fun or to stave of hunger.
If he is acquitted he is no longer a 'criminal'. There probably wasn't enough evidence to convict.
Does he have to be prosecuted before being labelled a 'criminal'?
I'd say so. I usually think of them as 'criminals' but the proper term would be 'alleged criminal'.
Well, I've already been through this twice with two other people in this debate, but I guess I'll do it again.
If lack of knowledge means one cannot be guilty of any criminal act, can one say, convict one of murder if they didn't know murder was illegal?
If you say they cannot than I accept your arguement. If you say that one can be put in jail for murdering someone when they do not know murder is wrong, then you are incorrect by your own admission.
Leave it to me to approach a question from an un-common perspective. I am glad you are willing to “play”; I presume both of us have a pocket full of quarters. :)
First and foremost I understand the term ‘criminal’ is an accusation. The accusation may be valid according to written law, but that doesn’t mean that the law itself is not criminal, nor does it mean it is criminal. For indeed a society of cannibals may, by its written moral laws, incriminate any person who refuses to consume human flesh during a High-Holy day; yet in another society the refusal to consume human flesh is in agreement with written moral law.
In an effort to forego the subjectivity of written moral law… which law shall we reference in answer to this debate as a universally accepted and objective law?
First though, you are right we would have to agree on some Universal Law, which I do not believe exists, just to broach it in a meaningful way. Otherwise it is just a simple question of how one defines a criminal. If a criminal is anyone who breaks a set of subjective laws then we are all born criminals and learn not to be criminals (which would just make us all criminals pretending not to be). If it is a question of being caught breaking the law as Terminator defines it, then the person is taken out of the equation completely and the answer depends on a set of circumstances everything from "born bad" to a saint being framed. The definitions could go on and on, you could define one who has ever thought of a crime as a potential criminal and say potential = inherent ability to become therefore they were either born or made etc etc etc and again it depends on what is or is not a crime.
So unless you can come up with a Universal Law or Truth, or whatever captures the essence of the question it really is a debate about limbo.
I've given it some thought, and I cannot define a law which in some circumstance or society could not be justified outside of a "perverse" action of any type with no prior knowledge, reason, or gain from the act. I don't know that this is possible in the real world. From the most heinous to the most menial, all things in the real world can at least be traced in theory to some reaction or intent, and therefore possibly defined in this sense as non-criminal. If there is no "pure" (for lack of a better word) criminal act then ultimately all we have is the subjective definition of criminality, which again leads to an individual's basically meaningless opinion.
So if you would like to further the debate, we could literally name any act and pretend it is Universally criminal for the sake of argument.
So let's say that honking one's horn the very second the light turns green is Universally criminal. Less morbid, and more annoying than murder. It also is less offensive when one or the other of us inevitably defends murder, instead we may defend honking the horn.
It also is less offensive when one or the other of us inevitably defends murder,…
Funny! And yes I agree and understand why you have suggested the same; horn-honking it is. (Our debates should be rated: RA-Rational adults only.) Let’s proceed.
According to my understanding of your argument, I completely agree. Clearly, you are familiar with the difficulties I too recognize. Consequently I am pleased to know that you recognize the crux of the question, i.e., “So unless you can come up with a Universal Law or Truth, or whatever captures the essence of the question it really is a debate about limbo.”
I’ll give it a honk.
Simplified, regardless the terms of written law, there is one law that rules them all, (The Prreecious:) : All men seek to live in peace among others, despite how many or few that may be and what is necessary to secure peace, be it subjective or objective.
Obviously we ought to now debate that assertion if you disagree. (It is the axiom of my argument.)
people wish to be at peace with themselves, which may mean war against other men. Also peace can become insipid, active men may want passion. Peace with others when you yourself are not at peace will lead to tension at least; doing something you dislike for the benefit/peace of the group is something many find distasteful.
It could easily be argued that regardless of an individual's actions, they are looking out for their own best interest, and this can in any and all circumstances be called pursuit of one sort of peace or another. Criminality, when set as the antithesis of peace, would then also have to be a Universal opposite not existent in man because obviously two opposite Absolutes cannot exist in a single individual or even group of individuals at the same time. It would be like saying 1+1 definitely equals 2 and cannot equal anything else, and 1+1 definitely equals 3 and cannot equal anything else.
This is not even dependent on a definition of peace. Regardless that two people can and most likely do have two ultimately separate definitions of the word, unlike other self-defining things like say love or hate, I can argue forever that peace is impossible, but I cannot argue it is self-defining, that is it's definition is dependent on an intelligent point of view. Because of course one would simply argue without any "intelligent" (better word would be aware) point of view in all the Universe peace could very well exist. I would go so far as to say that is the only time it may exist in reality. Still though, I cannot argue that peace is not real. So a particular person's definition of peace has no bearing whatsoever on the argument.
The only counter argument one can make against this logic, is to look at it again from the opposite perspective.
"All men seek to live in chaos among others, despite how many or few that may be and what is necessary to secure chaos, be it subjective or objective."
If this could be proven in the same way your original thought could be proven, then it could be said that your argument does not work, because again two mutually exclusive absolutes cannot coexist.
So do people strive for peace, or for chaos?
I don't know, and I imagine that it is impossible to say. Upon birth what is in the mind of a human? If they are willing to take in spite of others then they are born criminals, into chaos I'd say. If the goal is not to take from others, but only to be at peace with oneself, then indeed they are seeking peace.
Granted none of this is so thought out, but the actions do not lie. Would an infant drain mother's milk and leave his twin wanting? f course. Does the infant know they are doing it? No.
Well then how can you call it criminal, peaceful, chaotic, innocent, or anything.
Maybe it simply is.
This is the only conclusion than that I can support, and it is a complete non-point.
Criminality does not exist. It is the result of human misinterpretation of our own actions. It is essential to our continued existence that we define this thing that does not exist, but it still is only a figment of our collective imagination.
We are not born criminals, we are not made criminals, we are not made or born innocent. My original tag of "Both" failed to see the intricacy of the subject completely and was caught up in simple contrary definitions that did not get to the heart of the issue.
I believe the real answer is "Neither."
I have a feeling you would agree, but I'm interested if you have a rebuttal.
It could easily be argued that regardless of an individual's actions, they are looking out for their own best interest, and this can in any and all circumstances be called pursuit of one sort of peace or another.
Agreed.
Criminality, when set as the antithesis of peace, would then also have to be a Universal opposite not existent in man because obviously two opposite Absolutes cannot exist in a single individual or even group of individuals at the same time.
Agreed, however, if we agree that “all men seek peace”, we cannot infer that men who seek peace are peaceful. Peace is not the antithesis of criminality. Peace is the antithesis of war. It is also a consequent of a pursuit, and the pursuit of it can be criminal. And I think we can agree that all criminals seek peace as a consequence of crime, and they who seek peace by crime are not peaceful, but they certainly seek peace.
All men seek peace, but their efforts to obtain peace are not peaceful. And if their efforts to obtain peace are criminal, they still seek peace; all of which evidencing they are not peaceful.
Note: before we continue I concede the point we are not inherently criminals or not-criminals, it does however seem apparent that we are judged as criminals before we have committed our first crime or first act in pursuit of peace. For why else have our parents taught us to obey laws of another man’s pursuit of peace. Hath not our obedience been “beat” into us? In essence we have been taught to live peaceably among others’ yet, without that teaching, it is assumed we will live in war with our fellow man.
Peace is not the antithesis of criminality. Peace is the antithesis of war.
This is my fault, I cannot look at my argument from here, but I must have misspoke.
Chaos would be the antithesis of peace. Criminality can be said to breed chaos regardless of intent (as could peace by your example of war as a means to peace - hence pursuit of peace breeding chaos, but not peace itself breeding chaos, since that would be impossible). Therefore, yes, pursuit of peace can and does breed criminality. In fact you go so far as to say criminality is the result of one pursuing peace, that one can only pursue peace - perhaps this is true, the evidence seems solid and I cannot argue the mind of others. I believe it is possible in theory that one not pursue peace even in one's self, however I do not think this exists in the real world, so I will accept it. Case dropped, I believe we've come to agreement here.
I still take issue with your tag :) Here's why:
If people were born not-criminals, then they would not honk their horn behind a light that had just turned green ever.
If people were born criminal they would honk their horn behind a light that had just turned green every time.
Neither is true. Circumstance then must play a role in the specific actions at a specific time.
If it is circumstantial, then it is not Universal for an individual.
If it is not Universal for a person one cannot make a Universal assessment of a person such as "born" or "made." It does not matter that one can make up a Universal criminal act, that is only half of the equation.
This is impossible. If one is born a criminal, then that is what they are, regardless of actions.
If they are made criminal then that is what they are, regardless of actions.
This coincides with your argument, specifically your last paragraph. It almost seems I'm in agreement from that perspective.
But I was born a human, I cannot simply walk around on all fours barking and call myself a dog. Perception does not change what one is. Circumstance cannot change what one is. If circumstance is essential to the development of what one calls an individual, then they are mistakenly referring to the individual when it is the act they are addressing - there I believe I finally came to the essence of my argument.
Terminator calls any caught in a criminal act, criminal. It is not the person, it is the act. You make a much deeper argument that everyone is born in such a state regardless that the intent is peace. And you defend it valiantly.
But I cannot buy it. We are neither, what we do defines perception not fact.
That said, in spite of it's non-existence, you are correct that we are judged as such from birth. Great observation by the way.
Predicated upon our individual premises and conclusions evidenced in this discourse, I affirm both views are valid. And given the limitations of CD’s format I think our discourse has reached a natural termination. (I think we both were trying to avoid a thesis-length argument on this question.)
Perhaps a debate on the definition of ‘criminal’ would have been more fruitful and less difficult to address. I should have recognized the difficulties that the question failed to overlook.
(As though there is a universal agreement on the essence of “criminal”.)
They are born to do so.Each persons are born with a special different thing.For some people they are born to be criminals
If that's the case then I should be in real trouble. My mother and father have had run-ins with the law, my mother especially. My extended family has at least one sociopath, at least one gangmember, and many vultures.
you say-"I think that criminals are made, they might have a streak of bad when they are born " doent it mean that they are born bad?? if they are born bad, then they are criminals!!!
As a biologist, I don't believe there are too many traits that a human being can possess that are purely genetic or purely from the environment. I believe criminal tendencies could have a small basis in the genetic code of the individuals, but the environment in which they are raised is what makes them act the way they do. The good news is that our futures are not determined by our genes. It is completely possible to overcome our genetic disadvantages.
First a person feels a lack, then when that lack is felt a need is born. The person tries to find an essence to fill that need, whatever fills the void at the time whether it be good or bad it makes the person feel satified and fulfilled. Therefore if bad a criminal is made.
This type of debate is poorly worded. It isn't really a matter of clear distinction between "born" implying genetics or "made" implying behaviours.
At the most rudimentary level our personalities are a combination of biochemical pathways and ion cascades. These exist because the required proteins and enzymes are held within genes. So it can be said that all our personalities are born into us because our genes are inherited by our parents. But it isn't that simple, because genes have specific expression requirements. This is where the environment is crucial.
So the real answer is that yes, all criminal behaviour is genetic, and even worse certain criminal behaviours or disorders leading towards criminal behaviour seem to be especially inherited and not simply related to common genes. However, the environment is the other half which will either cause those genes to remain dormant, or activate them for expression, leading to the ultimate criminal behaviours.
So it isn't a black and white issue. Criminals are a combination of both.
The majority of criminals become criminals as a result of their upbringing. Gangs, abusive parents, poverty - these can all lead to crimes varying from vandalism to mass murder.
The minority of criminals are born that way. They are psychopaths, mainly. They can kill unremorsefully, but most never commit a crime in their life. They are the ideal serial killer because they can kill without regret. Their superior intelligence and mastery of manipulation can lead to them never being apprehended. If they are caught, it will be after they've killed many times more victims than the average serial killer.
The minority of criminals are born that way. They are psychopaths, mainly. They can kill unremorsefully, but most never commit a crime in their life. They are the ideal serial killer because they can kill without regret. Their superior intelligence and mastery of manipulation can lead to them never being apprehended. If they are caught, it will be after they've killed many times more victims than the average serial killer.
Psychopathy (Dissociative Personality Disorder and related) applies to both the retarded and very intelligent, with little middle ground. However, the disorder doesn't make these people automatically cool-heated and in control, this is an exception. The majority of people you and I call sociopaths and psychopaths are hot-tempered, and get into trouble because of a lack of patience and seeming inability to be successful.
Hollywood likes to portray them as collected, however, but just remember that this is a very rare exception.
applies to both the retarded and very intelligent, with little middle ground.
Ed Gein could be considered a retarded psychopath, but I believe him to be a sociopath. It is more likely for psychopathic criminals (serial killers, not sure about others) to have a high IQ than a low IQ.
The majority of people you and I call sociopaths and psychopaths are hot-tempered
Speak for yourself! I correct almost everybody when they incorrectly refer to somebody as a psychopath.
I for one know the difference between a psychopath and a sociopath, plus I also know various other psychological factors.
Hollywood likes to portray them as collected, however, but just remember that this is a very rare exception.
I realize that. I am, however, collected. However, being an INTJ predispositions me for some form of collected attitude.
Speak for yourself! I correct almost everybody when they incorrectly refer to somebody as a psychopath.
I for one know the difference between a psychopath and a sociopath, plus I also know various other psychological factors.
The difference is a case of evolving jargon. Depending on the decade, psychologists referred to a similar group of people with a disorder that prevented them from feeling emotions, or reduced emotions, along with a tendency towards shallowness and manipulation, as sociopaths and psychopaths before the Dissociative Personality Disorder term caught on. Now that we know more, those two terms aren't used in the field and were replaced by more narrow terminologies.
I realize that. I am, however, collected. However, being an INTJ predispositions me for some form of collected attitude.
I'm not talking about you. I'd peg you as someone who read the definitions and fit himself into one of these disorders, when you don't actually qualify. You're more of a Narcissist.
I only meant to allude to myself. I do not wholly believe myself to be a psychopath, but I do have some psychopathic tendencies. However, those tendencies are also compatible with various other psychological and sociological predispositions.
Now that we know more, those two terms aren't used in the field
Not used anymore? Ever hear of the book 'Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work'? It is a fairly recent book, written by a psychologist. He uses the term 'psychopath', as do most other psychologists I've read.
You're more of a Narcissist.
Neither am I wholly convinced that I am a narcissist. I do not seek attention - I am quite the recluse.
Not used anymore? Ever hear of the book 'Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work'? It is a fairly recent book, written by a psychologist. He uses the term 'psychopath', as do most other psychologists I've read.
The literature uses Dissociative Personality Disorder, and variants like Antisocial Personality Disorder. Psychopath and Sociopath are old words that have fallen out of usage in the technical literature. I'm not referring to secondary literature like books, but the journals that the psychologists themselves publish research.
I only meant to allude to myself. I do not wholly believe myself to be a psychopath, but I do have some psychopathic tendencies. However, those tendencies are also compatible with various other psychological and sociological predispositions.
You are or you aren't. If you didn't set fires as a child, did not act cruel to animals, weren't a compulsive liar or truant, you aren't a psychopath as these are some of the important checklist signs. Some of the other signs are bedwetting, sexual promiscuity, and aggression towards peers. All of this happens in youth.
Cruelty to animals? To what extent? I was downright mean to my pets, and I hunted for snakes to cut up (never found any, though).
As in killing your pets, setting them on fire, cutting into them, strangling them and so on. Also, I mean birds and mammals especially. It's harder for people to empathise with reptiles and fish.
Bedwetting? Yup.
Aggression? Yup.
Bedwetting until later in your childhood. For example, if you wet the bed at 10 years old.
Aggression as in bullying and constantly intimidating or starting fights with your peers.
Do not misinterpret me. I am not proud of this, I simply make light of it. I know not what I am - I have a number of the traits associated with psychopaths - but that does not make me one. It could simply be my personality type - INTJ. I do not want to be a psychopath, nor am I convinced that I am. I use it for humor, while still never forgetting the serious possibility that I am afflicted by psychopathy. You do not know what it would feel like to even be of the belief that you are what most would consider a monster.
About promiscuity: None of your business means none of your business! I am most likely one of the most private persons you'd ever meet on here. I do not give out details; I've never even given my first name.
Do not misinterpret me. I am not proud of this, I simply make light of it. I know not what I am - I have a number of the traits associated with psychopaths
Many of us do.
I do not want to be a psychopath, nor am I convinced that I am. I use it for humor, while still never forgetting the serious possibility that I am afflicted by psychopathy.
You either are or you aren't. If you feel an emotion, you're not a psychopath. You don't meet the basic list either. I suspect that you're a narcissist, also suggestible, which is why you read yourself into psychopathy.
You do not know what it would feel like to even be of the belief that you are what most would consider a monster.
Of course I do, but that's another story.
About promiscuity: None of your business means none of your business! I am most likely one of the most private persons you'd ever meet on here. I do not give out details; I've never even given my first name.
You gave out details when you said "none of your business." Given your written personality it affirms that your image of valid sex is a private, respected affair. Promiscuous people treat sex while anonymous as conquests, especially narcissists.
Bedwetting: As I recall I was about ten.
Probably could indicate another psychological issue, which I'd rather not raise here.
They are made cool because they choose to go on the wrong path themselves you can be born with a parent teaching you the right thing then when you are on your own drugs,sex the streets can mess up your head then you choose to murder.
I think that criminals are made, they might have a streak of bad when they are born but its the community they grow up in which makes them into criminals
you can become a criminal by what you learn, and grow up in.
just like, if you grow up in an abusive environment, you'd be more likely to abuse others, it is more likely that if they grow up learning crime, and abuse, and in a broken home with alcoholism and drugs, they'll grow up to live in a similar environment, but that isn't always the case.
not all people who are criminals are made that way,
they can just grow up to be a criminal.
i don't think a child is a criminal when they're born, because infants can't think for themselves.
even if they have a good home life, it doesn't mean they'll end up a law abiding citizen.
I won't bother writing a massive epic that takes 5 minutes to read. I'd just like to say that I agree with the arguments on this side of the debate. people probably can be born criminals, but it's the environment they grew up in that really makes the difference.
First, they start killing/torturing small animals.
Second, have odd/sexual thoughts about their own mother.
Third, their first murder is committed.
It is sort of a long process they usually don't became a Criminal or Murderer till adulthood.
I believe until the age of 6-8 a child fully understands the difference for right and wrong. Therfor they are not liable for whatever they do until then. Their parents should have taught them while young.
We are all products of our environment. I think it comes down to the individuals way of thinking. Our minds are very powerful. Mostly, it is the weak minded who adopts criminalistic tactics. Don't get me wrong though. Individuals with a sound way of thinking can also partake in criminal activities. Society is a huge contributor in the development of ones mind. This is why I say society/environment plays a big role if one becomes a criminal or not. We still have a choice though. Will I go through with this, or not? It's the choice of the individual.
Look no one can be born with a "killer" trait. Sure they can be born angry, selfish, stone-hearted but those things only help. Those traits together don't create a murderer. Murderers become killers because of stuff like parents, bullying, raping, government etc.
Criminals are made from being raised by single mothers. 70% of prison inmates were raised by single feminist mothers who are so confident that they don't need a man.
Criminals are made from being raised by single mothers. 70% of prison inmates were raised by single feminist mothers who are so confident that they don't need a man.
So by your reasoning, a century ago there shouldn't have been prisons because all (the vast majority of) mothers were married.
I like how you presume to intimately know the mindset and intentions of an entire demographic with one sweeping, callous, incorrect generalization.
While your conclusion is flawed, that statistic is more or less correct. Although the studies I found referred to single parent homes, not specifically single mother homes, the majority of them are probably single mother homes as single father homes are relatively uncommon.
However, I believe the gender of a parent in a single parent home is irrelevant when it comes to this; at an age when an infant is learning to empathize and connect with other humans, a single parent is probably working very hard to pay the bills and may not be around to offer as much attention as they want. There is a link between sociopath behavior and early childhood neglect, as a part of their brain simply may not develop correctly when they do not have the opportunity to physically and emotionally bond when they need it.
In addition, a child of a single parent home that is struggling economically faces other obvious disadvantages that have little to do with gender. Single parent homes are likely to be poorer than two parent homes, so that is the correlation there.
Children of single parent homes are at risk for many problems, criminal behaviour included, no matter which parent is missing. The fact that single mother homes are far more common gives the false impression of being the cause, rather than a co-occurrence.
