Is it a mystery?
“I really think if we can identify the ‘why,’ especially amongst the juveniles, we might be able to change our approach on how to slow this down,” says Carlos Heraud, an assistant chief at the DC police department.
Along with other crime in Washington. D.C., carjackings are up. Why?
Some people choose to be criminals. And some policymakers choose to aid and abet them.
It’s a matter of incentives and disincentives, but also choices and character.
Since different people react differently to being born into poverty — or being disrespected, being peer-pressured, being bored, being fired — we cannot simply say that criminals are created by difficult circumstances.
Most do not become thugs and hoodlums.
Some who make criminal choices pull back and determine to do better. Others commit offenses forever. Chief Heraud and D.C. mayors and lawmakers should heed the insights of Stanton Samenow’s Inside the Criminal Mind. Although criminals make excuses for themselves and latch onto the excuses made for them by others, they know they’re responsible for their actions.
But while circumstances don’t create the criminal mind, circumstances can abet crime. For example, if you make it easier for criminals to get away with assault and theft, they’ll likely commit more assaults and thefts.
The government of our imperial capital makes it hard for potential victims to arm themselves, easy for criminals who are “caught” to walk away. If you’re a criminal operating in a town like that, it’d have to be encouraging to receive by this kind of encouragement?
After all, it’s not a question of bad incentives incentivizing all to be wicked. The effects can be seen on the margin, among those most likely to be induced by corrupt incentives, or to not be dissuaded from criminal action by reduced disincentives.
No great mystery.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with PicFinder.ai
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
3 replies on “Why Criminals Commit Crimes”
For carjacking there is no question if the act is criminal, as well as the fact that it is very serious and dangerous to all, both the victim and the perpetrator.
“Why” is a question at sentencing, not prosecution. Criminality must have consequences, or it is effectively encouraged. Feeling sorry for or understanding of criminals is not an excuse to destroy societies.
What the gentleman refers to as, excuses from others, May in fact be diagnoses by psychologists that child abuse and privation early in life frequently results in brain damage, making an impossible for the adult to regulate her emotions. This causes impulse control problems. For some this would all fall in the category of excuses from others.
Similarly, while it is true that all children who grow up in poverty and child abuse, alcoholism and drug abuse, do not become criminal offenders, they do succumb to other maladies such as suicide and becoming abusers themselves.
In terms of them being responsible for their actions, absolutely. But we can see that as being separate from the exculpatory evidence that affects the sentencing phase of a trial. That is to say, if the defendant who is guilty and responsible also had early childhood development issues which was brain damaging, this might affect the judge’s decision in sentencing.,
If I could pick a rhetorical fallacy here I would just call it the broad brush. Cheers brother!
***The government of our imperial capital makes it hard for potential victims to arm themselves,*** QUOTE
That can be changed.