this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2025
179 points (94.1% liked)
science
19638 readers
936 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No its forced cancerous capitalism!!!
We lost the ability to exile sociopaths from the group and instead allowed them to breed. It's s recent problem.
Exactly. We used to exile or execute them. Modern society is almost tailor made for a sociopath to thrive. They don't have the same kind of internal moral compass that others do, so they don't feel bad when they hurt people. They rely almost exclusively on external deterrents (and incentives). This means harsh sentences and high certainty of detection and conviction. Sadly many people have an ideological aversion to prison, and we're seeing less and less per capita spending on law enforcement and prisons in the West.
The aversion I'm aware of is Punishment vs. Rehabilitation vs. Isolation.
Most crime is a direct result of poverty. Society should do it's best to make sure we don't have to weigh the moralality of stealing something you or your family need in order to survive and live a life of dignity. Those things should be provided.
Right now we basically just let those in poverty suffer and punish any of them that extract wealth from others (more accurately those not in poverty) in an "uncivilized" manner (stealing)... while simultaneously revering those who extract wealth from others in a "civilized" manner (wage theft, poverty wages, fraud, deceptive marketing, rent seeking, anticompetitive practices, frivolous lawsuits, etc).
Genuine dangers to society do need to be isolated. However, it's important to at least try rehabilitation and addressing their needs before determining that someone is a genuine danger to society.
There is also the free will argument - arguing that people are who they are, free will is an illusion, and punishment is pointless - but it honestly just comes to the same general conclusions. If you can modify the behavior of a person so that they are able to coexist in society then work to do so. If rehabilitation is not possible, keep the public safe from that person and deal with that person as humanely as possible.
This is not correct. There is a correlation but no evidence of directionality. It could be that crime causes poverty, or that third correlates cause both. Sweden saw a massive rise in crime following the large migration of Middle Eastern refugees following the 2015 Syrian Refugee Crisis, and they decided to study it. Translation below:
https://bra.se/rapporter/arkiv/2023-03-01-socioekonomisk-bakgrund-och-brott
They found that cultural factors were far more correlated with criminality than socioeconomic status. This is corroborated by the fact that white collar crime remains so prevalent. If poverty caused crime, white collar crime would be almost non-existent, but it is prolific. It turns out that some people are just greedy. Or mean. Or violent. Or selfish. Or don't care about how their actions might harm others. Sociopaths in particular exhibit all of these antisocial behaviour. They are unable to feel genuine remorse for hurting others, and no amount of money you give to them will ever change that.
I don't speak Swedish and it appears that the full report is only available in Swedish.
From the end of their English summary:
I also don't trust an automated translation to accurately convey a full report and any nuance it may contain. It sounds like they are analyzing socioeconomic background and not socioeconomic status, is that correct?
There is a substantial difference between "I grew up poor" and "I'm currently unable to afford a dignified life." Yes, statistically you are more likely to continue to be poor, but you background does not define your current status.
I stated: Most crime is a direct result of poverty.
I'm not arguing that crime is the direct result of growing up in poverty. I'm arguing that the goal of most crime (and I'm focusing specifically on what you might call "economic crime") is the manifestation of someone's need or desire for something that someone not living paycheck to paycheck would take for granted.
We've got a good balance of socialism and capitalism here in Denmark. There are strengths and weaknesses of both. This is why modern societies have some combination of the two. Societies which try to go all in on any one ideology like communism tend to collapse.
Nordic model lets goo!
Capitalism doesn't have to be anti-collective. Under a working legal system, the "Tragedy of the Commons" can be stopped. No country has pure capitalism. Everywhere regulates it. Yes, some of it falls to regulatory capture, but not all, and that waxes and wanes.
Thank you, comrade.
Of course always happy to counter the cancerous capitalism crap.
A fellowship you say ? You have my Axe !