Do you think what we consider the rise in crime could be ascribed to...?

Question

... the lack ofoutlets for sociopaths? In previous centuries, if you had an urge to harm others, you could join the crusades or the inquisition. You could be a mercenary. In the old west, there was a market for Indian scalps to disuade attacks upon villages, so the government paid people to commit acts of horrific brutality. Executions were far more frequent and brutal, so you could be an executioner. There were "socially acceptable" ways of being a bloodthirsy ******. Like the KKK... these idiots could go brutalize people by night and then go sit on the board of Deacons every Sunday without fear of prosecution. Our crime numbers went up when we began criminalizing activities that used to be "acceptable." For instance, 150 years ago, an incident like the My Lai massacre would not have been given mention. It would have been seen as just a part of war. Local law enforcement, too, is now expected to adhere to strict ethical codes, whereas in the last century they could take

great liberties with the treatment of criminals, thus giving them an acceptable outlet for hostility. For instance, a sherif in NJ once turned the hide of a murderer into wallets and key fobs and sold them as souveneirs. So, are our higher standards of acceptable human behaviour, in effect, responsible for the rise in violent criminal activity?

Gee Wam,an, sex crimes are "on the rise," but they didn't used to be reported because of the stigma. I had an older friend tell me that her father taught her "any woman can prevent a rape by crossing her legs and holding a hat pin." Seriously. What chance would a rape victim have in a society that taught such foolishness?

Answer 1

I think there is something to that. We have a lot of crime and violence today but it's just different kinds of crime and violence than in past years. In the past there was a lot more institutionalized crime which was considered part of life.

Someone might fondly remember the Gentile South and it's honorly ways, but there was the huge institutional violence of slavery! What could be a more widespread crime than that?

In later years, during the industrial revolution, we might have had low murder or robbery rates but what about the huge institutional crimes of underpaying and overworking people in factories and mines so that they died in their 40s? What about crimes against Native Americans? Child labor? People made a lot of money from exploitation of others - is that that much different than armed robbery?

And I'm not implying that institutionalized crime doesn't exist today - far from it. But I think we have to take it into consideration when we think about the overall moralilty of a era.

"Fuzzy Tail" is abolutely right about what he/she says, too. Crime reporting is a big variable. I remember reading about how during the Communist regime in the USSR, they didn't report ANY murders in Moscow for years at a time - they wanted crime statistics to show off how idyllic their system was. So you had two things going on - non-reporting of crime and widespread oppression of the people - while the state was advertising that it was nearly crime-free!

Answer 2

I think your underlying point is demonstrated by the fact that you list all these horrific things we USED to see commonplace but that have been discontinued and then continue to claim that crime rates have risen (or express that common belief).

Our definition of crime is the problem. Things are far better now than they have ever been. You cannot take an honest look at history and continue to claim we are more violent or less civilized than we have been in the past - that things are going downhill. It is a complete fallacy. You can't pull out the list you just posted and continue to say our crime rates have risen.

For example, naysayers who point to how "horrible" our world is now and claim it is proof of the beginning of the end have no real perspective on our history.

Answer 3

I'm not sure that there are as many sociopaths in our culture as your theory might imply.

First of all-is there an actual rise in crime? Or are we much more aware of crime now that we have hundreds of news sources that are readily accessible 24 hours a day seven days a week? When people are killed-it is reported-the violent acts of individuals are MUCh more highly publicized than mass acts of violence like the genocide in the Sudan.

People in the U.S. like me know more details about Jeffrey Dahmer and Charles Mansons killings than we do all of the mass executions in Africa-Zimbabwe is hell on earth-but we aren't going to hear about it-instead we have every news channel in the West reporting about an armed robbery by an ex-american football player. Sad but true.

Culture also seems to condone violence as a viable solution to problems even now in the 21st century-note the unjust illegal war in Iraq.

All of the violence we witness that is "pretend" is also a constant. Wrestling, NFL, television shows, movies, video games-not the cause of violence by any means-but it desensitized us to acts of brutality because we are more apt to think of it as make believe. Few of us have witnessed a murder scene-but many of us have seen them portrayed multiple times a week on television.

So I don't know if there are more crimes-or sociopaths-perhaps a greater number of people who are unwilling to take the time necessary to resolve a conflict by means of actual thought and dialogue-our fearless and clueless president isn't setting a good example for the children-and by supporting the tv shows that I watch with my wife-perhaps we aren't either.

Complex issue for sure-great question.

Peace,
Dwight

Answer 4

I would also say that it's partly because now there is such a flow of information, that we see more of what are now unacceptable attrocities.

I would at least give part of the blame to numbness. I don't even watch the news anymore because they are all about "shock value." After a while, it's not shocking. It's pretty average. And depressingly so...

Answer 5

I think you're on to something. More accurately IMHO, crime went up when we started counting all crimes as crimes. In the 1800s, if you killed a non-white person, that wasn't registered as a crime. Up until the 1960s, the LAPD didn't even investigate murders where minorities were the victims.

Around 1960, we started counting all crimes as such, and suddenly the numbers spiked. Go figure.

Answer 6

violent crime has actually been on a decrease for the past two decades, but we are much more exposed to news coverage of it these days.

But certainly there are plenty of crimes that were ignored back in the good old days; in the late 1800s rural police were all but non-existent, and there was a significant amount of crimes, vigilante "justice" and even blood feds - even when we had more "Christian moorings".

Answer 7

If terrorism is considered a mass crime, then it is due to religious and political fanatism. Sex crimes are also in the increase, that may be due to liberalized life style.

Answer 8

Dah, if only law imputes sin(crime) and makes sinners(criminals), then adding more law makes more crime.

GWB's rod of iron rule of law? How does it function?
Crime has notably increased, at home and abroad!

Eg: Texass has the most law, and the most criminals(jails).
USA has most laws, most violence & most violent weather.

One Proselyte: twofold: more the CHILD of hell(law): Mt 23.
If Israel the child of hell, then USA is "more the child" of hell.

Thank God the word "worst" does not occur in the NT,
and "worse" case scenario ends grace us for you all.

The GRACE of our Lord Jesus Christ with you all. Amen.

Answer 9

everything is the same , but in a modern way nowadays.
for instance' the crusades'

Answer 10

You know how the game works.