Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Belindi]

I cannot remember what Idid write but I ought to have written all we know of causes are constant correlations. . . . Same as for simple causal chains, we never see a thing called a cause. All we can see are constant correlations.

You're sounding like Hume.

There is an answer to his observations re: causation, but that is another thread.

The problem with your constant correlations is that they are not constant. You can only say that X is a cause of Y when Y always follows Y. If I touch a lighted match to a pile of dry tinder, it will always catch fire; we can say the lighted match was the cause of the fire. But there is no X from which crime always follows. There is not even an X from which crime usually follows. All you have is a somewhat higher frequency of crime among the less educated, less wealthy, etc. But educated, wealthy persons also commit crimes, and most poor, uneducated people don't. Hence those factors cannot be causes of crimes.

Cultures of criminality are caused by poor educations which either limit life choices, or are white collar crimes committed by the wealthy whose educations lacked the human breadth that would have cultivated ordinary human sympathy..

Now, now. "Lacked human breath"? What is your evidence for that? That is clearly an ad hoc excuse for the many counterexamples to the "poor, uneducated" theory.

We need to stop thinking of criminal behaviors as somehow "special" and in need of special, causal explanations. They are atypical, but so are most other human behaviors. Some people learn to play the piano; most don't. Some people love skiiing; most don't. Some people work crossword puzzles; most don't. Some people rob banks or rape women; most don't. It makes no more sense to ask for the "causes" of bank-robbing than to ask for the causes of piano-playing.

All sceptical empiricists agree with Hume's constant correlation claim.

Criminality, unlike playing the piano, is not a skill. Criminality is caused by the sort of world view that sets people apart in subcultures.Subcultures may become respectable when the members become powerful enough.A simple example, in the national news the day before yesterday, is of the house parties and street parties organised despite national lock down which the majority observe.The local police who had to deal with these people explained they were people who had "chaotic lifestyles". Chaotic lifestyles have causes and the illicit assemblies are evidence of their cultural organisation.

At the affluent end of the social scale we saw how a very rich man hired a private jet and helicopters to take a large house party from England the South of France, and how the aeroplane and its passengers was denied landing rights by French police and had to return to England.

You may call these people simply bad people and that's an end to it. However nothing is uncaused and the only possible explanation for such blatant antisocial behaviour is stupidity at least partly caused by ignorance. All people are selfish however people who have learned discretion, stoicism, facts,empathy, and sound judgement agree to abide by good laws. That is the nature of society.

Now, now. "Lacked human breath"? What is your evidence for that? That is clearly an ad hoc excuse for the many counterexamples to the "poor, uneducated" theory.

It's no excuse. I don't excuse criminals. I have worked as a teacher and I know there are educationists who have traced the reasons for failing at school, and the effects of politics on curriculums. Some politicians will not adequately finance education in humanities(how many scientists are taught history and philosophy of science?): other politicians take the longer view and want as many citizens as possible to be an informed electorate.

[GE Morton]

All sceptical empiricists agree with Hume's constant correlation claim.

As I said, that is another thread, but there is a "necessary connection" between causes and effects that didn't occur to Hume.

Criminality, unlike playing the piano, is not a skill.

Oh, but some of it requires considerable skills --- most financial crimes and computer crimes, for example. But that is beside the point, which was that we don't try to find "causes" for any of the infinitely many other human behaviors, most of which require no more skills than mugging someone. What is the "cause" of movie-going? Bowling? Mountain climbing? Gardening? Posting on philosophy forums?

Criminality is caused by the sort of world view that sets people apart in subcultures.

Well, any world view that does not recognize subcultures is myopic. They are quite real, endemic and inevitable in any pluralistic society --- by definition. Modern, civilized societies are not "big happy families," not tribes, "teams," or giant communes. They are randomly-assembled groups of unrelated, independent, autonomous individuals who happen, by accident of birth, to occupy a common territory. They have no shared personal histories, no natural bonds, no common goals or interests or desires or beliefs. It is not any world view that sets people apart; they arrive in the world separately, live separate lives, and leave it separately. They are apart from the moment of birth. The fact that they are apart is what gives rise to different world views, not the other way around. If being apart, or perceived to be, was the "cause" of criminal behavior we'd all we criminals.

You may call these people simply bad people and that's an end to it. However nothing is uncaused and the only possible explanation for such blatant antisocial behaviour is stupidity at least partly caused by ignorance.

Well, first, it is not clear that nothing is uncaused. That is (as you previously admitted) an article of faith among determinists, not a confirmed fact. But even if nothing is uncaused we're not entitled to claim that X is the cause of Y unless, as I said before, X inevitably precedes Y, and Y does not occur in the absence of X (or some other cause; many phenomena have more than one cause). There is no criminal behavior that satisfies that condition; nor does any other human behavior.

Ignorance doesn't work as a cause either. The scofflaws you described are not ignorant of the risks posed by their behavior; they watch teevee aand read newspapers too. They just don't care about them.

All people are selfish however people who have learned discretion, stoicism, facts,empathy, and sound judgement agree to abide by good laws. That is the nature of society.

Unfortunately, the "nature of society" --- modern, civilized societies, at any rate --- is that it includes people who lack empathy or whose empathy is selective, are indiscreet, and are hedonists, not stoics. It includes saints and sinners, angels and devils, conformists and rebels, the pious and profane, egoists and altruists, all of which, along with countless other differences, lead to different behaviors. Seeking the causes of any of those behaviors is a Quixotic task, and any cause alleged will be quickly refuted with counterexamples.

Now, now. "Lacked human breath"? What is your evidence for that? That is clearly an ad hoc excuse for the many counterexamples to the "poor, uneducated" theory.

It's no excuse. I don't excuse criminals.

I didn't accuse you of excusing criminals. The "lacked human breadth" is an excuse for the obvious counterexamples to your "poor, uneducated" thesis.

I have worked as a teacher and I know there are educationists who have traced the reasons for failing at school, and the effects of politics on curriculums. Some politicians will not adequately finance education in humanities(how many scientists are taught history and philosophy of science?): other politicians take the longer view and want as many citizens as possible to be an informed electorate.

Well, the philosophy of education is yet another subject. But there will never be an informed electorate, simply because becoming informed requires a desire to be informed and a willingness to invest the time and efforts required. Most people have higher priorities; they remain "rationally ignorant."

[Belindi]

All sceptical empiricists agree with Hume's constant correlation claim.

As I said, that is another thread, but there is a "necessary connection" between causes and effects that didn't occur to Hume.

Criminality, unlike playing the piano, is not a skill.

Oh, but some of it requires considerable skills --- most financial crimes and computer crimes, for example. But that is beside the point, which was that we don't try to find "causes" for any of the infinitely many other human behaviors, most of which require no more skills than mugging someone. What is the "cause" of movie-going? Bowling? Mountain climbing? Gardening? Posting on philosophy forums?

Criminality is caused by the sort of world view that sets people apart in subcultures.

Well, any world view that does not recognize subcultures is myopic. They are quite real, endemic and inevitable in any pluralistic society --- by definition. Modern, civilized societies are not "big happy families," not tribes, "teams," or giant communes. They are randomly-assembled groups of unrelated, independent, autonomous individuals who happen, by accident of birth, to occupy a common territory. They have no shared personal histories, no natural bonds, no common goals or interests or desires or beliefs. It is not any world view that sets people apart; they arrive in the world separately, live separate lives, and leave it separately. They are apart from the moment of birth. The fact that they are apart is what gives rise to different world views, not the other way around. If being apart, or perceived to be, was the "cause" of criminal behavior we'd all we criminals.

You may call these people simply bad people and that's an end to it. However nothing is uncaused and the only possible explanation for such blatant antisocial behaviour is stupidity at least partly caused by ignorance.

Well, first, it is not clear that nothing is uncaused. That is (as you previously admitted) an article of faith among determinists, not a confirmed fact. But even if nothing is uncaused we're not entitled to claim that X is the cause of Y unless, as I said before, X inevitably precedes Y, and Y does not occur in the absence of X (or some other cause; many phenomena have more than one cause). There is no criminal behavior that satisfies that condition; nor does any other human behavior.

Ignorance doesn't work as a cause either. The scofflaws you described are not ignorant of the risks posed by their behavior; they watch teevee aand read newspapers too. They just don't care about them.

All people are selfish however people who have learned discretion, stoicism, facts,empathy, and sound judgement agree to abide by good laws. That is the nature of society.

Unfortunately, the "nature of society" --- modern, civilized societies, at any rate --- is that it includes people who lack empathy or whose empathy is selective, are indiscreet, and are hedonists, not stoics. It includes saints and sinners, angels and devils, conformists and rebels, the pious and profane, egoists and altruists, all of which, along with countless other differences, lead to different behaviors. Seeking the causes of any of those behaviors is a Quixotic task, and any cause alleged will be quickly refuted with counterexamples.

It's no excuse. I don't excuse criminals.

I didn't accuse you of excusing criminals. The "lacked human breadth" is an excuse for the obvious counterexamples to your "poor, uneducated" thesis.

I have worked as a teacher and I know there are educationists who have traced the reasons for failing at school, and the effects of politics on curriculums. Some politicians will not adequately finance education in humanities(how many scientists are taught history and philosophy of science?): other politicians take the longer view and want as many citizens as possible to be an informed electorate.

Well, the philosophy of education is yet another subject. But there will never be an informed electorate, simply because becoming informed requires a desire to be informed and a willingness to invest the time and efforts required. Most people have higher priorities; they remain "rationally ignorant."

Modern, civilized societies are not "big happy families," not tribes, "teams," or giant communes. They are randomly-assembled groups of unrelated, independent, autonomous individuals who happen, by accident of birth, to occupy a common territory. They have no shared personal histories,

They do more than occupy a territory; they use a territory to their best advantage and in order to do so the individuals cooperate to some degree and at some level.

Well, first, it is not clear that nothing is uncaused. That is (as you previously admitted) an article of faith among determinists, not a confirmed fact. But even if nothing is uncaused we're not entitled to claim that X is the cause of Y unless, as I said before, X inevitably precedes Y, and Y does not occur in the absence of X (or some other cause; many phenomena have more than one cause). There is no criminal behavior that satisfies that condition; nor does any other human behavior.

True, determinism is a faith stance.
In your example involving sales of sunglasses and of ice cream(I think it was) two or more events have common causes. A criminal event therefore has common causes with poverty, sometimes with mental illness, and ignorance. I believe there is a cluster of causes which may be subsumed under lack of power, or the political manifestation of lack of power which is oppression by the few over the many.Lack of power is visible in England, now, when poorer people who lack outdoor space are less empowered than others who have gardens. In today's Guardian newspaper a psychologist recommends the spacious grounds of such as Harrow School be requisitioned for the duration for the purpose of allotting outdoor space to people enduring lockdown.
You may object, and rightly so, there are criminals who enjoy plentiful benefits and did so all their lives from childhood. This sort of crime is almost indistinguishable from many politics of the right wing and is more deeply interfused with mainstream culture than crimes committed by the powerless sort of people.There is something rotten in a society that with one voice denies equality of opportunity.

But there will never be an informed electorate, simply because becoming informed requires a desire to be informed and a willingness to invest the time and efforts required. Most people have higher priorities; they remain "rationally ignorant."

The only people who don't desire to be informed are idiotic, despairing , or moribund. I guess the section of the electorate you have in mind is lazy, greedy, and/or generally slobbish. Such behaviours exist and tend to annoy hard working people like me. Slobs did not choose to be slobs when they were babies but have been reared to be slobs or have been seduced into slobbishness as adults. Slobbish subcultures exist, and the only means to reduce their nuisance is to educate the young child despite her native culture; this enrichment often as not includes educating the parents.There is no possibility of educating entire subcultures when the individuals have rightly learned they are better off as non-voting slobs than as undervalued workers.

Empathy can be taught. Few humans lack biological sympathy and empathy is a combination of sympathy and knowledge.

[Pattern-chaser]

Empathy can be taught. Few humans lack biological sympathy and empathy is a combination of sympathy and knowledge.

I'm not so sure. I don't deny that many of us could enhance the feelings of empathy we already experience, but empathy is a hard thing to do. It isn't about feeling how I would feel in your position, it's about me empathising how you feel in your position. I'm not sure everyone is capable of that, rather challenging, feat.

[GE Morton]

They do more than occupy a territory; they use a territory to their best advantage and in order to do so the individuals cooperate to some degree and at some level.

Sure there is cooperation --- lots of it. While there is no interest common to all members of any modern society, for any interest one may have one will be able to find others who share it. And, of course, members of those interest groups do often cooperate in pursuit of that shared interest. There are many tribal-like subgroups within any such society, but the society as a whole is not one.

There is one exception to the "no common interests" claim --- everyone has an interest in pursuing his own interests. If some threat appears to that interest --- such as natural disaster or invasion by a foreign army --- you will find widespread cooperation to neutralize it.

In your example involving sales of sunglasses and of ice cream(I think it was) two or more events have common causes. A criminal event therefore has common causes with poverty, sometimes with mental illness, and ignorance.

"Therefore"? That doesn't follow. There is no question that poverty, ignorance, and criminality are correlated. But for any cause you might suggest for a common cause of that cluster, you will find many exceptions --- people who are poor and poorly educated but not criminals, people who are well-educated and not poor but yet are criminals.

I believe there is a cluster of causes which may be subsumed under lack of power, or the political manifestation of lack of power which is oppression by the few over the many.

Again . . .lack of power to do what? Once that is answered the next question is, why do they lack this power? And what are you counting as "oppression" here? Are you assuming the familiar leftist view that talented, well-educated, prosperous Alfie "oppresses" poor, uneducated Bruno merely by refusing to share his wealth him? Are you blaming Alfie for Bruno's lack of power?

There is something rotten in a society that with one voice denies equality of opportunity.

"Equality of opportunity" is a misguided goal, one impossible to attain. One's opportunities depend upon one native strengths, talents, abilities, motivations, interests and psychological makeup --- not to mention dumb luck --- none of which can be "equalized" by political means.

The only people who don't desire to be informed are idiotic, despairing , or moribund. I guess the section of the electorate you have in mind is lazy, greedy, and/or generally slobbish.

There has been a considerable amount of scholarly attention given to the ignorance of the electorate, and the notion of "rational ignorance." Ignorance is rational if the subject matter ignored is of low importance to the agent. People who are rationally ignorant of economics, political theory, history are not necessarily ignorant of other matters, e.g., the technologies of their trades or professions, the behavior of the stock market, sports, music, the market for whatever business they're involved in. In those areas they may be very well educated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance

Empathy can be taught. Few humans lack biological sympathy and empathy is a combination of sympathy and knowledge.

Oh? What knowledge converts sympathy to empathy?

I agree sympathy is (nearly) universal. What is not universal is for whom an agent feels it, and how strongly, especially when acting upon it would be costly to him.

[Belindi]

They do more than occupy a territory; they use a territory to their best advantage and in order to do so the individuals cooperate to some degree and at some level.

Sure there is cooperation --- lots of it. While there is no interest common to all members of any modern society, for any interest one may have one will be able to find others who share it. And, of course, members of those interest groups do often cooperate in pursuit of that shared interest. There are many tribal-like subgroups within any such society, but the society as a whole is not one.

There is one exception to the "no common interests" claim --- everyone has an interest in pursuing his own interests. If some threat appears to that interest --- such as natural disaster or invasion by a foreign army --- you will find widespread cooperation to neutralize it.

In your example involving sales of sunglasses and of ice cream(I think it was) two or more events have common causes. A criminal event therefore has common causes with poverty, sometimes with mental illness, and ignorance.

"Therefore"? That doesn't follow. There is no question that poverty, ignorance, and criminality are correlated. But for any cause you might suggest for a common cause of that cluster, you will find many exceptions --- people who are poor and poorly educated but not criminals, people who are well-educated and not poor but yet are criminals.

I believe there is a cluster of causes which may be subsumed under lack of power, or the political manifestation of lack of power which is oppression by the few over the many.

Again . . .lack of power to do what? Once that is answered the next question is, why do they lack this power? And what are you counting as "oppression" here? Are you assuming the familiar leftist view that talented, well-educated, prosperous Alfie "oppresses" poor, uneducated Bruno merely by refusing to share his wealth him? Again . . .lack of power to do what?

There is something rotten in a society that with one voice denies equality of opportunity.

"Equality of opportunity" is a misguided goal, one impossible to attain. One's opportunities depend upon one native strengths, talents, abilities, motivations, interests and psychological makeup --- not to mention dumb luck --- none of which can be "equalized" by political means.

The only people who don't desire to be informed are idiotic, despairing , or moribund. I guess the section of the electorate you have in mind is lazy, greedy, and/or generally slobbish.

There has been a considerable amount of scholarly attention given to the ignorance of the electorate, and the notion of "rational ignorance." Ignorance is rational if the subject matter ignored is of low importance to the agent. People who are rationally ignorant of economics, political theory, history are not necessarily ignorant of other matters, e.g., the technologies of their trades or professions, the behavior of the stock market, sports, music, the market for whatever business they're involved in. In those areas they may be very well educated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance

Empathy can be taught. Few humans lack biological sympathy and empathy is a combination of sympathy and knowledge.

But for any cause you might suggest for a common cause of that cluster, you will find many exceptions --- people who are poor and poorly educated but not criminals, people who are well-educated and not poor but yet are criminals.

I agree sympathy is (nearly) universal. What is not universal is for whom an agent feels it, and how strongly, especially when acting upon it would be costly to him.

GE Morton wrote:

There are many tribal-like subgroups within any such society, but the society as a whole is not one.

If the domain of a regime is made up of sub groups with no ruling elite group the regime will know it's in trouble.

But for any cause you might suggest for a common cause of that cluster, you will find many exceptions --- people who are poor and poorly educated but not criminals, people who are well-educated and not poor but yet are criminals.

You are a funny sort of determinist! A determinist believes all causes and effects to be interrelated.The causal narrative modern people select is the one where the more proximal causes of an event or a set of events include the most scientifically justifiable causes and exclude the more fantastical narratives.

The sort of knowledge that converts subjective feelings of sympathy into empathy is knowledge of how other people and other animals feel. Think "Black Beauty" : " Oliver Twist": "Macbeth". "The Scream" by Munch: "The Lady of Shallot" : "Madam Butterfly" : "The Raft of the Medusa". I trust I need not go on, although I regret my examples are all old fashioned ones.

Again . . .lack of power to do what?

Lack of power = lack of choices. I often blame Alfie for Bruno's lack of power, but not always. Power to influence and control others is substantial power.

"Equality of opportunity" is a misguided goal, one impossible to attain. One's opportunities depend upon one native strengths, talents, abilities, motivations, interests and psychological makeup --- not to mention dumb luck --- none of which can be "equalized" by political means.

Aren't you confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome?

There has been a considerable amount of scholarly attention given to the ignorance of the electorate, and the notion of "rational ignorance." Ignorance is rational if the subject matter ignored is of low importance to the agent. People who are rationally ignorant of economics, political theory, history are not necessarily ignorant of other matters, e.g., the technologies of their trades or professions, the behavior of the stock market, sports, music, the market for whatever business they're involved in. In those areas they may be very well educated.

All of those, and more, are fields where ignorance flourishes unless the subject is also educated in Humanities and retains his human sympathy throughout.

[LuckyR]

Empathy can be taught. Few humans lack biological sympathy and empathy is a combination of sympathy and knowledge.

I'm not so sure. I don't deny that many of us could enhance the feelings of empathy we already experience, but empathy is a hard thing to do. It isn't about feeling how I would feel in your position, it's about me empathising how you feel in your position. I'm not sure everyone is capable of that, rather challenging, feat.

The numbers in this area support prison as a concept. The percentage of sociopaths in the population is 2%, but the prison population in the US (with the highest prison population by numbers AND rate) is <1%. Thus teaching empathy (to those who are capable of learning it) categorically does NOT lead to the elimination of the need for prisons.

[Marvin_Edwards]

I believe we do need prisons. As you point out, we also need mental hospitals, drug treatment centers, and other social reforms to prevent communities from deteriorating into breeding grounds for criminal behavior. We need jobs or guaranteed income for adults and recreational facilities for kids.

But we still need to address the person who decides to rob someone for the cash or drug someone for sexual satisfaction simply because it seems easier to them than using moral means to satisfy their wants and needs.

Justice seeks to protect everyone's rights. So a just penalty would (a) repair the harm to the victim if possible, (b) correct the offender's future behavior if corrigible, (c) restrict the offender's liberty to protect others from harm until his behavior is corrected, and (d) do no more harm to the offender or his rights than is reasonably necessary to accomplish (a), (b), and (c).

Correcting the offender in these cases requires changing how they think about these choices in the future. And that may not always be possible. If the behavior rewarded itself previously, then it will likely be attempted again. Punishment serves to communicate to the offender that the behavior will not be tolerated. Prison is a minimal punishment. But a shorter term can be offered to motivate the offender to participate in rehabilitation programs that may lead to a successful release.

Rehabilitation is the goal, but it may not be achievable by those who would rather not change.

[Belindi]

I'm not so sure. I don't deny that many of us could enhance the feelings of empathy we already experience, but empathy is a hard thing to do. It isn't about feeling how I would feel in your position, it's about me empathising how you feel in your position. I'm not sure everyone is capable of that, rather challenging, feat.

The numbers in this area support prison as a concept. The percentage of sociopaths in the population is 2%, but the prison population in the US (with the highest prison population by numbers AND rate) is <1%. Thus teaching empathy (to those who are capable of learning it) categorically does NOT lead to the elimination of the need for prisons.

While prisons are needed to detain uneducable criminals much of the money used for building prisons should be diverted to preventing crime. Preventing crime is sorting the reasons for crime. Children who are taken out of school often become antisocial.

Table 2 Public health outcomes framework for England, 2013–2016
Domain Objectives and indicators
1 Improving the wider
determinants of health
Objective
Improvements against wider factors that affect health and
wellbeing and health inequalities
Indicators
1.3 Pupil absence
1.4 First-time entrants to the youth justice system
1.5 16–18 year olds not in education, employment or training
1.12 Violent crime (including sexual violence)
2 Health improvement Objective
People are helped to live health lifestyles, make healthy
choices and reduce health inequalities
Indicators
2.8 Emotional wellbeing of looked-after children
2.10 Self-harm

[LuckyR]

The numbers in this area support prison as a concept. The percentage of sociopaths in the population is 2%, but the prison population in the US (with the highest prison population by numbers AND rate) is <1%. Thus teaching empathy (to those who are capable of learning it) categorically does NOT lead to the elimination of the need for prisons.

While prisons are needed to detain uneducable criminals much of the money used for building prisons should be diverted to preventing crime. Preventing crime is sorting the reasons for crime. Children who are taken out of school often become antisocial.

Table 2 Public health outcomes framework for England, 2013–2016
Domain Objectives and indicators
1 Improving the wider
determinants of health
Objective
Improvements against wider factors that affect health and
wellbeing and health inequalities
Indicators
1.3 Pupil absence
1.4 First-time entrants to the youth justice system
1.5 16–18 year olds not in education, employment or training
1.12 Violent crime (including sexual violence)
2 Health improvement Objective
People are helped to live health lifestyles, make healthy
choices and reduce health inequalities
Indicators
2.8 Emotional wellbeing of looked-after children
2.10 Self-harm

True, though it is more likely an association rather than causal.

[Belindi]

While prisons are needed to detain uneducable criminals much of the money used for building prisons should be diverted to preventing crime. Preventing crime is sorting the reasons for crime. Children who are taken out of school often become antisocial.

Table 2 Public health outcomes framework for England, 2013–2016
Domain Objectives and indicators
1 Improving the wider
determinants of health
Objective
Improvements against wider factors that affect health and
wellbeing and health inequalities
Indicators
1.3 Pupil absence
1.4 First-time entrants to the youth justice system
1.5 16–18 year olds not in education, employment or training
1.12 Violent crime (including sexual violence)
2 Health improvement Objective
People are helped to live health lifestyles, make healthy
choices and reduce health inequalities
Indicators
2.8 Emotional wellbeing of looked-after children
2.10 Self-harm

True, though it is more likely an association rather than causal.

True, though it is more likely an association rather than causal.

Do you agree there are problem families?

[LuckyR]

True, though it is more likely an association rather than causal.

True, though it is more likely an association rather than causal.

Do you agree there are problem families?

I agree they exist, but are they caused by genetics or socio-economic circumstances?

[Belindi]

Do you agree there are problem families?

I agree they exist, but are they caused by genetics or socio-economic circumstances?

Socio=economic circumstances say I. I'd add political circumstances. There are no recognisable genes for intelligence or criminality.

[LuckyR]

I agree they exist, but are they caused by genetics or socio-economic circumstances?

Socio=economic circumstances say I. I'd add political circumstances. There are no recognisable genes for intelligence or criminality.

Perhaps none known, though addictive personalities are for example and in certain circumstances can increase the risk of rule breaking.

[Belindi]

Socio=economic circumstances say I. I'd add political circumstances. There are no recognisable genes for intelligence or criminality.

Perhaps none known, though addictive personalities are for example and in certain circumstances can increase the risk of rule breaking.

I just did a google search "Can a personality change?" William James said no but since his time opinions among psychologists are personalities sometimes do change.

Psychotherapy in prisons and as enforced courses for other offenders are worth the comparative cost to the public purse.
I said "comparative". There is an ethical problem that offenders are more justly dealt with if their punishments are fixed term, whereas psychotherapy is results oriented. I bet a lot of offenders would rather have a Draconian fixed term than an indefinite stay in a loony bin.