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.

[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Sadly many people have an ideological aversion to prison

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.

[–] JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Most crime is a direct result of poverty.

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

Most people who come from a socio-economically less favorable background do not commit more crime than people who come from a more favorable background, and it also happens that people from a more favorable background do commit crime. This means that even if there is a connection between socio-economic background and involvement in crime, that connection is weak. It is not possible to appreciably predict who will commit crimes based on knowledge of people's socio-economic background.

Other risk factors have a stronger relationship with criminal behavior:

When compared with factors that research has identified as risk factors for crime, such as parenting competence, the presence of conflicts in the family, school problems or association with criminal peers, the research shows that these have a stronger connection with criminal behavior than socio-economic background factors. The same applies to risk factors linked to the individual himself, for example permissive attitudes or impulsivity.

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.

[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

They found that cultural factors were far more correlated with criminality than socioeconomic status.

I don't speak Swedish and it appears that the full report is only available in Swedish.

From the end of their English summary:

Research questions

The presentation of results is based on the following central question: According to the published research, what is the significance of socioeconomic family background during childhood for explaining individual differences in offending?

Sub-questions include: What do studies from Sweden and other countries say about the correlation between socioeconomic background during childhood and involvement in crime? Are there differences between men and women? How strong is this correlation, and how does this compare with the strength of the correlations found for various factors described in the research as established risk factors for offending? How do researchers explain the links between socioeconomic background factors and participation in crime?

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.