The criminal and social deviant

[Mr. Cervantes]

The criminal knows he or she is a slave which is why they react so violently.

For them in a land of hopelessness and despair violent self preservation is the only means left to their disposal on the rest of the world that disregards their entire existence as little to nothing at all.

Violence against others or anybody matters not to them for matters of self preservation since through their eyes it is either they themselves assault or for the rest of theirs lives they keep on being assaulted by others.

By this a person only needs to know that crime thrives on material and social scarcity which turns into the depravity of emotions or feelings that leads another to become criminal.

[Pioneers_Violin]

Does this also apply to very wealthy, "socially acceptable" criminals?
Like businessmen, tycoons, governors, etc... you know, people who are the slaveholders but still commit crimes.

Or is that a different class of criminality?

[Mr. Cervantes]

Does this also apply to very wealthy, "socially acceptable" criminals?
Like businessmen, tycoons, governors, etc... you know, people who are the slaveholders but still commit crimes.

Or is that a different class of criminality?

The wealthy or socially acceptable criminals are very small percent in my mind versus those who who commit crime because of poverty.

I'm pretty sure there are statistics to back that up too.

Wealthy criminals seem to commit crime because of excitement and a sense of danger as a added feature to the power they already hold.

Those out of poverty are more reactionary in that they do so because of a perceived necessity on their part to escape from their own slavery and poverty.

Social class is everything when it concerns motivations to criminal activities.

[Hit The North]

Does this also apply to very wealthy, "socially acceptable" criminals?
Like businessmen, tycoons, governors, etc... you know, people who are the slaveholders but still commit crimes.

Or is that a different class of criminality?

It's obviously another social class of criminal, but it does demonstrate that criminality cannot be reduced to one's poor material circumstances or elevated to the role of a self-conscious revolt by the slaves, as the OP describes. If it was the former, then there would be no crime committed by powerful and wealthy individuals. If it was the latter, then mugging people in your community would be an act of supreme class consciousness.

Engels described theft as an ineffective and individualistic approach to overcoming collective problems when it is committed by the poor, but a way of life when committed by the rich.

[Mr. Cervantes]

It's obviously another social class of criminal, but it does demonstrate that criminality cannot be reduced to one's poor material circumstances or elevated to the role of a self-conscious revolt by the slaves, as the OP describes. If it was the former, then there would be no crime committed by powerful and wealthy individuals. If it was the latter, then mugging people in your community would be an act of supreme class consciousness.

Engels described theft as an ineffective and individualistic approach to overcoming collective problems when it is committed by the poor, but a way of life when committed by the rich.

I get what your saying but by and large criminality is somthing a majority of the time that is committed by the poor lower social classes.

As I've explained the wealthy commit crimes for very different reasons where for the poor lower social classes it's all about personal survival. That's the difference because the wealthy are already surviving well where there is really no need on their part to commit a crime whatsoever. There is different motivations.

[Hit The North]

That's true, to an extent, but then there are vastly more poor people than rich people. But we also need to consider that "crime" is a socially defined act. In our society it is illegal for a poor person to steal food from a supermarket, but it is not illegal for a capitalist to exploit his/her workforce. In a capitalist society it is the capitalists who have the power to define what is criminal and what is not.

[Mr. Cervantes]

That's true, to an extent, but then there are vastly more poor people than rich people. But we also need to consider that "crime" is a socially defined act. In our society it is illegal for a poor person to steal food from a supermarket, but it is not illegal for a capitalist to exploit his/her workforce. In a capitalist society it is the capitalists who have the power to define what is criminal and what is not.

Also very relevant to the discussion.

This would go into the discussion of how all morals, ethics, and laws are artificially created or imposed sociological definitions.

Of course the people that create them and impose them on the rest of society just so happen to be the wealthy elite social classes who are the same people that engineer them.

All morals, ethics, and laws are ideological where I am skeptical of all of them. Of course I follow them in complete obedience because I don't want "them" to come around.

Judicial procedures and court systems are hilarious because the same people that create all levels of oppression within society control the very definitions of law or justice.



but then there are vastly more poor people than rich people.


Why would that matter?

[Hit The North]

Why would that matter?

You claimed that the majority of criminal acts were perpetrated by poor people. I'm pointing out that there are more poor people to start with.

[Pioneers_Violin]

You claimed that the majority of criminal acts were perpetrated by poor people. I'm pointing out that there are more poor people to start with.

Yes, and I'd be willing to bet that percentage-wise, poor people commit fewer crimes than the wealthy.
That's probably why they're poor. They're not willing to lie, cheat and steal their way to the top.

Of course, my definition of crime is different that the wealthy's definition.
I would include LEGAL crimes such as exploitation and officially sanctioned fraud and theft.

The petty crimes of a minority portion of the poor majority

pale in comparison to:

the massive crimes of the majority of the wealthy minority.

I'm sorry if that last sentence is a little hard to read. I couldn't think of any better way to put it.