Something I’ve been wondering after reading Johnny LA’s thread about his stolen credit card is just how the criminal thought process works? Or for that matter how does it work for people who cheat on spouses, blatantly plagiarize, etc…?
Are these people literally crooked bastards who think “Yeah, I’ll go steal some other guy’s stuff/money/identity today” and are totally cool with stealing, cheating, etc…?
Or is there a lack of self-awareness there- they get more or less blinded by the prospect of relatively easy money / sex / paragraph in the book they’re writing, and they fail to think out what they’re actually doing?
Is there a lack of a concept that there’s a person on the other side of that credit card? Is it kind of like music piracy in that people don’t really associate downloading mp3s as being the same thing as stealing an equivalently priced TV?
I just don’t get how someone can actually consider their actions and then go right through with something like that, unless they’re just a contemptible, amoral piece of shit…
(Disclaimer: I am not a criminologist), I would guess that it depends on the individual crime and individual motive. Some may know a crime is wrong but feel they must do so out of necessity (i.e., poor person stealing in order to have money for food,) some may know it’s wrong but do so because they’re amoral like you said, some may commit crimes just for kicks, some may commit crimes out of spite or revenge, etc. There may be dozens of motives, dozens of rationalizations, and criminals all the way across the spectrum of “I know it’s 100% wrong but I’ll do it” to some criminals (such as terrorists, for instance,) who think “My crime is 100% right, I’m doing the right thing. I am doing this for a good cause.”) Also, some criminals may start out with pangs of guilt, but over the course of time, that feeling of guilt goes away and they get accustomed to committing crimes without remorse. So they change over time.
Criminals I have known often have a sort of situational morality. Although they may feel that stealing is wrong in a general sense, they think that stealing a credit card, shoplifting, etc. is basically fine, as you are robbing a corporation and not a person; stealing from someone rich is fine as they “will not miss it” and they are probably only rich from exploiting people; stealing from your employer is fine, as they are taking advantage of and underpaying you; stealing from people who have not properly secured their valuables is fine, as they are “asking for it” and you are “teaching them a lesson”; stealing to get things you really want is fine, as you “need” them and it’s unfair that you don’t have them anyway.
If someone steals from them, that is ALWAYS totally different, of course.
Define “crime”. Most lawbreakers don’t feel like they’re doing anything wrong, and they’re correct. Doing drugs is not wrong. Going faster than the sign says is not wrong. Sharing music is not wrong. Feeding the homeless is not wrong. Having sex with a consenting 17 year old is not wrong. Yet people go to jail for these actions every day. Are they criminals?
In my opinion, “criminal” refers to a strict set of people who steal, rape, murder, burglarize, invade homes, defraud and harm people. The vast majority of people who break laws don’t fall into this group. This is because the law and morality are orthogonal.
In fact, that’s a pretty good answer by itself: The law and morality are orthogonal.
Now, career criminals are a different story. But from my view they got there the same way almost everyone else gets a career: They fall into it. There are people sitting in cubicles on Wall Street right now doing vastly more harm to many more people than the Mafia ever has. Does it eat at their conscience? Probably most of them. Does it pay the bills? Are they good at it? Yes. Once you are a fair way down a particular path in life, it is extremely hard to change paths.
I would certainly agree with that.
The guy who tried to rob Mrs. Plant (v.3.0) did boot camp. Arrested for a burglary the next year, and received a suspended sentence. Beat up a girl, and is doing ten of the suspended years.
He had a job, a car and came from a middle class family.
Perhaps it was peer pressure, a desire to be a tough gangster guy.
I suppose that in the Arkansas prison system, he will learn to be better at crime.
My main question was “How do they think they will get away with it?” but I believe that when they get off lightly, they do it again.
Maybe he meant the nature of the crimes, rather than if they were caught or not. Risking incarceration, a criminal record, and a reduced chance in the jobs market over a tv, car stereo or attacking someone you don’t like are all pretty stupid. Risking all those over a million dollars, or a bar or ten of gold? That kinda makes sense.
