It seems that criminology is one of these topics when discussed is the breeding pot for logical fallacies. I may not be the most rational person but when it comes to discussions I find it’s better to read up on the issue and I would expect that juries and judges never mind the average person would do this.
The main problem seem to stem from the justice system’s (Western World) obsession with punishment and deterrence. It doesn’t matter what your life situation was, what your psychological state was, what your intention was or even what the most rational thing to do prevent re-offending and make you into a productive citizen is, as long as you commit the crime you do the time. Locked up with other criminals to ‘scare’ you away from crime. And when little Johnny sees that his parents will tell him “If you do crime, you’ll go to this bad place”. So a good number of people believe that harsh punishments stop most people from raping, killing, stealing etc.
The problem I have with that is this tends to be a fundamental attribution error. Do most women not commit bank robberies even if they could because they are deterred by laws or because some socio-biological factors may be at play causing men to be more prone to taking the risks to do that? Do most men not rape because it’s considered a cowardly act and vigilantes in prison target rapists and sex offenders or might it be that life circumstances and biological factors do not make them likely to consider rape?
What do you think?