Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Environment and crime

Rate this topic


mdegges

Recommended Posts

"That something happened to you is of no importance to anyone, not even to you. The important thing about you is what you choose to make happen -- your values and choices. That which happened by accident -- what family you were born into, in what country, and where you went to school -- is totally unimportant." -AR

 

Without getting too much into the nature v nurture debate, do you think it's fair to say that Rand was wrong on this issue in relation to criminal behavior? It's widely believed that environment plays a huge role in our lives and influences the choices we make. Oftentimes the events we don't have control over make the biggest impacts in our lives. Here I'm talking about abuse- childhood abuse, sexual abuse, spousal abuse, etc. Saying that these aspects of our lives are 'totally unimportant' and somehow separate from the choices that we make & values we hold seems.. entirely untrue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There needs to be more context to know for sure, but I doubt she means that unchosen things don't impact people's lives. Rather, by important I think she means "that which we base our evaluations on".

 

No, I don't think she was wrong to suggest that we should evaluate people based on their own achievements rather than the color of their skin, nationality, cast, family name, etc. Or, even more to the point, that we should base our own self-esteem on our achievements rather than our luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My reading of her statement suggests she was conveying the idea that ones character is defined by ones actions and not the circumstances one finds oneself in.  Being the victim of crime is a circumstance too, and how one chooses to respond to that circumstance is more important than the fact it happened.  S**t happens.  How one responds to s**t defines ones character.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with your reading of her statement, DA. My point is that actions are influenced, in part, by past circumstances. For example, childhood victims of abuse who later become offenders ARE responsible for their actions, but the abuse that they suffered definitely played a role in their behavior. Ignoring that role, or worse, saying that it's unimportant and separate from their personal choices, doesn't do justice to anyone involved.

Edited by mdegges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe think of it from the other side: how important do you think circumstances should be? What would it mean to give the things that happened by chance "importance"?

Say an adult abused as a child decides he wants to teach kids. He may know of certain personal issues of his to take into account when going for this goal that are unique to him, but should his past circumstances play a large part in his decisions as he works toward it, step-by-step? How much focus, if any, should be given to what has happened when going for something that hasn't happened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would just question the fairness of characterizing someone as a victim because a crime was done to them.  It suggests the kind of presumption of character assigned to one who inherits wealth, or good genes.  In my mind it's not so much a question of ignoring circumstance as recognizing choice in how we characterize ourselves and those around us.  Regardless of the circumstances, I'd resent being characterized as a victim (weak) as opposed to one who's capable of overcoming adversity (strong).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the spectrum, ranging from complete determinism, to the highest degree of volition possible (and everything between) is a necessary starting point to assess other individuals, objectively.

One is not doing anybody any justice by telling them "You achieved such-and-such well, considering..." (your upbringing, your race, etc.)

That becomes subjective relativism, which the Law today often descends to.

Metaphysically, there are certain 'givens', some of them constants to all men, some of them specific to each individual.

As Nicky puts it, one should evaluate individuals by their doings (the metaphysical man-made).

Obviously, and primarily, one should judge oneself by those same standards too, while not self-repressing, or glorifying, one's given background.

(As perhaps a slight departure from Rand, I think one can apply the knowledge of a person's past, later on. It can be illuminating about their character formation - but only at a lesser hierarchical level.)

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

saying that it's unimportant 

"important" is a relative term. One can correctly call anything unimportant, as long as they call it unimportant relative to something it's unimportant for.

 

For instance, it's correct to say that being the nicest person on Earth is unimportant to whether one can survive a 200 foot fall. Similarly, it's correct to say that a person's childhood circumstances are unimportant to whether he is a moral or an immoral adult. A mass murderer who was abused as a child is just as immoral as a mass murderer who was showered with love, because they both made the choice to be mass murderers. What helped them make that choice is unimportant, relative to the morality of their choice. Might be important relative to them making the choice, sure. But it's unimportant for determining the morality of the choice. Both are just as evil, being abused is no excuse.

 

Like I said, I think you might be misunderstanding what Rand called one's luck unimportant for. That quote is incomplete, it says nothing about that. If it's from a written source, I'm sure the rest of the text states exactly what she's talking about. I know Rand's writing well enough to expect that she wouldn't be vague enough to leave that out, and just use the word "important" as some kind of absolute.

 

I do agree with you that people's childhoods are a contributing factor to how they turn out as adults. I just doubt that Rand was denying that. The quote you provided certainly doesn't show that she was.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"That something happened to you is of no importance to anyone, not even to you. The important thing about you is what you choose to make happen -- your values and choices. That which happened by accident -- what family you were born into, in what country, and where you went to school -- is totally unimportant." -AR

 

Without getting too much into the nature v nurture debate, do you think it's fair to say that Rand was wrong on this issue in relation to criminal behavior? It's widely believed that environment plays a huge role in our lives and influences the choices we make. Oftentimes the events we don't have control over make the biggest impacts in our lives. Here I'm talking about abuse- childhood abuse, sexual abuse, spousal abuse, etc. Saying that these aspects of our lives are 'totally unimportant' and somehow separate from the choices that we make & values we hold seems.. entirely untrue.

"Victimhood" is a life long affliction: for the individual who is never going to rise out of it. For him or her, every choice in later life will be coloured by the 'injustice' they suffered long ago.

This is what Rand was warning against, secondarily, as I see it. She was one who could speak with empathy for any young artist who struggles to survive (as I picked up somewhere) so I believe she took it as self- obvious and not worth belaboring, that - largely speaking, or 'statistically' - it would often be far harder for a person, disadvantaged by environment or by an abusive upbringing, to shrug it all off, and excel.

 

However, (isn't she saying?) achievement (all achievement, whether in character, virtue or accomplishments) has only one standard in reality, immaterial of, and blind to one's past.

 

Additionally, any social- statistical approach to human beings, borders on collectivism- in a 'top-down' manner. Only the individual counts: Stating the obvious.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

For instance, it's correct to say that being the nicest person on Earth is unimportant to whether one can survive a 200 foot fall. Similarly, it's correct to say that a person's childhood circumstances are unimportant to whether he is a moral or an immoral adult. A mass murderer who was abused as a child is just as immoral as a mass murderer who was showered with love, because they both made the choice to be mass murderers. What helped them make that choice is unimportant, relative to the morality of their choice. Might be important relative to them making the choice, sure. But it's unimportant for determining the morality of the choice. Both are just as evil, being abused is no excuse.

 

That's a good example: the mass murderer who was abused as a child and the mass murderer who was showered with love. Do you think both men should recieve the same punishment? (More generally, do you think the act/harm should be the only contributing factor when determining just punishments?) As it stands now, these men would not recieve the same punishment. Though the actus reus is the same in both cases, one is less guilty than the other.. namely, the man who was abused as a child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good example: the mass murderer who was abused as a child and the mass murderer who was showered with love. Do you think both men should recieve the same punishment?

Diminished mental capacity during the commission of the crime can be a factor (so if the abuse is ongoing, then it can be relevant).

But, aside from that, yes, they should both be sentenced to death.

(More generally, do you think the act/harm should be the only contributing factor when determining just punishments?) As it stands now, these men would not recieve the same punishment. Though the actus reus is the same in both cases, one is less guilty than the other.. namely, the man who was abused as a child.

Less guilty? The length of the sentence is not what determines guilt. It's not even determined during the verdict (a verdict serves to establish whether the defendant committed the act). The legal status of the act is determined in a legislature, when the laws are written. I'm aware of no laws absolving people who were abused, of guilt.

As far as sentencing, it does not determine guilt. But in the US there are very narrow sentencing guidelines enshrined in the law anyway. They list the only reasons why a judge may depart downward from the guidelines. They are: victim's conduct, lesser harms (a crime committed to avoid a conceived greater harm), coercion, diminished mental capacity, voluntary disclosure of offense, and age in case of sex crimes.

The only relevant one is "victim's conduct". It is usually applied to reduce the sentences of offenders who have reacted violently to being abused. But it only applies when the victim is the abuser, and the abuse is ongoing. There are no guidelines permitting judges to show lenience because of past abuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We cannot control the circumstances of our own childhoods, which necessarily have some effect on our own development (consciousness is conscious of something).

We can control how we allow ourselves to be affected.

"Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."

 

If a teenager were to try experimenting with some hard drug for the first time, and became addicted, I would not hold them very responsible for whatever consequences befell them.

If the same person had sobered up and then experimented some more, years later, my evaluation would be different.

 

So this absolutely valid effect of one's own environment does not hold the power which many people attribute it (especially Marxists) and, furthermore, cannot be taken into legal consideration for the same reason the government cannot take legal consideration of philosophy.

It's an affirmation of a particularly dangerous principle.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was molested as a child and a drug addict but I know that all day long, judges sentence addicts and former molestees, so at my sentencing for a federal firearms charge, when I stood up and spoke in an attempt to convince His Honor to sentence me to the least amount of years possible, I didn't waste my time asking for leniency based on the drugs I did and the molesting done to me. And I didn't go for the downward departure for snitching because it wouldn't have been right to do to a gun dealer who never did me wrong.

Judges have a little leeway WITHIN the guidelines, so a good explanation might get you the lower end within the guidelines range. His Honor gave me the max, and said he wanted to give me more but the guidelines prevented it. So the guidelines can work both ways in protecting against judges acting on whim, which is important for an objective legal system.

Even judges shouldn't be able to act on too much discretion, but sometimes they can and do. Aside from the specific departures Nicky mentioned, and the departure for C.I.s (confidential informants) that I mentioned, Federal criminal courts judges may deviate from the sentencing guidelines. It's extremely rare, requires an explanation for the record, and if it's an increased sentence, it almost guarantees (sentence) appeal and risks an overturning and resentencing.

Edited by theestevearnold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...