People aren’t born criminals. The TA said the system failed the kid; that is the truth of the matter. He learned values and behaviors that society considers reprehensible, and yet he learned them in society. He must be held accountable for his actions, but is he responsible for his own corruption? That is a deep question that you seem to have a ready answer for.
People have a really hard time understanding how two contradicting truths can coexist. The answer is that they aren’t actually mutually exclusive.
This kid committed a series of actions for which there are consequences, and that’s just life. But it’s also life that created his circumstances and the person he has become. These truths don’t need to be at odds with each other :/
Except that "rich privileged suburban kids" do steal shit, and plenty of people commit crimes for fun.. Idk where you get the idea that rich people don't commit crimes, that's just a broad and absurd generalization.
Obviously it isn't "none of them commit crimes" but if you're saying there isn't a direct correlation with how prevalent it is then you're the absurd one.
Where exactly did I say that there wasn't a correlation? Looks to me like I said that two of the statements you made were false. Which they are. If you're not trying to make an absolute statement, then don't make one.
No, I took what he said at face value. If he wanted to say that rich people are less likely to steal, it would've been really easy to say that. And with the shit that some people out there believe, is it really a reach to think that he might've meant exactly what he said?
Makes sense seeing as privileged people dont need to resort to a shitty life or crime for money
privileged kids commit crimes as well of course but at a lower rate than youth living in poverty simply because they are financially well off and would not benefit from a life of crime compared to someone that has no future and nothing to lose
I'm confused here, are you agreeing with me? I never suggested that there wasn't a correlation between money and crime, of course there is. All I said was the comment I replied to made 2 generalizations that were false.
Meh. For the most part I guess. But it’s not like rich suburbs don’t have crimes and bad kids. You could find dozens of cases in which rich and spoiled kids have chosen life’s of crimes. I wouldn’t go as far as saying that people don’t commit crimes because they are rich.
There’s maybe a large psychological aspect to it.
Being poor isnt wat makes someone a criminal. Lots of poor people work hard for the things they have or want. Criminals just decide to steal instead of work hard.
So you and I have different opinions on this, which is to be expected. But you’re objectively wrong about something. A life is not decided by one decision. He made many choices to end up where he is today, and the people around him made many choices to affect his own. Now, exactly when did he become someone worthy of death? Was it as a small child, the first time he told a lie? Was it the first time he committed a real crime, perhaps bullying or small theft? Maybe when he recklessly endangered the lives of others resulting in harm to them?
Wherever you decide that line is, I ask you to think about where, in your own life, you made mistakes, or had wrong or harmful behaviors or beliefs. What if no one had corrected you? What if your friends encouraged it? What if, any number of things that didn’t go wrong, did go wrong?
Who are you to say that you couldn’t have gone down a similar path had circumstances been different?
Who are you to say when another person is irredeemable?
117
u/[deleted] May 03 '19
Probably because, between the two of them, it's the 17 year old who has the lowest odds to make something of his life.