Inside the criminal mind.

[BrettNortje]

I have watched a lot of movies, and find that the 'evil people' always have a twisted childhood. it is safe to say, then, that every criminal in real life has had a twisted childhood, because, they have gone through some pain and want to see themselves not feel the pain, of course. this would be like being happy that some kid cries in the shop because they are not getting the toys they want - once upon a time that was you, and, as long as it is not you, you are pleased, yes?

I find that when people fight, i get really happy. this is nearly constant in males, as they fought once upon a time, and, as long as it is not them, they like to see pain inflicted on others. the idea from my side is that as long as you can separate yourself from the pain and misery, you feel glad to watch it happen to someone else, maybe as a justification as to why you are safe - you feel safe because someone else is getting hurt, yes?

So, if you were to claim insanity, nobody is sane. there were countless legal cases in decades and centuries gone by that made for a good society, today we have less of a society because of all these 'rights.' it seems the more rights people have, the more they abuse them, while in much of the third world, living without these rights leads to a happy life. in fact, some westerners are so nosy they try to force their rights and views on others, and this annoys those that see them as 'white devils.'

Now, if we were to observe that the criminal is nearly always twisted, why make a special case for those that can afford shrinks? these criminals should be tried as if they were normal people, as, they have affected either other cases or other normal people.

 

[BrettNortje]

So, if a traumatic experience leads to crime, people of authority should try to take care of people from a young age, to prevent crime, or, ignore all these little things and treat them like responsible people. this is because you can still drive your car if you are 'mad' to a criminal disposition, and, that means you must take responsibility for your actions, of course.

If it comes down to having people go to a funny farm or a jail, i suggest that we turn jails into funny farms and vice versa. there is no difference between the two under current laws, or, there is a difference and most criminals that are mad should go to jail, yes?

Of course if the criminal is really mad, then they would have crashed their car many times before, or had a history of violence. failing that, they must admit that they can live within society and choose not to, of course.

I find that most cases with this 'madness' thing are murders and such. this means that the person, apparently, was mentally incapable at the time, due to trauma, to avoid killing the other person. the longer they have known the person, the longer they have thought about the person, and, therefore thought about arguments or disagreements they have had with the victim. this means it might have been premeditated, or, that they felt threatened by the victim in some way, so much so they saw harm coming to them, and instead brought harm to their victim, of course. this is made harder as time goes, as i said, as you feel more comfortable with the other person, or you disassociate from them, putting distance between yourselves. of course, the longer you have known them, the more frequently you have put this distance between you, and, the more you have thought about harming them, meaning it was premeditated, yes?

 

[BrettNortje]

A criminal is someone that uses the wrong methods for the wrong goals, the law says. the criminal might argue that they are using the wrong methods for the right goals, or even the right methods for the right goals, obviously pushing themselves to being right, which, as we found, is a moral absolute - 'feeling right.'

Criminals will try to do whatever it takes to achieve their goals in the end, or they will not be criminals, but, at what point does someone bending the rules become a criminal? imagine a doctor that is trying to cure a disease using some 'eastern hocus pocus?' this would be where, if they are used together with conventional medicine, it could compliment it, or, it could harm the patient, or, it could be used instead, yes? this would be breaking the law, even though the doctor had the right goals in mind, of course.

Cases come up every day that blur the lines between morality and immorality. basically, if nobody is harmed, then it is not a crime. people can take drugs to please themselves as often as they like, but, selling drugs is illegal, and driving on drugs too. potentially harming another person's body or 'property' and finances is considered against the law, if you ask me.

Now, if the law says something must not be done, then doing it is a crime. kids learn this from an early age with their parents, as this is the time they break the 'law' the most. these lessons they learn from others sets the tone for their morality and law abiding ways. there is a lot of piracy out there that kids pick up from their parents, and, failing to hide your own piracy from kids will make them think it is okay, obviously. on the other hand, if it is hidden completely, then the kids will not be aware their parents are breaking the law and they will have more morals - so, it is up to the parents to hide their law breaking ways from kids to make them good. even smoking can set the tone for tolerance of this, and, eventually, acceptance and submission.