Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
I would also like to know what you mean by “hard childhood”… In a country where memories of the pre-revolutionary, revolutionary and military childhood of entire categories of citizens are still preserved, ideas about this can be very different )
I myself am inclined to think that childhood is difficult, the result of which is a deep neurosis, a slavish worldview and a learned helplessness of a person. The material and other external conditions of such a childhood are not of key importance, the main criterion is the absence or lack of parental love and acceptance.
The neurotic, slave, and boor who is the result of being regularly humiliated and devalued has a high potential to become a criminal, for good reason: he is only capable of the treatment of people that he has experienced himself. This can only be justified from a medical point of view: it will not be an ethical or legal justification…
You can justify the animal, but it does not know that you can not bite people, but it will still be put down in most cases. You can justify a child who is not conscious. But a person living in a human society, to justify the fact that he was treated badly in childhood, in my opinion from an ethical point of view is not possible. But what about those people who coped with the same circumstances and integrated into society without distortion. The only thing we can do is to prevent such treatment from poor children.
If the boundaries of ethics were still defined, is it bad to kill?
What do the military do then?
Protect them?
OK, and then what about hitting places with the interpretation “we are better from today than they can be us tomorrow, and maybe not tomorrow, in general we can, so we will do it”.
There is no excuse for an attack, but it is not an attack if in the understanding of a person this is the norm, countries where hands are cut off in squares, a person who cuts off a hand in our country will sit, and there it is OK.
The topic of ethics and morals is very complex and alienable, first you need to understand what “good” , “bad” and most importantly “sometimes you can, as an exception”are for us
Every person's childhood is full of difficult moments and experiences, but not every grown-up child is on the slippery path of crime. Much depends on the individual's environment. Criminals are not born, they are formed by Wednesday and other days of the week.
I would also like to know what you mean by “hard childhood”… In a country where memories of the pre-revolutionary, revolutionary and military childhood of entire categories of citizens are still preserved, ideas about this can be very different )
I myself am inclined to think that childhood is difficult, the result of which is a deep neurosis, a slavish worldview and a learned helplessness of a person. The material and other external conditions of such a childhood are not of key importance, the main criterion is the absence or lack of parental love and acceptance.
The neurotic, slave, and boor who is the result of being regularly humiliated and devalued has a high potential to become a criminal, for good reason: he is only capable of the treatment of people that he has experienced himself. This can only be justified from a medical point of view: it will not be an ethical or legal justification…
There is no excuse, but a difficult childhood objectively leads to problems. Here is a study by American scientists
In 1990, at the Center for Disease Prevention and Control in Atlanta, MD Robert Anda conducted the following studies. Patients of this Center, who annually underwent a preventive medical examination to obtain biometric, psychological and social information about their condition, were asked additional questions about their childhood.
These questions were divided into three categories.
The first three included possible actions aimed at the subjects in childhood:
physical abuse,
sexual violence,
verbal abuse.
Five other categories of questions were related to the dysfunctional state of the family, in which the child is an unwitting observer of injuries in the immediate environment or experiences rejection:
where physical violence was used against his mother;
where one of the family members was an alcoholic or used drugs;
where at least one biological parent was absent in his life;
where a family member was incarcerated;
where someone in his inner circle was chronically depressed,
suicidal mood
or mentally ill.
Each category (not an event in this category, but a category) was evaluated with one point.
The results of this study surprised the doctors.
For those who scored 4 points:
3.9 times more likely that a person started smoking
The probability of having lung diseases increased by 3.9 times
There was a 2.5-fold increase in the probability of having STIs (sexually transmitted diseases (STDs, STIs)).
The probability of chronic depression increased by 4.6 times
The probability of suicide increased 12.2 times
The probability of suicide increased 12.2 times
Those who scored 6 points were 46 times more likely to inject drugs.
The sample consisted of 17,000 people, and almost all of them belonged to the middle class. Dr. Anda, along with Dr. Felitti and other researchers, published their findings in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine and the Jounal of the American Medical Association (1998).
I would also like to know what you mean by “hard childhood”… In a country where memories of the pre-revolutionary, revolutionary and military childhood of entire categories of citizens are still preserved, ideas about this can be very different )
I myself am inclined to think that childhood is difficult, the result of which is a deep neurosis, a slavish worldview and a learned helplessness of a person. The material and other external conditions of such a childhood are not of key importance, the main criterion is the absence or lack of parental love and acceptance.
The neurotic, slave, and boor who is the result of being regularly humiliated and devalued has a high potential to become a criminal, for good reason: he is only capable of the treatment of people that he has experienced himself. This can only be justified from a medical point of view: it will not be an ethical or legal justification…
Maybe there were similar precedents. Criminal law even knows cases where murderers received an acquittal or a less severe sentence, building their defense on the negative impact of menstruation, poor nutrition, etc., and this was rolled in court. However, it should be noted that this is the United States, they have their own legal kitchen there and very cool lawyers. Listen to Robert Sapolsky's lectures, where he gives examples.
From a moral point of view? If you don't ask me, it's not an excuse, but it's one of the reasons. The line is thin, but it still exists. In the end, a person has a choice of what to do. Of course, we do not take into account cases of coercion.
It's just that the victim's position is easier and more understandable to people than the position “I decide what to do in my life, even if the circumstances are against me.” You know, many people had a bad childhood, but not everyone became a criminal. There is a difference between being at risk and actually taking action to put these risks into practice.
The expression “We are not like that, life is like that” is noteworthy because it is used precisely by those who do not have such a life, but they themselves are like that.
A crime is justified not by the reasons for its commission, but by circumstances that make other options for action impossible. “Difficult childhood” is an extremely extensible concept, but in any case it refers not to the circumstances, but to the reasons for committing a crime, on the basis of which either criminal punishment is chosen (if it is not so difficult, but “life is like this”), or compulsory psychiatric treatment (if childhood was objectively contributing to the lack of a person's self-awareness in their own actions). The first is punishment, the second is treatment of the consequences of a difficult childhood. Neither is an excuse.
…that is, the answer to the first question is no. To the second question, this slogan is only an excuse for the weak-willed in one hundred percent of cases of its use.
In one way or another, all the criminals had something terrible in their childhood. Although many of them say that they had a wonderful childhood, they may not even really remember what influenced them. Yet all serial killers have had something happen in their childhood, something terrible. For example, the serial killer Gacy, his mother killed the dog he loved in front of him. That's about what happened in the lives of criminals. A child cannot grow up to be a criminal if he or she has had a healthy, psychologically speaking, childhood
This is my personal opinion