You really are not grasping what I am saying. Unless you can say that absent this one burglar, NO burglaries would occur AT ALL, then you are not addressing my position AT ALL.
But the statement by the cousin of "this one burglar" is what prompted this discussion. Are you admitting that Nautika Harris is full of shit?
And obviously absent "this one burglar" there'd still be burglaries, because there are many burglars around. But I would say vast majority of them are like Trevon, and very few if any at all are like Jean Valjean.
I am not interested in individuals here; I am taking a STATISTICAL approach,
So may we see your STATISTICS on motivations for burglaries?
and saying that the failure of US society to take the necessary steps to give citizens a certain minimum level of wealth WILL INEVITABLY lead to crime;
But the US does provide myriads of programs to help the poor. Again, we are talking about stealing for wants, not needs.
]and that while that crime cannot be predicted - either in the detail of who will be a perpetrator or who will be a victim - the argument that crime AS A WHOLE could, potentially, be prevented in such a social structure (by policing, or by deterrence, or by people all choosing to get jobs instead of turning to crime), is insane.
Well your idea of giving 17 year old thugs enough free money that they are not tempted to engage in criminal activity is not going to eliminate crime AS A WHOLE either.
The very tedious and oft repeated debate on these boards about whether a given shooting in a given set of circumstances was or was not 'justified' is completely irrelevant to my point. Theft and burglary is common in the US, DESPITE homeowners being able to use deadly force; DESPITE harsh sentences for convicted offenders; DESPITE the fact that it is an incredibly risky thing to do. And the reason for this is that NOT ALL AMERICANS CAN GET WHAT THEY WANT BY LAWFUL MEANS.
I want a Tesla Model S. I can't afford it. So the government should provide me a Model S so I am not tempted to steal one or burgle houses to raise enough cash. Brilliant!
It is not the job of the government to provide all its citizens' wants.
Not at all. I am accepting that if reasonable wants are not met, then you will have unreasonable levels of crime.
Do you think Trevon had reasonable wants?
Of course, there will always be people with unreasonable wants who commit crime whatever support they are given; but they are very few and far between.
Depends on your definition of "reasonable".
Nevertheless, you are assuming facts not in evidence. You think your assumptions are reasonable; but I disagree - and it is irrelevant to my point either way. I don't care about the specifics of this case; they are irrelevant to the wider point, which is that crime is a function of poverty - hence the sister's quite perceptive question, 'How he gonna get his money?'.
His
cousin's question was about the specifics of Trevon's case though. I think her question showed the unreasonable levels of entitlement rather than being perceptive.
No, I am not. I don't give a flying fuck about this burglar as an individual; just as a symptom of a far larger (and far less tedious) issue.
It sure sounds like you are offering justification for these types of crimes.
Are you seriously going to argue that nobody in the USA today has unmet NEEDS?
I am saying vast majority of robberies or burglaries are not driven by any unmet needs. Again, this is not a Dickensian novel or Les Miserables.
Personal responsibility is irrelevant while the society is structured such that not everyone can possibly meet a civilized standard of personal responsibility. We need not be able to say WHO, specifically will fail (nor who, specifically will succeed despite hardship) to be able to predict that MANY will.
Personal responsibility is always relevant and part of it involves being cognizant of one's means.
Discussing 'personal responsibility' is irrelevant to the wider question of theft and burglary at the criminological level; You might as well try to understand the Niagara Falls by reference to the motion of individual water molecules.
Difference being, water molecules are incapable of making choices. Trevon Johnson was capable of making choices, and ...