How does capitalism affect crime?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Curious2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    crime
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between capitalism and crime, with participants debating whether capitalism exacerbates or reduces crime rates. Some argue that crime is primarily driven by poverty and social pressures, suggesting that capitalism can alleviate these issues by reducing poverty. Others contend that crime exists in all systems, including capitalism and communism, and that factors like resource distribution and social management are crucial. The conversation also touches on the effectiveness of legal systems and the role of government control in crime rates. Ultimately, the complexity of the issue suggests that crime cannot be solely attributed to capitalism or any single economic system.
  • #51
I think that most people in this thread are sort of thinking about crime in the terms that are most beneficial for the ruling class. Capitalism has assisted with a lot of good things (innovation), but it has also created an entirely new class of criminal: the corporate kind. To paraphrase the quote, robbing one person with a gun gets you labeled "criminal," and robbing thousands of people with a fountain pen gets you labeled "dishonest." And let's not forget about people like commodities speculators, who cause starvation in other countries, and, yet, are not even considered criminals since what they are doing is legal.

"Crime" is a term that is very polluted by propoganda/public relations, and I'm not even sure how constructive it is to talk about societies in terms of "crime."
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Pseudo Zing said:
o paraphrase the quote, robbing one person with a gun gets you labeled "criminal," and robbing thousands of people with a fountain pen gets you labeled "dishonest."
While I sympathize with your point, there is a pretty distinct difference. You know, the whole imminent-bodily-harm-and-possibly-death thing.

Turn the argument on its head. Say you set a reasonable sentence for corporate crime - say, two years (forget the details). Then someone goes out and points a loaded weapon in a victim's face, threatening to blow them (or their loved ones) to bits. Do they get sentenced no worse?
 
  • #53
DaveC426913 said:
Turn the argument on its head. Say you set a reasonable sentence for corporate crime - say, two years (forget the details)
How am I supposed to answer a hypothetical question without any details? 8^\

Certainly every brand of crime is different and has different consequences, but I'm not sure the differences are so incredible. Beating someone up and taking their wallet has painful consequences and so does robbing a large group of people of their pensions and ruining their retirement.
 
  • #54
That's the point, though: if a corporate criminal steals a million dollars from his investors, perhaps he gets 5 years in jail. If he puts the money in a duffle bag and someone robs him at gunpoint, that robber might get 10. Fair or unfair?
 
  • #55
Pseudo Zing said:
How am I supposed to answer a hypothetical question without any details? 8^\
The point is that it's a difference of quality, not quantity. Assign your own numbers.

Pseudo Zing said:
Certainly every brand of crime is different and has different consequences, but I'm not sure the differences are so incredible. Beating someone up and taking their wallet has painful consequences and so does robbing a large group of people of their pensions and ruining their retirement.
No. Being shot to death is worse than losing one's pension - hands down.






russ_watters said:
That's the point, though: if a corporate criminal steals a million dollars from his investors, perhaps he gets 5 years in jail. If he puts the money in a duffle bag and someone robs him at gunpoint, that robber might get 10. Fair or unfair?
I'm not sure whether you're arguing for or against a tougher penalty for the mugging.
 
Last edited:
  • #56
DaveC426913 said:
I'm not sure whether you're arguing for or against a tougher penalty for the mugging.
I was just restating the question, since Pseudo Zing didn't want to answer it the way you worded it.
 
  • #57
turbo-1 said:
I think you'll find that the US locks up WAY more people than any communist government on a per-capita basis, and many of the prisoners have sentences that are quite harsh compared to the severity of their offenses. For instance, a person who gets a lengthy jail-term for a drug offense in which there was no assault, no intent to commit a violent act, no property damage, etc, and no weapons involved.
We are running out of modern communist governments with which to compare, but back just before Stalin died we had:
Soviet Union (1953): ~2.5 million in gulags in colonies, not counting local jails and prisons.
US (1953): ~250,000.
In addition there was the forced conscription in the Red Army of 2-5 million all through the Cold war.
http://www.etext.org/Politics/Staljin/Staljin/articles/AHR/AHR.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
51
Views
11K
Replies
73
Views
14K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
4K
2
Replies
56
Views
4K
Replies
19
Views
4K
Back
Top