Are some people more to blame for a crime then others and if so why? This is a question which many people wonder about today. I think the answer is yes. People who are brought up in a certain way are more likely to commit a certain crime than others. In he following I will consider why certain people are more to blame then others for the crimes that they commit. Before looking at the issue of if some people are more to blame than others we must first look the reasons in which people may commit crimes and the type of crimes. There are a variety of reasons for a person to commit a crime including greed, to be famous, need for money, pure hate, and insanity.
The crimes in which they commit range from murder, robberies, or rape. After looking at reasons why and the types of crimes it is now possible to look at the larger issue at hand. If a person is poor and they are performing a robbery to get some money to feed their baby should they be more to blame than someone who is rich but performing the same robbery because they are greedy. There is no right answer to this but I think that the person who is robbing the store to help his kid is less to blame. I say this because even though the person is poor it is not always his fault.
He may not be able to get money for his baby but would still feels the need to provide for it. This is what forces him to rob the store. I feel people should look at him with a bit of compassion because the reason that he was committing the crime was not a selfish one but one that benefits others. On the other hand the rich guy who robbed the store cause he was greedy should be help more accountable for his crime. Since he is rich and did not need the money and only committed the crime because of his own selfishness he is more to blame. You might say why should the blame be divided differently between the two people if in fact they did commit the same crime.
The Essay on Hate Crimes People Commit Person
"Hate Crimes" There are many different hate crimes going on in the world today, most people don't know this. Hate crimes are violent acts against people, property, or organizations because of the group which they belong to. A hate crime can range from a simple assault with no weapon to aggravated assault, rape, and sometimes even murder. There are laws against hate crimes, but yet people still act ...
Now it is true that they are both supposed to be equal but are they really truly equal. How can we say that a poor person is equal to a rich one? They may have equal rights but do they have equal opportunity to succeed in life; I think not. The poorer person is less to blame because he did not have a fair chance in his life. And if it comes down to your only child’s survival many people would do what ever it takes. That is certainly what the poorer person did. On the other hand the rich person has no real physical reason to commit the crimes only for his own self-improvement and greed.
Therefore he should be held more accountable for the crime he committed than the poorer person. There is also another argument present here is the poorer person not any less to blame but more likely to attempt a crime. Is it only that the poorer person is more likely to commit the crime because of the way they are brought up and their status in life. Many would say that the poorer person is equally to blame but just more likely. It is less often that you see a rich person robbing a bank or store just for the fun of it.
Since their economic status in life is more stable. A poorer persons economic class is usually low and often they lack the needed money to survive and that is why they commit certain crimes. They are in a way pushed to a point in which to survive the must attempt a crime. But they are still equal to everyone else in the eyes of the law and should be treated equally. Therefore they should be held up to the same standard as anyone else regardless the reason of committing that crime because they are equally at blame. Although in this situation a rich person would also have another advantage.
He would have more money available to him to provide himself with a lawyer. A public defendant is usually the lawyer for poorer people who cannot afford them and usually public defenders are right out of college with little experience in a courtroom. I mean look at the instance of O. J. Simpson. Do you really think he would have gotten off if he were not able to provide himself with some of the best lawyers in the country? If O.
The Essay on Family Breakdown Crime Poverty And Poor Education
Many problems affect our society, and each problem presents us with different challenges and obstacles. The most prevalent of these problems are crime, poverty, and poor education. Collectively, society looks toward the government to intervene and find a solution to these problems. This is easily illustrated by reflecting back to our last presidential election. The two candidates, George Bush and ...
J. were a poor man he would have been imprisoned for life but since he was rich he had an advantage and was able to get off even after committing murder. Proving that the higher your economical status is the better the more likely you are to be able to get off of a crime and showing that not everyone has an equal chance in life. Since everyone is not equal they should not be treated that way. Showing that some people are more to blame then others for equal offences. So in conclusion I think we need to take a careful look at a person before we decided how much blame should be dealt to them and how the should be prosecuted for a crime.
Since some people are more likely to commit a crime and also are less to blame then others who committed the same crime. Since everyone has equal rights and not equal opportunity I think that there are different levels of blame. Certain people are more to blame then others when they commit crime and a perfect example of this is the one about the rich and poor man robbing the store. Matt Huff Professor SkellyPhilosophyEssay 2 BLAME.
