Is most violent crime (assault, rape, murder) more a result of sociological forces (weak economy, lack of jobs, poor education) or more of a result of psychological forces (abnormal levels of aggression)?

Obviously, it's a combination. However, which do you feel has more of an effect?

Sociological. Crime is more a learned behavoir than anything else. I don't think that many people are "Born to kill" or the like. Predesposition to it, prehaps, but it still takes social forces to bring it about.

Depends on how you look at it, too, since our reactions to sociological factors are rooted in psychology.

It's more socialogical I think. Say, with a poor education, they can't get jobs, no money, live in the slums, that whole "kill or be killed" mindset going on. Definitely socialogical.

Psychological, especially iwth the examples listed I can say the UK has a high violent crime rate even though employment has been at an all time high, and the economy is going alright.

Of course, social effects affect the mindset if im correct so really, there is a fine line in judgement..

Oh I agree with that, but pysc already stated (and I agree) that it is both. Which is the primary one is what I was relating to.

And I'm saying psychology, since that's what determines our responses to environmental and "sociological" factors. Not every impoverished person becomes a criminal, but some people are less capable of dealing with poverty in non-criminal fashions.

Ah, right, from your orginal post it didn't sound like thats what you were saying, at least not to me.

I'd agree that both play a role in most instances of violent crime.

I don't imagine this will sway your answers much, but here's another way to look at it. If you had the funds, resources, and staff to address either the psychological aspect of it (via counseling, medication, finding problem individuals and institutionalizing them) or the sociological aspect of it (by producing jobs, improving education, improving race relations), which would you focus on?

If we could some how address the sociological part of it, then I think that would be better as a whole for soceity.

I see the sociological environment as much more malleable than individuals' psyches, so I'd have to say the former.

Interesting. Do you feel that our law enforcement and justice systems deal with crime as a sociological phenomenon? Should it?

Do you buy into arguments in court such as "my defendant group up in a bad neighborhood?"

That's getting more into my philosophy, which isn't something supported by a lot of hard evidence. There are definitely sociological factors to crime, "growing up in a bad neighborhood", as you put it, makes crime statistically more likely. However, when it comes to the justice system, I think we need to believe absolutely in free will, the criminal may have grown up in a bad part of town, but the crime was still his choice, and ultimately his responsibility. I don't think we can start excusing crimes or lessening sentences because of those factors, or we open ourselves up to a whole mess of changes to our social structure which I can't see as being particularly pleasant.

I still think we ought to try to reduce sociological factors which encourage crime, but we should not change the way we view individual criminals. I believe we're currently at a point where the justice system could go either way on that issue, and I can only hope it's not towards being more lenient on criminals.

Ultimately psychological.

And just to clarify, although crime's fundamental roots are in psychology, you would focus on sociological shifts because those forces are more malleable, correct?

I agree with focusing on both, but it should be done by two people

1) the government, should focus on the sociological shifts simply because their jobs are to get the best soil to plant the seeds in, to elaborate- get the best schools going for parents to send their children to in order to get the good examples planted/

2) the parents- seemingly underrated in today's world of psychology and so on- they need to be the ones who set the good example and therefore at the root of the problem because the parents are the ones who know their children from birth up and have had years of oppurtunity even before they enter education to set good behavioral standards.

Correct, but again that's the result of my philosophical assessment of the situation as it applies to the justice system.

Especially when the actor is the government.

Out of curiosity... LP, do you think that most of these types of criminals have something "wrong" with them (psychological, sociological, or otherwise), or do you think that they are rational actors actively choosing to disregard laws for personal gain?

The answer is actually yes and yes. I believe all thinking humans to be rational, but being rational is not the same as being right. In that sense, there is something "wrong" with criminals, namely that they chose to commit crimes, but I would say that everyone has the capacity to become a criminal, just to varying degrees, and we all exist in different conditions which creates further variance in our actions. The only example that's coming to mind right now is (and I'm going to be crucified for this) intelligence, where people of lower intelligence are more likely to succumb to outside (sociological) pressures to commit crimes, so you've got at least two mechanisms in just that one example which make criminal behavior more or less likely. To say that either of them is something "wrong" with the individual probably isn't proper, and since, as I've expressed, I do still believe absolutely in free will, I will maintain that the only thing "wrong" with any criminal which matters, is simply that choice they made.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a significant correlation, but that would depend more on specific crimes. Certain pre-meditated crimes require a minimum level of intelligence that so-called "crimes of passion" do not.

So when you say that the primary cause of crime is psychological, you're not necessarily saying that there's some inherent flaw/problem (genetic, biological, or chemical) affecting their thoughts--rather you're using "psychological" in the sense of an individual's free will to act.

"Psychology" meaning the way people think, that is the ultimate determinant. Sociological factors are influential, but it's the way that individuals deal with them that's important.

Of course, sociological factors also influence the way that they deal with sociological factors.

At any rate, I ultimately agree. Ultimately, crime can be boiled down to a choice (more often than not, a series of choices) that an individual makes.

Sociological factors play a role, but serious crimes are committed by people of all sociological backgrounds.

Well sociology can make a big difference. However, I think psychology over sociology. Even with sociological influence you're still an individual. Conditions don't make the choice, you do. Individuals think for themselves, that's what we hope anyway.

With regards to the crimes you've citied I agree it's mostly psychological and boils down to a persons choice to commit those crimes.

I believe that at some point to rape, or murder someone there is ALWAYS a choice be it conciously made or not, a choice to do harm to that other person is made.

I would argue that the more petty crimes are sociological though.

Can you explain this more?