Lack of education (upbringing, role models, caring ) of kids from their parents is the root cause.
To be honest, I think people exaggerate the role of families when it comes to child rearing. Parents have been trying to groom offspring in their own image since time immemorial and it rarely works out the way they hope. Kids are definitely influenced a lot more by their peers and just the wider cultural climate than just the tame environment they get at home.
That said, the school system could definitely do with some substantial reforms but there's no easy or quick solution to it. The problem really is apathy, not just from the students but the teachers as well, and it creates this terrible feedback loop where eager and bright eyed youths get all the optimism beaten out of them in pretty short order. Throwing more money at the problem isn't going to fix it, and nothing else we've tried so far seems to be working either, so who knows what will happen.
I'm certain all those Harvard educated bankers actually had shitty public education with a teacher that didn't care. Education certainly plays a part, but poorly educated people are as well aware as well-educated people that something like stealing is wrong.
It's more about a culture that is created by the conditions in which people live, whether that's poverty or unaccountability. For blue-collar crime poverty and the hardships / culture that accompany it are the root causes. In a lot of ways poverty form the basis of many issues that increase crime, including stuff like poor education and poor parenting.
Originally Posted by SwizzleOriginally Posted by StarbuyPWNDyou
If you try to teach a fish to climb a tree, of course it will fail. Education needs to be far more diverse. It needs to let kids find out what they would like to do, and more importantly, what they can do. Give them realistic goals, and make them see how best to pursue a career.
RETH
Can you name the person that said that?
It's been shown by countless studies that increasing education as well as after school activities reduces crime. They are a trivial Google search away.
Now you can ask *why* education reduces crime... then you're onto a real discussion that can further both yourself and those around you. Denying education has a non-trivial impact on reducing crime, however, shows you are not involved in the discussion and have not researched your stance at all (because, again, it's a trivial Google search away and many nations have done studies on this -- so it's not a US/Euro thing).
You act like I have no idea what I'm talking about. It would be almost endearing, if it weren't for the fact that I'm a teacher. I am acutely aware of the impact of better education on reducing crime. The OP, however, is arguing that crime exists because people aren't well educated. This is patently false, because crime has existed for as long as there has been humans (and likely, long before). Crime is older than civilization; the education system is barely two centuries.
Cheerful lack of self-preservation
Very close. A huge part of the poor upbringings these days is our culture's war on the Family.
Our culture emasculates men and then wonders where all the good fathers went.
Our culture over-empowers women and then wonders why women don't want to raise children.
Our culture glorifies promiscuity and exploring your sexuality and then wonders why no one wants to settle down and raise a family.
Our culture has forgotten the importance of personal responsibility and of self control.
Our culture glorifies sex, drugs, and money and then wonders why our teenagers are getting pregnant, getting addicted to drugs, or stealing. It wonders why so many families are under crippling debt; why the parents have to spend so much time working instead of parenting.
When the Mormon church spends probably millions of dollars just to remind families to BE a family? Something is terribly wrong.
On a personal level, here's another way to look at things. Everything has a cost, and everything you invest in has some sort of return. If you invest in your family, it costs you time, money, sleep, and hobbies (just off the top of my head). All investments have risks, but the potential return on this investment is love, enjoyment, fulfillment, and possibly bringing up successful, productive members of society. You will leave a legacy that can be passed on for generations.
The alternative is bringing up a generation of emotionally broken and unproductive individuals. We are seeing THAT legacy right now. How does it look so far?
Want to do something about it? BE a role model. A good, caring father. A loving, compassionate mother. An involved aunt, uncle or best friend. Demonstrate and encourage self control. Take responsibility for your actions and for your place in life. Encourage those mothers and fathers around you.
Be excellent to each other.
So, if people fail to be educated, we should jail them?
That doesn't seem to be a great change from jailing people who fail to become educated.
Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.
Just, be kind.
Before Common Core we had one of the best education systems in the world. PISA testing showed if everyone in the US other than Asians scored at the white average we would be 2nd place in the world in math. The US blacks are smarter than blacks in any black nation and our Hispanics are smarter than Hispanics in all Hispanic nations except Spain. Considering we are importing people from the 3rd world we should close the borders until we can bring those 3rd world people in our country up to a reasonable level. Asians 6 months off the boat leave ESL classes but 4th generation Hispanics are still far behind Asians and whites.
One thing that is true across all races is that overwhelming majority those in prison for violent crimes are in the 70-90IQ range.
Not in the slightest. The nuclear family is actually a significantly -less- effective method than is ideal.
- - - Updated - - -
1) Common core has nothing to do with it.
2) One of the best education systems, but this high quality education was and remains unavailable to the majority of people.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
You've got the first part backwards. The role of the family is absolutely the most important part of child rearing, and this is becausetheir peers and culture are so influential. "Train up a child in the way they should go, and when they are old they will not depart from it."
Growing up I had friends who smoked and did drugs. I didn't join them because I'd been taught it was wrong.
I had friends having babies in their teenage years. I didn't join them because I'd been taught it was wrong.
I had friends that lied, cheated and stole. I didn't join them because I'd been taught it was wrong.
I was no saint growing up, but I've always managed to keep my nose clean.
I agree with you on your second paragraph.
In terms of child development the extended family is a superior model, simply because they derive benefit from the older generations who are retired and have more disposable hours being able to attend to a child's needs. Good childrearing has much more to do with how many hours can be devoted to the child rather than having a particular family structure - point in fact, the principle reason single parenting is less effective has much more to do with the fact the childrearer and breadwinner are the same individual.
And no, there is no 'war on the family' because all of the things you listed like sexual and gender identity aren't remotely relevant (nor are they bad things in of themselves). It has much more to do with the fact that people have to work harder, for longer hours, and for less income.And are you saying there is no war on the family?
- - - Updated - - -
Right, except that I said it in a way that isn't basically the same thing as 'women should get back in the kitchen'.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
Ok, I agree with you here. "It takes a village to raise a child". Extended family absolutely do play a large part. Growing up for me it was less so, but right now with my own children it's definitely a big thing.
I disagree with you; they are definitely relevant, and while you may think they are not bad, I'd love to see how they're good.And no, there is no 'war on the family' because all of the things you listed like sexual and gender identity aren't remotely relevant (nor are they bad things in of themselves). It has much more to do with the fact that people have to work harder, for longer hours, and for less income.
And again, I agree with you on the financial/time aspect.
There's gotta be some sort of happy medium between 'women should get back in the kitchen' and the ultra-feminism that's being peddled these days.Right, except that I said it in a way that isn't basically the same thing as 'women should get back in the kitchen'.
I think we both agree that there are some things seriously wrong with our economy that are heavily affecting this and upcoming generations and their ability to be healthy and productive members of society.
If you'd like to agree to disagree on the social/moral aspects we've been addressing, I'm all for it. Have to run anyhow, and I have a feeling neither of us are likely to budge from our positions.
All the best!
Last edited by Kancel; 2016-04-11 at 12:08 AM. Reason: word omission.
I think most people understand how poverty and hardship can lead to criminal behavior, but we need to stop short of using that as a rationalization for crime. We need to stop letting people use the excuse that they robbed a liquor store or sold drugs because they needed the money to feed their family, because regardless of how close to reality that may be it still means that they fundamentally fucked up somewhere. After all, there isn't a single place on Earth where the majority of people are criminals, so those that are can't just blame everything on economic conditions.