I think it was really ironic that the poster on addiction came right before the prison poster. There are so many overlapping components that fall into both categories, and they are extremely correlated with one another. Addiction is argued as being genetic as well as being brought about by environmental components; The same is proposed regarding how criminals come to be.
The two combine to create a single circulating reference, which is kept sustained by the effects of the other, and the cycle never ends. People with addictions live for the sole purpose that satisfies whatever it is that they have come to solely depend upon, and they start turning to desperate measures such as criminal activity just to get their fix.
It would be inaccurate to rule out nature completely, but environment seems to be the leading contributor. For example, a poverty-stricken environment promotes crime in order to survive and a lot of people turn to drugs to get through their hard lives. A trend of addiction often arises. While it would be interesting to locate the various interacting genes (if any were to exist) that increase criminal behavior, it would be very hard to eliminate criminals based on this factor alone, since there is always going to be negative impacting surroundings that foster crime and addiction.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that race and class play a large deal into these as well. Together these factors can determine how for long and where you go to prison, what your treatment is like and what you'll go to jail for. For example, since 1986 a person caught with 5g of crack is faced with a 5-year-minimum prison penalty for a first-time trafficking offense. It takes 500g of powder cocaine to see the same sentence, even though every year about 2x more people are arrested for cocaine possession. Most analysts attribute this difference to the fact that crack is typically bought from African American street dealers while powdered cocaine users are almost exclusively white and affluent.
ReplyDelete