Psychological explanations of crime - interesting
Why do the labeling, conflict, and radical theories offer alternative explanations of crime? What is the distinction if any between the 1. Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? psychological explanations of crime
Donations help support this Blog.
Post navigation
Jung: What you have said seems to me to refer only to a criminal who would be, as an individual, a criminal, but I think most people who commit a crime do it out of a sort of mistake. They do things which are not really individual.
To him, the criminal is a man who has gone astray, say a fool or a diseased individual who ought to be article source away with, so there is no question of consciousness of crime or of the problem of individuation in the criminal.
Jung: But you say he must only be improved when it is proved that he has got to be a criminal. But with many people it is not proved that they have to be criminals; it is quite unconscious what they have to be. Prof Jung: Sure enough, if they were not unconscious there would be a redeeming factor; as a matter of fact they are psychological explanations of crime identical with what they do that they do not know what happens to them. Prof Jung: That is a question, As soon as one begins to reason about the possible arguments in favor of capital punishment, one simply loses oneself in a maze of considerations and can do nothing.
Hagfish Facts: Strange Animals That Make an Intriguing Slime
So the simplest thing would be to react according to feeling; then you do something which is perfectly proper and sufficient, except for the intellectual who wants to have proper reasons. You see, what the psychological explanations of crime is for the criminal, whether he can be improved or whether, by committing his crime outside himself, killing somebody else, he has done evil to himself, selling his own chance. Those are considerations for the criminal and we are not speaking of his psychology, but of the psychology of Nietzsche versus his own instincts. I speak of the criminal in this frame and not of the psychology of this individual criminal-merely of the social psychological explanations of crime of this individual. If one goes far enough, everybody has done something or is planning to do something which is not right, which is criminal; and there we have to observe all the rules of the game, exactly as in any other case.
I also cannot say that all murderers should be analysed, as I cannot say that all neurotics should be analysed. For there are certain social considerations over which I am not a lord, and I never make rules that would be good for humanity, particularly if nobody is very likely to carry them out. They kill murderers in France, in Italy, in England, in America, in Germany, and in most Catholic cantons of Switzerland; only a few very enlightened and reasonable communities https://digitales.com.au/blog/wp-content/custom/general-motors-and-the-affecting-factors-of/pro-choice-vs-prolife.php gone astray so far as not to kill murderers.
Brainstorm
I am not speaking of our Christianity-that point of view is not valid at all, only talk; I go by facts, and the fact is that capital punishment is valid in nearly all the most enlightened and civilized countries, and I am not against it. The purpose of individuation is that every part of the individual must be integrated, also the criminal part; otherwise, it is left by itself and works evil. It is, but it is not to be judged from a moral point of view because that is not helpful. It does not help to say a thing is bad or good. To say it is bad helps least the thing psychological explanations of crime is the most important, namely, that one crim accept the bad thing. The paleness comes from the fact that the man was made pale by an idea; he begins to think over what he has done, and he gives it a name. Please click for source remember we came across this idea before; it was represented as a particular mistake to give a name to your virtues.
So you cause a conflict by giving names, but one cannot see how to do otherwise. The psychological explanations of crime has to give it a name, then. He adopts an idea about his deed and says he has done so psgchological so, and then cannot stand it because he sees himself with ten thousand pairs of eyes.
He has heard that word from psychological explanations of crime thousand other mouths already; when he says to himself that he has committed a murder, he sees it in printed letters in the newspaper, and what he has done is just that awful thing which is called murder. While if he did not give it a name, it would have remained his individual deed, his individual experience, which is not expressed by the collective noun murder.
And then it turned out that he was dead.
Then they realize it and get pale, but as long as somebody simply has been removed, well, it was awkward that he was found afterwards with a fractured skull, but that does not make one pale: it is simply regrettable. T hey are quite astonished when they are told that they have committed a crime, because they only did it for a certain link and never thought that it had such an ugly name.
So the pale criminal is really slain by his own idea of it, though it is not psychological explanations of crime his own, epxlanations is now the standpoint of the eleven thousand virgins who are flabbergasted.
That is the madness after the deed. Now what is this line of chalk which paralyzes the hen in the text? You must log in to post a comment. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam.]
Matchless topic, it is pleasant to me))))
It is the truth.
I apologise, but, in my opinion, you are not right. I suggest it to discuss. Write to me in PM, we will communicate.
This brilliant phrase is necessary just by the way