“Discernible effect” doesn’t really refute their point, it affirms it. Some aren’t responsive to any of that.

I think it’s logical that you’re both right, with the disagreement being in the ratio. If you honestly think all humans are born equal, I suggest visiting a mental ward, or more relevant here, watching some interviews/analysis of mass murderers. There’s a well accepted, by the medical field, by objective metrics, spectrum of self control, awareness, autonomy, and intelligence, expressed in humans. We’re not all the same. You typing here suggests you’re on the relatively extreme end of the “genetic luck” spectrum.

▲

amiga386 13 hours ago | parent [-]

> If you honestly think all humans are born equal

I don't. But in addition to genetics, babies pop out of rich and poor vaginas. Socioeconomic status is a much stronger indicator for being incarcerated than genetics (not counting "male vs female"). There is also the theory that the children of prisoners grow up without fathers and are more likely to go to prison, thus perpetuating the cycle. Children that lose both parents (to imprisonment, drug addiction, abandonment) and enter foster care or become wards of the state have terrible life outcomes. Not genetic, but familial due to disrupted social support networks.

I also think that if, for example, you get addicted to heroin, and you don't have a good support network, that will be your only life until you're dead. But if you do have a good support network, you have an better chance of getting clean and staying clean.

	▲	8f2ab37a-ed6c 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		At least in the US your race is stronger indicator for being incarcerated than your affluence levels. E.g. Black Americans are somewhere 10-30x more likely to be arrested for violent crimes than Asian Americans of similar poverty levels. Race here, similarly to economics, is again a confounding variable for something else that is actual causal to this. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/135/2/711/5687353 . And again, the direction of causality here isn't obvious either. Most likely it's a combination of genetics, cultural expectations, social support networks, and a litany of other elements that all come together to affect the ultimate outcome. Which aligns with your thesis around one's support network making a huge difference. But it's just important to point out that poverty by itself is not causal of crime, it simply makes it more likely given many other factors such as culture and community. It's mildly predictive, but up to a point. Funnily enough, as a side-note, the stats show that most white-collar crime is committed by well-educated and affluent white men in their forties or older, causing a lot more financial harm than your everyday street crime added up.
	▲	nomel 11 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I agree, and I think the other person will too. You’re correct. But they’re also correct. There will be some subset of the population that will be, and remain, harmful to society. This isn’t even a purely human concept, and can be found in all species with collective/social behavior.