Is "sense of entitlement" a definition of a crimin

Page 1 of 1 [ 9 posts ] 

Roman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,298

22 May 2011, 12:48 pm

A year and a half ago I have been scammed. The purpose of the scam was to help support the orphanage. The scammer eventually acknowledged that some of the things he told me were not true. But he never admitted that he was "wrong" for doing it -- after all, how else would his "poor orphan kids" be helped? So, in his mind, lying to me to get money was justified, since it helped his "poor orphan kids".

This brings me to the following thought. The "honest" charity organizations openly say that they are asking for "donations" (as opposed to "loans" that will be later returned). They get some WILLING people who agree to donate. In this situation, they are not criminals. Now, the difference between these organizations and a scam is that a scam is a "mandatory charity" so to speak. Likewise, if someone physically attacks you and snatches money out of your hand, it is also a "mandatory charity". Perhaps that person is poor. Perhaps someone would have been willing to support him out of charity. But, instead of a "willing volunteer" he "forcefully recruits" you by physically stealing money out of your packet.

Thus, the difference between charity organization and a criminal is that the latter (and NOT the former) thinks that he is ENTITLED to obtain charity. Or lets take an example of stealing from the store. Sometimes if you are a friend with someone working there you get stuff for free (take the song "piano man" for example where it mentioned getting bears for free). The only way in which shop lifter is different is that he feels that he is ENTITLED to that sort of thing. With other crimes same thing. Take rape for example. There is nothing wrong with having sex with a woman IF A WOMAN IS WILLING. But a rapist feels like he is ENTITLED for a woman, whether she is willing or not.

So could it be a general definition of a crime: a sense of ENTITLEMENT to stuff that is normally given VOLUNTARILY?



dionysian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 921
Location: Germantown, MD

22 May 2011, 12:52 pm

You can feel completely entitled, and conduct yourself honestly and with integrity. So no, we should not equate the two.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

22 May 2011, 2:57 pm

As a general rule, the mark of the criminal mind is that a person thinks the rules are good, but that they do not (or should not) apply to him.

Take not paying a tax.

If I agree the tax is necessary and proper but feel I should not have to pay it but you should, that's criminal thinking.

If I say the tax is not necessary and proper and feel neither you or I should have to pay it, that's being consistent even if the "authorities" would not see non-payment under either view as a "criminal act."



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

22 May 2011, 8:40 pm

I don't know. I think most criminals are simply selfish individuals who aren't concerned in the least on how their actions negatively impact others. Their number one concern is not getting caught.

Most criminals don't just decide to commit a major crime all at once though. Usually there's an escalating pattern. I suppose the more crimes someone commits the more thier conscience becomes habituated to feeling of guilt.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

23 May 2011, 11:05 am

Well, an "entitlement" is a right. To say "sense of entitlement" as a perception of criminal thinking is problematic.

Government would say to not perform the mandates of written law is criminal behavior.

However, a "criminal" who views the law as null and void and does not follow it nor expects others to follow it is not really exhibiting "criminal thinking."

Criminal thinking is a perception that one is not accountable to the law but that everyone else is/should be.

A criminal would not think twice about killing you if you tried to take his property by force, but thinks it's okay for him to do likewise to you. A balanced person would recognize that if you "live by the sword" you shall "die by the sword" and can't fault the "victim" for putting up armed resistance and killing him or using violence to take his property as their own.



Roman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,298

23 May 2011, 9:14 pm

dionysian wrote:
You can feel completely entitled, and conduct yourself honestly and with integrity. So no, we should not equate the two.


A normal person does not feel "entitled". Yes, there are charity organizations, but they know they are not ENTITLED to charity. They realize that the fact that someone is rich does not make them OBLIGATED to give to charity. Apparently, that is the point the scammers missing.

zer0netgain wrote:
As a general rule, the mark of the criminal mind is that a person thinks the rules are good, but that they do not (or should not) apply to him.


I don't think that is the mindset of the scammer I came across. In light of the fact that he is helping his orphan kids as opposed to himself, it is apparent he is doing it for "greater good". I think he believes that it is rich person's job to take care of the poor, whether the "rich" happens to be himself OR someone else. That is probably why he decided to run his private orphanage to begin with, despite the fact that he clearly can't afford to do so.

Even if you talk about other kinds of criminals, I don't think there is a perception that the laws apply to everyone else; after all, criminals tend to collaborate with other criminals. So, apparently, they think other criminals are ALSO doing the right thing. Perhaps the criminals consider themselves "poor" and believe they are "entitled" to get more help from the "rich" than they do; hence they side with other "poor" (aka criminals) in their fight against "unfair rich".

Let me give you one example of this kind of thing. Suppose someone holds hostages. Why should police be afraid he will actually kill his hostages like he promised to? After all, if he kills ALL of his hostages, he would have none left and, therefore, the police would easily arrest him. Thus, they should KNOW that they would allow the VERY LAST hostage to live. Now, since very last hostage is allowed to live, the hostage BEFORE the last is the only one they can threaten police with. So kllling him is not in their best interest either. Thus, the hostage before the very last will be allowed to live also. And so forth.

I actually asked my mom this question when I was little. Her answer to this was that they would kill all hte hostages in order to help FURUTURE criminals After all, if they had track record of letting hostages live, then no one would be scared of htem; but if they have track record of killing them, then they would be taken seriously. Now, why would they want to help future criminals? After all, they, themselves, would get arrested and be out of the picture. Well the reason they do so is that in criminal mind all of the criminals are "on the same side". Criminals support other criminals.

Another example my mom gave is this. At one point her grandfather was on a train and a group of kids said "lets throw the Jew out" (he was Jewish) and they were planning to physically pick him up and throw him out of the train. He responded by swearing at them. Then they changed their mind and actually started to respect him. My mom's explanation of this is that, by swearing, he appeared to be a "fellow criminal" and, therefore, "on the same side" with them. So, again, criminals don't really oppose other criminals. They support them. And this means that they don't have a perception that "the law applies to others".



Last edited by Roman on 23 May 2011, 9:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

dionysian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 921
Location: Germantown, MD

23 May 2011, 9:49 pm

Roman wrote:
dionysian wrote:
You can feel completely entitled, and conduct yourself honestly and with integrity. So no, we should not equate the two.


A normal person does not feel "entitled". Yes, there are charity organizations, but they know they are not ENTITLED to charity. They realize that the fact that someone is rich does not make them OBLIGATED to give to charity. Apparently, that is the point the scammers missing.

Maybe in this specific situation, he shouldn't have felt entitled. But there surely are many situations where it is appropriate to feel entitled to something.

Roman wrote:
dionysian wrote:
As a general rule, the mark of the criminal mind is that a person thinks the rules are good, but that they do not (or should not) apply to him.

I didn't say that. :)


_________________
"All valuation rests on an irrational bias."
-George Santayana

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS


Roman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,298

23 May 2011, 9:59 pm

dionysian wrote:
Roman wrote:
dionysian wrote:
As a general rule, the mark of the criminal mind is that a person thinks the rules are good, but that they do not (or should not) apply to him.

I didn't say that. :)


I meant to quote zer0netgain. It is simply that I don't remember exactly the format of "quote" so I cut and paste the "quote" that computer generates. So after I first quoted you, I then cut and pasted that same quote command, and forgot to change your name to zer0netgain.

Anyway, I just editted my response and changed your name to his in that quote.



dionysian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 921
Location: Germantown, MD

23 May 2011, 10:02 pm

Roman wrote:
dionysian wrote:
Roman wrote:
dionysian wrote:
As a general rule, the mark of the criminal mind is that a person thinks the rules are good, but that they do not (or should not) apply to him.

I didn't say that. :)


I meant to quote zer0netgain. It is simply that I don't remember exactly the format of "quote" so I cut and paste the "quote" that computer generates. So after I first quoted you, I then cut and pasted that same quote command, and forgot to change your name to zer0netgain.

Anyway, I just editted my response and changed your name to his in that quote.

An honest mistake. :)


_________________
"All valuation rests on an irrational bias."
-George Santayana

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS