There always has been and always will be horrible bastards.
Don't give them excuses by blaming society. Society didn't force them to steal the bloke's dig or kick him senseless, those individuals did.
No doubt if they had been caught the weeping and wailing on their behalf would have commenced and no thought given to the victim of their vile behaviour.
And despite the thread title this happens everywhere.
I admit I used to think in such black and white terms, it's almost like the default position for the human psyche to take - blame the individual. It just makes sense doesn't it? No critical thinking needed, that's just how it is. Whilst I would still give it some validity (it's so fucking hard not to) I do think that the reality is that things are more nuanced.
There's three discourses around anti-social behaviour by a clever fucker called Ruth Levitas. She outlines how to view this sort of behaviour and the one you subscribe to is the Moral Underclass Discourse (MUD) - some people are just 'worse' than others and will continue to be shits regardless and is usually more closely associated with right-wing policy and practically every Daily Mail story - punishment is the best, or only, resolution to crime rather than early intervention - don't give offenders support, just throw the bastards in nick etc.
What you say about "society didn't force them to..." is actually the point that gave me pause for thought (once a professor told me to) because as I say I used to think in those absolute terms myself. If you then direct that phrase towards other anti-social behaviours however - drug use, prostitution etc. it begins to unravel a little. It's pretty much taken for granted now that in those cases its better to give them support rather than to just punish their crimes so why not when it applies to violence or theft? I think the answer is because in the first two instances the 'crime' is generally more passive and the individuals are only directly hurting themselves whereas once you, your mum or your mate are hurt the natural human instinct is for retribution. It stirs up powerful emotions and generally speaking that's the worst state to be in with regards to thinking straight.
Now I'm not saying at all that you, or anyone else, is a neanderthal for thinking in those terms but like any social construction of course there must be grey areas. Here's the kicker you need to ask yourself - was every single one of those lads born to be vicious, aggressive arseholes? For the MUD position you subscribe to to hold true - that it's the individual that's always to blame and they're not products of their upbringing or the society they live in - you need to have the belief that if they were brought up as a single child by a farmer and his wife on a remote Shetland Isle he would still be a vicious, aggressive arsehole going round looking for someone's dog to rob or someone's head to kick in. That's an extreme example of course, but, for me, it just got me thinking about how the "society didn't make him..." is just too simplistic a position to take. I suppose another way to put it is who
isn't a product of their society? If you accept that proposal to be true then doesn't that mean that society
could do things that could shape an individual's actions? Therefore the MUD discourse comes under severe attack.
Now I know it's unheard of from anyone to change their position on the back of a forum post but I'd be interested to know whether you'd already had the above internal conversation previously (just not in those discourse terms) and still think the same, or if it has made you think any differently. In terms of thinking logically the MUD discourse is pretty much obliterated but then that is without taking into account base human nature and the need for revenge.
All a bit heavy I know, but then it's a heavy thread.
