If crime is learned, who taught the first criminal?

[eHeart95]

Assuming that a person learns to be a criminal from someone else, who taught the first criminal?

Updates

+1 y

Perimeters: All human crime. Those done by men, women, children, violent, sexual, property, etc. Anything illegal done by humans.

[ObscuredBeyond]

Volition Dilemma was a problem since before the human race existed. The First Man succumbed to the dilemma of truth of things by definition being unacceptable, due to how limiting the implications were. So he rebelled. And was cursed. And even the first of his sons was filled with a desire to be a rebel.

And when pushed too far by jealousy, rebellion, rage, and spite, did what was not necessary to survive or even sensible, purely out of spite. Since then, evil has been in the heart of everyone, always looking for an excuse no matter how lame to manifest itself.

The tiniest babies have shown envy, spite, and vindictiveness in their motions, so Matthew 15:19 is very much in play from a very early age. That being said, one corruption-prone individual learning yet another form of corruption from another corruption-prone individual is as easy as monkey-see, monkey do. Chicken or egg, it doesn't really matter anymore.

[Anonymous]

"Who taught the first criminal?"

Himself/herself. Greed, desire, passion, etc...all are valid enough emotions to make a person act out on what we call a crime. There's an old quote that basically said "Wicked, was the first man who crafted a sword". Essentially, it means that the natural weapons or his bare hands weren't enough/efficient to hurt or kill someone else, so he devised a tool that would do the job better.

And this leads to another quote that rounds out why the first "wicked" person was self-taught: "Necessity is the mother of all invention"

[Daph81]

I'd say it's just in our nature to do what it takes to survive. Even when it means stealing, killing, etc. Then society or isolation can also has its effects on a person. A person doesn't have to be taught to commit crime. Envy over something someone else has could drive someone to steal or kill. Isolation can also cause mental problems, and who knows what kinds of scenarios goes on in an isolated person's mind?

So I think every human being has the potential to commit crime, what matters is the trigger.

[Daph81]

hey thanks for BA! =)

[eHeart95]

No problem. I personally view it as more of human nature as well but I think you made good points. Isolation, society, emotions, and most importantly the trigger. I think it's important to understand that everyone and anyone could commit a crime but it depends on everything else as well.

[Daph81]

yeah. For example: Someone who wants to kill someone out of rage, if they have people around them who discourage him, might in the end not go through with his crime.

[cheeky_starfish]

lol Well I'm sure that some criminals are self taught. A young boy or girl walks into a corner shop and sees some sweets that they want, but can't afford, so they just take them... That starts the balls rolling! Just an example like, but I would imagine that many criminals are self taught, given a personal desire for things that they can't afford, a lack of conscience (or out of desperation) and the opportunity to take them. Hope that makes sense! lol

[eHeart95]

Makes sense, to a degree. But that follows less of the taught theory and more of the human nature one.

[cheeky_starfish]

Well I'm sure that some is taught, like it runs in the family kind of thing. Others will just either get in the wrong crowd at school, or find at a young age that they get the opportunity & just take it, like a child taking a packet of sweets from the shop. Maybe they didn't have a good upbringing, or they are just of that nature as a troublesome child. Overall, I think there are many, many reasons for 'criminals' with their own individual circumstances. I'm sure that both theories apply... :o)

[aMuse]

he first law maker... It's not a crime until someone writes it down as one.

[aMuse]

*The

[eHeart95]

What about 'morally wrong crime' such as murder or rape? What if that wasn't illegal- wouldn't it still be wrong? Yes, I understand most religions are against it so you can argue that sacred text makes it law but what about the nonreligious- is it then alright for them?

[aMuse]

It wouldn't be a crime. A crime is a breach of law. If you want to know who taught people how to be amoral, then you have to go back and look at philosophy to see who defined the first morals that were accepted among men. Those would have been passed along orally though, not written. It's the same circumstance though. People make an idea and that they deem enforceable based on some common belief they agree upon as a tribe/civilization.

[aMuse]

Morals have been very flexible and evolving throughout human history. What is amoral, and illegal today was common place in yesteryear.

[aMuse]

People murder each other all the time legally. Look at executioners and soldiers. They bear that burden but people don't look at them as criminals.

[aMuse]

*bare

[aMuse]

* bear lol whoops

[eHeart95]

Executioners do it through the law, historically speaking. I would argue that it when soldiers do kill someone, no matter how legal it is, they would themselves still feel wrong. Not by law but by morals. Most legal systems mimic morals though. I do understand your original point though that it isn't crime unless it's against the law but even without it being against the law, others could see it as wrong and turn away from the perpetrator causing them to be, in a sense a 'criminal'.

[aMuse]

They wouldn't be a criminal even if they were shunned or outcast. Throughout history many men were honored by the amount of men they killed in battle. It was a sense of pride to be strong, to crush your enemies, and to protect your family. It was also considered an honor to die in battle for many cultures.

[aMuse]

As I said, morals are up to interpretation. People don't necessarily connect wrong doing with action, but more so with intention.

[aMuse]

Killing isn't amoral at it's root. We kill for food all the time. It puts meat on the table. Killing with malice intent seems to be what is looked down upon.

[eHeart95]

True, true. I suppose I was thinking more modern for that part- but that's a good point. And no, in that case they wouldn't actually be an actual criminal so much as a society made criminal, which is different. I was just wondering how you viewed that.

[aMuse]

I view everything in life through intention. =) If I deem it justified based on my own core principles which don't always align with those of the society I am subject of, then I'm totally fine with those actions.

[Cromartie]

You mean the first human criminal? It was probably learned from other animals. After all squirrels are notorious thieves.

[dodgypirate]

You don't learn to be a criminal - you're born as one.

[croxy]

You don't need to be tought to do a crime to do a crime. Everyone is born neutral, not good or bad.

[rocksongwriter]

Which kind of crime?

[eHeart95]

All human crime.

[rocksongwriter]

This question ignores the fact that different countries have different laws. A person could smoke dope in Holland, then come to the U.S. where dope smoking is illegal and smoke dope. No one taught the criminal how to commit crime, it's just that the person moved to where doing that activity just happened to be illegal.

[eHeart95]

Fair enough but in that case, it is still a crime because upon traveling to a different country that you know nothing about, it's generally a good idea to look at their laws. For the purpose of this question, assume that you know it's illegal.

[rocksongwriter]

You also gotta take into account that laws change. Sometimes a person isn't aware that the law has changed and they become a criminal without even knowing it.

[rocksongwriter]

"Assume that you know it's illegal." I didn't see that part.

[RideMyNorthFace]

Temptation.

[Anonymous]

Other normal citizens