This is a philosophical argument, not sociological. Sociologically, no crime is in no way necessary. Its removal from society would pose no serious detriment, and any detriments that it did cause would be counterbalanced by the positive influence that a removal of crime would bring. Philosophically, one can make an argument for the necessity of crime. There is the possible: things can only be defined through their opposites (i.e. the can be no good without some evil), or the classic sophist argument that one must only follow the laws of man when there is the possibility of being caught, otherwise the "law of nature" applies (one does what it best for oneself, the strong dominate the weak) Then again I believe neither of the philosophical arguments, but one can make a convincing case for either. For the evolution guy, read up on what evolution actually is, not what the uneducated popular idea of evolution is. If we were still hunter/gatherers, we would be considered evolutionarily inferior to what we are today. And humans wouldn't have grabbed a spear to hunt dinosaurs. Even if there was any overlap whatsoever in the species life (which has not been conclusively proven either way) humans from that time period would be fairly low in the food web and not likely to go after many dinosaurs, mammals would have been preferential prey for us. EDIT: And if you do not want this topic to be closed, simply ignore the flamer, that way if he continues to be an ass, he can get banned and our topic can remain open.
I can see your approach on this matter, but heres a weird way to look at it. We were not too fond of terrorist attacks and we slowly adjusted and - as you say - adapted to it. Then when 9/11 hit, we were in shock, the market suffered, we all had a loss one way or another. Thats why I think adapting to a peaceful environment leaves risks.
Crime is part of life. If crime wasnt part of life, the world we be a completely different place. Peoples cars, their steroes and anything people save up for wouldnt get stolen. People wouldnt die from murder. Jails and Prisons would be unheard of. Wars wouldnt even be fought (maybe some would). Simple fact of the matter is, crime is here. It will always be around.
there has been/is/always will be crime, there is some with mental issues, some with problems in life, others who are jealous, all sorts of issues that cause crime, it will never end
It is a sociological arguement as well although the sociological perspective on the arguement is that if we have rules to govern us theyre are always going to be a few people who break them. I believe the theory is put forward in a book called discipline and punishment and was also expressed by a french socologist named foucault.
crime cant, and wont end as long as there are people with better things then others, crime can always happen
Ah an educated man. That branch of sociology takes all of it reasoning from philosophy, but I am willing to concede to you that this point can fall under sociology in that frame of reference. Yes it is in human nature that ome will always break the rules as you put it. I was never trying to argue this point. I was attempting to argue that it is not necessary, which was the original question. Necessity and existence are different things. Unless of course, you are of the opinion that if somehting exists it must be necessary, but the argument can get truely convoluted at that point.
