why do people commit crime for selfish reason?

Criminal behavior has always been a focus for psychologist due to the age old debate between nature and nurture. Is it the responsibility of an individual’s genetic makeup that makes them a criminal, or is it the environment in which they are raised that determines their outcome? Research was conducted regarding this which resulted in a conclusion that genes, environment, and society do play a role in the criminality of individuals.   Criminal justice teaches about the different reasons why criminal choose to do criminal acts. 

All available scientific, forensic and technical resources should press full force behind a more classical approach to criminology. This effort should be applied within the context of modern times. Following a doctrine of "psychological hedonism", the classical approach holds that people choose freely among alternatives of behavior. In this view, the perpetrator plans his or her criminal behavior before carrying out his or her actions. The individual creates the basis for their departure from socially, morally or legally sanctioned aspects of behavior. A person calculates the "pain versus the pleasure of an act", or the gain minus the risk of doing a certain thing. Not unlike the rest of us, the perpetrator carries out his or her conduct as a result of personal calculations. Such acts of deviance stem from the pleasure being greater than the risk. In other words, they want to take something that someone else has. Criminals want the shortest distance between two points. The implication of the doctrine is that the societal reaction to crime should be the administration of a measured amount of pain. The general proposition of the classical school is that it is necessary to make undesirable acts painful. Attaching punishment is crucial to making an impact on behavior. Likewise, punishment requires re-education, so that criminals learn through painful costly consequence such behavior is counterproductive.

Accountability and responsibility are attached in definite ways, so the perceived loss will exceed the gain. Since the punishment must be one that can be calculated, it must be the same for all individuals. No one is excused regardless of age, mentality, social or economic status, political influence or other self-indulgent conditions. People are held in absolute accountability to the actions they choose. Deterrence and moral retribution replace rehabilitation. Preventing criminal behavior before it happens is part of the overall strategy of crime control objectives. This perspective presupposes that people will take advantage of opportunities. Since people freely decide their course of conduct, rapid societal interdiction is necessary. A concept of "free-will" criminology is necessary to ensure society does not disintegrate due to an obsession with behavioral excuses. Behavior is influenced by a decision-making process that relies on consequences.

People commit crimes as part of a selfish desire to get something for nothing. Their "private logic" focuses on their alleged "suffering" at the hands of an insensitive and cruel world. They selfishly desire to take advantage of opportunities, exploit their prurient interests, and assert their abilities. All this is done based on their individual capabilities to get what they think is rightfully theirs. The criminal is not a victim of society. Neither is he or she forced into a position of disadvantage by others. Criminals refuse to accept responsibility and accountability for their behavior. When caught, they are quick to puppet excuses the social sciences, the media and politicians have preconceived for them. Criminals develop their thinking processes on the basis of "being owed" something. His or her behavior becomes connected to what they believe is "entitlement".

Personal choice dominates the motives of individual actions. We think, we fantasize and we act according to our underlying belief system. Through a process of rational conscious thought, we select the temptations of preference. Regardless of what comes into us from external sources, we pick what we want. We employ our learning history to do things we conjure in our own minds. Such is the rational process by which we pick and select the course of action we take. In a kind of "economic view" of the world, people balance the risks, or the costs, involved in doing a certain act. Upon validation that the "benefit" outweighs the cost, we decide to act. Then again, we might decide not to act. Crime, in a sense, holds a seductive quality and grips our attention. We are mesmerized by the darkness in the balance between good and evil. Good and evil is simply picture thinking about the scope of human nature. For some, crime pays, until caught. At the very least, we calculate a "pain versus pleasure" reality.

[SG Lovers] Hyun Bin - That Man (Eng-Sub)

REASONS by 4MEN........(ost secret garden) 

 

There is no way you can know me,
you don’t know anything
If you loved someone, then you will know me

Could you become me?
Could we exchange our hearts?
If you loved this much you will know my heart

You will never know my heart,
wanting to protect someone for the first time.

You can lean on me, it must of been hard for you,
you waited a long time
it took too long to come back to you
Hope this isn’t just accidental
My heart knows you first and tells me
I was waiting for you

Love changes a lot of things
even things you think that could never change
Even changed my little habits

In the end I hope it will be you
The person that will be with me,
That person will be you.

You can lean on me, it must of been hard for you,
you waited so long
Took too long to come back to you
I hope this isn’t just accidental,
My heart knows you first and tells me
I was waiting for you,
It was love from long before

I will scream to the world that I love you
I will protect you from now on
Even if my body changes,
My heart is still here
My heart knows you first

The Modern Art Of Dying : A History Of Euthanasia in United States

By Shai J. Lavi

Winner of the Distinguished Book Award 2006, Sociology of Law Section, American Sociological Association

How we die reveals much about how we live. In this provocative book, Shai Lavi traces the history of euthanasia in the United States to show how changing attitudes toward death reflect new and troubling ways of experiencing pain, hope, and freedom.

Lavi begins with the historical meaning of euthanasia as signifying an "easeful death." Over time, he shows, the term came to mean a death blessed by the grace of God, and later, medical hastening of death. Lavi illustrates these changes with compelling accounts of changes at the deathbed. He takes us from early nineteenth-century deathbeds governed by religion through the medicalization of death with the physician presiding over the deathbed, to the legalization of physician-assisted suicide.

Unlike previous books, which have focused on law and technique as explanations for the rise of euthanasia, this book asks why law and technique have come to play such a central role in the way we die. What is at stake in the modern way of dying is not human progress, but rather a fundamental change in the way we experience life in the face of death, Lavi argues. In attempting to gain control over death, he maintains, we may unintentionally have ceded control to policy makers and bio-scientific enterprises.

EUTHANASIA???

Introduction

When a person carries out an act of euthanasia, he brings about the death of another person because he believes the latter's present existence is so bad that she would be better off dead, or believes that unless he intervenes and ends her life, it will become so bad that she would be better off dead. The motive of the person who commits an act of euthanasia is to benefit the one whose death is brought about. (Though what was just said also holds for many instances of physician-assisted suicide, some wish to restrict the use of the latter term to forms of assistance which stop short of the physician ‘bringing about the death’ of the patient, such as those involving mechanical means that have to be activated by the patient).

Our concern will be with voluntary euthanasia that is, with those instances of euthanasia in which a clearly competent person makes a voluntary and enduring request to be helped to die. There will be occasion to mention non-voluntary euthanasia,  instances of euthanasia where a person is either not competent to, or unable to, express a wish about euthanasia and there is no one authorised to make a substituted judgment (in which case a proxy tries to choose as the no-longer-competent patient would have chosen had she remained competent) in the context of considering the claim that permitting voluntary euthanasia will lead via a slippery slope to permitting non-voluntary euthanasia. Nothing will be said here about involuntary euthanasia, where a competent person's life is brought to an end despite an explicit expression of opposition to euthanasia, beyond saying that, no matter how honourable the perpetrator's motive, such a death is, and ought to be, unlawful.

Debate about the morality and legality of voluntary euthanasia has been, for the most part, a phenomenon of the second half of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty first century. Certainly, the ancient Greeks and Romans did not believe that life needed to be preserved at any cost and were, in consequence, tolerant of suicide in cases where no relief could be offered to the dying or, in the case of the Stoics and Epicureans, where a person no longer cared for his life. In the sixteenth century, Thomas More, in describing a utopian community, envisaged such a community as one that would facilitate the death of those whose lives had become burdensome as a result of ‘torturing and lingering pain’. But it has only been in the last hundred years that there have been concerted efforts to make legal provision for voluntary euthanasia. Until quite recently, there had been no success in obtaining such legal provision (though assisted suicide has been legally tolerated in Switzerland for many years). However, in the 1970s and 80s a series of court cases in The Netherlands culminated in an agreement between the legal and medical authorities to ensure that no physician would be prosecuted for assisting a patient to die as long as certain guidelines were strictly adhered to (see Griffiths, et al. 1998) In brief, the guidelines were established to permit physicians to practise voluntary euthanasia in those instances in which a competent patient had made a voluntary and informed decision to die, the patient's suffering was unbearable, there was no way of making that suffering bearable that was acceptable to the patient, and the physician's judgements as to diagnosis and prognosis were confirmed after consultation with another physician. 

In the 1990s, the first legislative approval for voluntary euthanasia was achieved with the passage of a bill in the parliament of Australia's Northern Territory to enable physicians to practise voluntary euthanasia. Subsequent to the Act's proclamation in 1996, it faced a series of legal challenges from opponents of voluntary euthanasia. In 1997 the challenges culminated in the Australian National Parliament overturning the legislation when it prohibited Australian Territories (the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory) from enacting legislation to permit euthanasia. In Oregon in the United States, legislation was introduced in 1997 to permit physician-assisted suicide after a second referendum clearly endorsed the proposed legislation. Later in 1997, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that there is no constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide; however, the Court did not preclude individual states from legislating in favor of physician-assisted suicide. The Oregon legislation has, in consequence, remained operative and has been successfully utilised by a number of people. In November 2000, The Netherlands passed legislation to legalize the practice of voluntary euthanasia. The legislation passed through all the parliamentary stages early in 2001 and so became law. The Belgian parliament passed similar legislation in May 2002. (For a very helpful comparative study of relevant legislation see Lewis 2007).

With that brief sketch of the historical background in place, we now proceed to set out the conditions that those who have advocated making voluntary euthanasia legally permissible have wished to insist should be satisfied. The conditions are stated with some care so as to give focus to the moral debate about legalization. Second, we shall go on to outline the positive moral case underpinning the push to make voluntary euthanasia legally permissible. Third, we shall then consider the more important of the morally grounded objections that have been advanced by those opposed to the legalization of voluntary euthanasia.

Five Individually Necessary Conditions for Candidacy for Voluntary Euthanasia

Advocates of voluntary euthanasia contend that if a person

•   is suffering from a terminal illness. 
• is unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure for that illness during what remains of her life expectancy. 
•  is as a direct result of the illness, either suffering intolerable pain, or only has available a life that is unacceptably burdensome (because the illness has to be treated in ways that lead to her being unacceptably dependent on others or on technological means of life support). 
• has an enduring, voluntary and competent wish to die (or has, prior to losing the competence to do so, expressed a wish to die in the event that conditions (a)-(c) are satisfied). 
• is unable without assistance to commit suicide.

It should be acknowledged that these conditions are quite restrictive, indeed more restrictive than some would think appropriate. In particular, the conditions concern access to voluntary euthanasia only for those who are terminally ill. While that expression is not free of all ambiguity, for present purposes it can be agreed that it does not include the bringing about of the death of, say, victims of accidents who are rendered quadriplegic or victims of early Alzheimer's Disease. Those who consider that such cases show the first condition to be too restrictive may nonetheless accept that including them would, at least for the time being, make it far harder to obtain legal protection for helping those terminally ill persons who wish to die. The fifth condition further restricts access to voluntary euthanasia by excluding those capable of ending their own lives, and so will not only be thought unduly restrictive by those who think physician-assisted suicide a better course to follow, but will be considered morally much harder to justify by those who think health care practitioners may never justifiably kill their patients. More on this anon.

The second condition is intended simply to reflect the fact that it is normally possible to say when someone's health status is incurable. So-called ‘miracle’ cures may be spoken of by sensationalist journalists, but progress toward medical breakthroughs is typically painstaking. If there are miracles wrought by God that will be quite another matter entirely, but it is at least clear that not everyone's death is thus to be staved off.

The third condition recognises what many who oppose the legalization of voluntary euthanasia do not, namely, that it is not only release from pain that leads people to want to be helped to die. In The Netherlands, for example, it has been found to be a less significant reason for requesting assistance with dying than other forms of suffering and frustration with loss of independence. Sufferers from some terminal conditions may have their pain relieved but have to endure side effects that for them make life unbearable. Others may not have to cope with pain but instead be incapable, as with motor neurone disease, of living without forms of life support that simultaneously rob their lives of quality.

A final preliminary point is that the fourth condition requires that the choice to die not only be voluntary but that it be made in an enduring (not merely a one-off) way and be competent. The choice is one that will require discussion and time for reflection and so should not be settled in a moment. As in other decisions affecting matters of importance, normal adults are presumed to choose voluntarily unless the presence of defeating considerations can be established. The burden of proof of establishing lack of voluntariness or lack of competence is on those who refuse to accept the person's choice. There is no need to deny that this burden can sometimes be met (e.g. by pointing to the person's being in a state of clinical depression). The claim is only that the onus falls on those who assert that a normal adult's choice is not competent.

What should you know about shopping online?

Online shopping is the process of buying goods and services from merchants who sell on the Internet. Since the emergence of the World Wide Web, merchants have sought to sell their products to people who surf the Internet. Shoppers can visit web stores from the comfort of their homes and shop as they sit in front of the computer. 

Consumers buy a variety of items from online stores. In fact, people can purchase just about anything from companies that provide their products online. Books, clothing, household appliances, toys, hardware, software, and health insurance are just some of the hundreds of products consumers can buy from an online store.

Many people choose to conduct shopping online because of the convenience. For example, when a person shops at a brick and mortar store, she has to drive to the store, find a parking place, and walk throughout the store until she locates the products she needs. After finding the items she wants to purchase, she may often need to stand in long lines at the cash register. 

In contrast, online shopping helps consumers avoid these disadvantages. With online shopping, a person logs onto the Internet, visits the store's website, and chooses the items she desires. The items are held in a virtual shopping cart until she is ready to make her purchase. The shopper can remain in her pajamas as she does her shopping, and the process can be conducted in the wee hours of the morning or late into the night. Online stores never close. They're open 24 hours a day.

Despite the convenience of online shopping, not everyone chooses to purchase items and services online. Some people like the idea of physically going to a store and experiencing the shopping process. They like to touch the merchandise, try on clothing, and be around other people. Online shopping doesn't permit shoppers to touch products or have any social interaction. It also doesn't allow them to take the merchandise home the same day they buy it.

Other people may worry about shopping online because they fear their credit card information will be compromised. Since it's necessary to provide credit card information when purchasing products online, people worry they may become the victims of identity theft.  This discourages some consumers from participating in online shopping. 

Another reason some consumers avoid shopping online is the fact that they worry that the products they purchase are not accurately portrayed in the website's picture. They worry that the picture of the item may appear one way, but the actual item may look completely different, perhaps of lesser quality. It's also impossible to try on apparel when conducting online shopping. 

A consumer has to rely on body measurements in order to make sure the clothing will fit properly. If the clothing arrives in the mail and it's too small, the consumer has to return the item. This is a potential inconvenience that some shoppers may not wish to face.