To What Degree Can A Person's Upbringing Be Used To Excuse Their Actions?

[Furore]

I mean that in every sense it can be asked. I've noticed sometimes people can become sympathetic to a criminal if they've had a bad past and also noticed some of the criminals I've associated with feel they can justify their actions as those they grew up learning.

I find I personally sit on the fence with this with most crimes - a guy's got to do what he can to survive, right? But I don't think anything can be used to defend murder, rape or similar bigger crimes.

It is something I've toyed with in my head though. I've never had it as tough as some people have so I could never truly empathise with them. So I ask you all,
to what degree can a person's upbringing be used to excuse their actions?

In a legal sense, in a general sense, in any other ways you might think of. Perhaps you might even think a general rule applies with exceptions? Think about it.

[Pete]

I think it really depends on the situation. If a man steals a loaf of bread from a wealthy baker in order to feed his starving family, I could see that as forgivable. However, if the man is stealing the bread just for the thrill of it, then that's a problem. Both instances are crimes, but if the crime is committed for the survival, I can see it as more acceptable.

Now, why could the man not get a job, or simply ask for the bread and offer to work for it?

Now, I think that certain instances, crimes can be justified, if they are committed in self defense. If a man broke into my house, and tried to harm my hypothetical family, you can bet that I would pull the trigger on my gun and splatter his brains all over the wall. I was raised to protect the people I love, and to never let someone take advantage of me. However, I don't think this is justified by how I was raised; it just seems to be common sense. Then again, you'd have to ask how this common sense was developed. Could it be a product of my parents teachings?

I feel that upbringing can only be responsible for so much of a persons actions. Yes, you learn a lot from your parents, but by a certain age, you should have enough education and experience to be able to make your own decisions and conclusions about what is right and what is wrong.

For instance, my dad used to be a heavy drinker. He'd polish off a 6 pack in the car coming home from work every day. When I was little, I couldn't really tell that something was different, but when I got older, I started to put two and two together and decided that it was stupid, dangerous and just plain illegal; NOT the life I would like to lead for myself. At one point, I just assumed it was normal. It doesn't mean that I'd do it though.

I honestly think though that a person's upbringing can only be used to defend minor things, that are more a matter of faux pas's than anything. Things like walking around the house in your underwear, and picking your nose. If your parents never tell you not to do them, you're not gonna know it's not entirely socially acceptable when you move into a dorm in college.

Things like murder and rape, or any major offenses, really can't be justified by upbringing. Society really dictates what's acceptable, as does common sense, and regular schooling. That should provide enough of a base for knowledge of morality. You can argue that coming from a broken home affects you, but I feel like that may only come into play with certain situations. If your parents are divorced, and your dad is always going to strip clubs, and bringing different women home every night, you might come to think that's normal, and may do that yourself. Becoming a rapist because of that, is NOT justifiable.

If your parents are alcoholics or drug users, those behaviors may become more prominent or seen as normal. Actions that occur WHILE under the influence of drugs are just that. You're not yourself. It would be a stretch to say that you learned from your parents that murder and rape were ok. However, it would be safe to say that someone murdered or raped while on drugs, a habit they picked up from their parents. The drug use would be inherited, not the rape. Neither is justified, unless of course the person grew up addicted.

[Dynamo]

Everyone is accountable for the own actions.
UP bringing has alot to do with a persons general behavior, but either way they are still accountable for what they do..

I mean just because someone was brought up in a rough neighbour hood and were part of a gang when they were younger doesn't mean they should be excused for robbing a shop or being involved in a gang rape or killing someone, perhaps it is an excuse they could use, but it shouldn't excuse them from what they have done.. as they would have known what they were doing was wrong and classed as anti-soical and crimial behaviour.

[che]

Once you're around 15 you should be able to think for yourself, or at least be getting to that point. After that being racist because your family is and passed it down is no longer an excuse but more of you being ignorant. Etc etc.

Also, you're still accountable for any crimes you do imo. Some people have to learn the hard way.

[Unknown Entity]

In my opinion, and it's probably pretty naive, but everyone chooses to be who they want to be at a certain stage in their life. I'd say almost everyone spent their upbringing asking many different questions about... everything. You know, "Where do babies come from?" "How does Santa get down the chimney?" "Why do we have to go to church?", etc. I understand that not many parents do give a straight answer, or not even an answer at all, but whether they do or they don't, there's always more questions to follow.

I got bored, and played this game with myself::

"Why do I have the light on?" Because it's dark. "Why is it dark?" Because it's night time. "Why is it night time?" Because the earth rotates during its movement around the sun, and right now, you're facing away from the sun. "Why does the earth rotate?Because of leftover momentum from the solar nebula. "What's a solar nebula?" A giant molecular cloud. "What's a cloud?" Water in gaseous state. "What's a gas?" A state of matter.... and so on.

Of course, not all answers are based on actual fact. So roughly around the teenage years, people develop a rebellious attitude. You probably have the image of a punk or emo in your head, but that's not where I'm going with this. You start making your own answers, or taking them from a friend, and then tear away from the ones your parents or teachers might be giving you.

Aside from the questions, most people are taught the basic fundamentals of "life". How to feed/drink, move, wash, get dressed, communicate, etc. It doesn't matter how you were raised, that's usually what you learn. There was that girl a few years ago who was discovered living with a pack of wolves - her being alive suggests she was taught how to eat and move with the pack. Along with that, you can also be taught respect, certain morals.

Going into morals is pretty finicky, because that depends on your own, personal upbringing.
But most people are hopefully taught the difference between right and wrong/good and bad. Most of them come from your parents and/or guardians when you're young, and you pick some up from the various people you meet, and there'll always be a contradiction somewhere. For example, being taught to hit someone back if they hit you from parents, and then going to school and being taught to tell the teacher if someone bullies you. As a kid, that can be pretty confusing. Do you hit someone back and get in trouble too, or do you tell on them and know forever they'll never get over it? This is where I go back to "it's your choice" and "everyone chooses who they are going to be," because that's just it.

I still don't know what the right thing to do would be, but I know for damn sure my own instinct for survival will take over if I got attacked in the street - I'd protect myself as much as possible, whether that means throwing a punch back and/or restraining my attacker, or running away as fast as possible. BUT, because I know the difference between right and wrong, I'd never throw the first punch and I'd only ever use my fists (unless I was in a dire situation which involved having a knife or gun aimed at me - then I'd use whatever I have at my disposal, because my instinct will tell me that if this person wants to kill me, then I'm not going down without a fight).

The above is pretty much based on my upbringing and therefore my view, hence it's probably naive. Going further into it, however, I have a rather large group of friends who have many different backgrounds. They mainly seem to consist around money, religion, and parenting.

The Troublemaker:

Friend A was raised without much money. Dad sorts deliveries and mum is on certain benefits, three other siblings, large family living close by but they can't help because they're in the same situation. The family is vastly messed up with forms of incest and suspicious deaths/murders. Dad works long hours on little pay, and mum sits around doing nothing all day but chores. My friend, she was left to her own devices because she was the youngest - she couldn't do what her older siblings were doing because of the age difference. No one noticed when she went out, stole from shops for the fun, hung out with the wrong crowd of kids, started smoking weed, bunked school, or had sex with her sister's boyfriend when she was twelve. As a friend, she pretended to be laid back, but you could tell by her actions what she was thinking.

Now? She's "looking for work" after spending the last two years doing nothing but roaming the streets with her friends. She didn't go to college, so after her GCSEs, she has nothing in the way of qualifications.

The Leader:

Friend B was raised in a family with money. Dad is a full time/on call engineer/technician/electrician, mum works full time in a grocery store, and she has many aunts and uncles without children of their own to spoil. Because mum and dad were always working, and leaving them money to do stuff, she followed whatever her older sister was doing; smoking, parties, clubbing, drinking, drugs, under-age sex, abortions, babysitting for friends... etc... when she wasn't even fifteen. Because she was left the money for dinner, she never learnt how to cook something, and always had take-out. You can probably imagine what having a greasy kebab every day would do to you. She strongly believes that whatever she does is the correct way of doing something, and will disown you as a friend if you so much as give an opinion against hers, or did something different.

Now? I don't know. While I was studying hard during GCSEs, she "disowned" me as a friend because she didn't want to study. Last I heard, her dream of working in a nursery went out the window because she "got bored" of college, and went to work in a bakery.

The Laid Back and Supportive One:

Friend C was raised without much money, dad left when she was little, and mum, with the new step-dad, work when they can to pay the bills and put food on the table. Both mum and step-dad read books, enjoy playing musical instruments, cook world foods from scratch without a cook book, and like cats. She was raised reading H. P. Lovecraft from a young age (not really, just in a manner of speaking...), and was encouraged to play the piano, the guitar, the flute, the sax, and more. She knows how to cook properly. She has a large family from all over the world who she as been to visit, and she enjoys free, live, outdoor music/spiritual events. She enjoys alcohol every now and then, and only smokes in social situations which go into a few hours. As a friend, she's very laid back, but supportive of any decision a friend of hers makes.

Now? She's at college and studying a Drama and Music course, and wants to do a technical theatre course at Uni. She's saving every penny she has, and is working hard, and still being supportive as a friend just as she has always been.

Talking about these three friends was probably irrelevant, but they show clear examples of their upbringing and how they turned out. If Friend A's parents paid more attention, would she have run riot like she did? If Friend B's parents had moderated the money they just gave to her and her sister, would they still have still bought smokes or gone clubbing? If Friend C's parents hadn't encouraged her to play so many instruments or read, would she still be studying hard, or supporting me in my decisions (knowing most of hers were made/encouraged of her)? Perhaps it's just from my understanding, and my view, but hopefully you'll understand what I'm getting at.

I didn't even touch on religion, but that can force you to make certain choices, depending on how much you believe. It can choose how you meet your partner, what kind of person your partner is, when you can have sex with your partner, under what circumstances you may marry or have children, how you raise your children and how you care for your elders. In a way, I agree that religion can work as the perfect guidelines for upbringing, or how someone lives their life, but you can never make your own decisions, or they're limited to what guidelines the religion teaches.

In closing, because I have gone on (I've spent about two hours thinking through an answer and trying to form it), a persons upbringing isn't the only thing that can be pointed out to excuse their actions - you can only blame the parents only so much given certain circumstances. A persons choices, their morals (both learnt and created) and the human instinct all plays its part in their actions. Thinking about it now, events in someone's life could also take their role. The unexpected death of someone close to you could lead into depression or muddled up thoughts, and lead you to do things you wouldn't normally make the choice to do. Or a disability can add or remove certain capabilities from someone... I'll edit more in later.

Using just upbringing as an excuse to account for our actions is irresponsible, because most of us can make our own decisions and our own choices.

Please be gentle if I've confused or upset someone, or made this too long. ^^;;

[kupo]

im going to take the negative route on this one

ive thought about this quite a bit from time to time. its different from the actions of a 5 yr old and those of an 20 yr old. as a child, we look up to our own parents and other authority figures to help guide us and make decisions in the best way possible. if a young kid sees his father treat his spouse like crap, there is a strong possibility that he will initially think that this is the way their significant other should be treated by them; because this is what they see as the norm. now, hopefully, as the child becomes older and a teenager, they will start to become their own person, think for themselves and form their own opinions and morals; hopefully these ideas will be close to the social norms of a healthy, functioning society.

by the time they hit adulthood, they should be a free and independent thinker who can take care of themselves - and be responsible for their actions. if an adult commits a serious crime, say...murder, and blames it on the fact that he was around violent people and circumstances during his childhood, i have a hard time believing that they thought that because of this, they could get off the hook for what they did. of course, there are always exceptions to the rule

[Alice]

I believe a person's upbringing can influence their actions greatly. If you look at the way they were brought up and see it from their view, you really can understand them and sympathise with them. However, it does get sketchy with rape and etc.

Put it this way, even if you know it is wrong to do something, you still have the option of doing it or not doing it. So my answer to this question is that it depends on the situation.

[winterborn86]

I think a persons upbringing can have an effect on them at some point in thier lives but not always. It depends on the persons character.

If someone was brought up in a family that lies, cheats and steal etc theres nothing to say that the person will grow up the same way, they might see the errors of their familys ways and turn out to be a pretty decent person.

I remember reading in the papers about a baby boy who had been mistreated by his parents, he was kicked, biten, beaten to his death and health professionals later said that, if he had survived he would of grown up a unstable person because of what happened to him as a child.
I don't agree with that tho, I believe if the child had survived and recieved the right help and found a home with a loving family, then he may of turned out to be alright.

[Aadria]

It really depends on the crimes.
Are we talking about a serial killer who was abused as a child and now has dissociative identity disorder or PTSD or some other mental disorder? These individual are often not even aware that their other personality is murdering. Or, if they are, they are often so terrified of the personality that they can't do anything about it. In these cases, yes, their upbringing has obviously effected them in a way that is excusable.
Or are we talking about a man who, because he is poor and has always been poor, begins stealing to get ahead in life? In this case, I think it is inexcusable. There are so many ways to better yourself, legally. Get your GED. Take out loans, go to college, get a job.
This question really just tests what stage or moral development you, the person answering, is at. Google Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development.
Let's see what you guys think of this scenario:
A man has worked hard all his life for his family. He has a wife and a child. His wife falls ill with cancer and all of their money, even their savings, is depleted to pay for the doctor and hospital bills. His wife is prescribed an expensive drug that may cure her. Unfortunately, the man cannot afford this drug as all their money is gone. He has always been a law-abiding citizen and does not want to do anything illegal. But, neither does he want to lose his wife, whom he loves, nor does he want his young child to grow up without a mother. He robs a pharmacy for the drug and gets it to his wife. But, he is arrested and put in jail. Is what he did wrong?

[Kaiden]

To What Degree Can A Person's Upbringing Be Used To Excuse Their Actions?

Well in the most extreme cases I think a person could use it as a reasonable excuse as to why they do anything, even murder. I have several friends who do social work. Some of them work for schools that take abused children. The worst of these children come from homes where they were raped or beaten habitually. They use to tell me how these kids have just shut down completely. They avoid any physical contact, freak out over the smallest things. Try to pick fights with bigger kids or teachers, just so they get beat up. In these extreme’s what these children must be thinking, I just have no idea. Would I let them walk in kill someone and walk out because they were beaten as children? No, but maybe knowing more about their situation would let me understand why they would think to kill someone. Maybe in their eyes it was a matter of self-preservation. When you come from a broken home like that, I think your concept of right and wrong can totally get misconstrued. The way people are brought upaffects them more than most of you are talking about in my opinion.

The area you grow up in can also change how you are brought up to. If you live in a country full of civil war through most of your childhood and see people getting killed daily (maybe too extreme, but a lot). Do you start to under value the life of a human being? When you see that much death do you start to become numb to the pain? I don’t know the answers but I can understand if you don’t value the human life as much as I do. The idea for this second part came from the movie “Blood Diamond” when it shows the children soldiers from Africa. Each case would be different but under certain circumstances I see why people would, kill, rape, beat or perform other atrocities.

[sayian]

in a lot of cases, som1s upbringing can have alot to do with their behavior but that can be an excuse as well... i was raised in one of the worst parts of arkansas (Pine Bluff and Little Rock), poor, gangs everywhere, drugs, drive bys, all kinda shit.. but MY PARENTS and their example that they set for me had the most to do with the ME now. Never had a smoke of Any kind, and neither have ever had a sip of any kind alcohol.
IMO, what really matters is what goes on in the home..

[Locke4God]

As much as I do believe that upbringing is almost 100% of who somebody is, it can not in any way be used as an exuse. Otherwise you're just accepting that nobody is responsible for anything they do.

[Romi Seneca]

This question is interesting because answers can generally change depending on culture, both legally and morally. There are societies where if you are driving and accidentally kill someone who walked out on the highway to commit suicide, you would still be held 100% accountable for their death and serve a punishment according to that crime. In the end it was a life, and according to their law, you stole it.
Where as in the case of the Arizona shootings nineteen people were shot and six were killed. The shooter continues to have rights, including the right to plead insanity, which according to Arizona state law would allow a verdict of guilty but insane.

Personally, and like most others in this thread, i believe it depends on the circumstance and the state of mind(whether long term or temporary) in which the person who participated in the crime was in. I feel like both play an important role in the interpretation of the crime, and i personally feel that allowing a chance for rehabilitation & education are probably the most positive and responsible reactions that we can have in lieu of simple punishment.

[SOLDIER #819]

As a matter of practicality, I don't think upbringing can be used to pardon a person.

This isn't due to a lack of sympathy. It just runs counter to our desire for security and order. Once we get into things like pre-meditated murder and it can be established that so-and-so person committed the crime, it's no longer really a matter of why they did it and simply that they did it. They could have a socially debilitating mental disorder. They could have the most horrific childhood possible. People are still going to want to have them locked away so that they don't hurt someone else (e.g. themselves, loved ones). And that's what tends to happen in the end. They're locked away.

Pete brought up the whole poor thief and wealthy baker metaphor (though that was last year). The way I understand it is that people don't mind hearing that story and may think it's romantic and whatnot. That is, until that very thing happens to them. Unless they are rich to the point where they are literally burning money for fun, they don't want to have things taken from them. It's a complete violation of personal space and rattles a person's sense of security. It's not a feeling that can be shrugged off very easily, even when you the circumstances behind why that person committed the crime. Rather than attempting to understand the person, it's easier to just doubt them and ask something like, "If they're able to go through with something like this, what else could they be capable of if they're allowed to go free for much longer?" Doing away with the person is just simpler.

Empathizing with others is generally difficult if you haven't been what "they" have been through, whoever they may be. We'd probably be able to address a lot more social issues before a point of no return is reached if we were able to understand each other, but that's just not how it works out. Either way, once that line is crossed there's no turning back regardless of how dire the circumstances leading up to the incident may have been. This isn't like Batman or whatever.