Why do men commit most of the crime?

Post Reply New Topic

Doesn't the fact men commit most crime sort of disprove free will? If humans were truly in control of their actions beyond their natures and instincts, you would find men and women committing crimes at fairly equal rates.

Does it have to do with testosterone making certain men (and a much smaller proportion of women) violent and uncaring?

Men commit 95% of murders, 80% of rapes, and something like 85% of robberies. Why are there fewer deviant women?

Men and women are much unlike.

They both follow the heart, though a few do not follow it.

I know little of lawbreakers and their shares. The prisons hold many. That is whither the heart may lead; and it is evil; if men did without the heart they should not go there.

Women are weaker. Thus less proficient at criminal activity. Also men produce a lot more people at both ends of the scale (geniuses and imbeciles) than women do.

Men:
- Are often higher in disagreeableness, that's a trait that can be used either for leadership, criminality, or both.
- Have testosterone as a chemical driver.
- Are in competition for mates, ie. women generally go for guys who've proven that they're at the top of the male heap and that usually necessitates some type of proof to other guys, women, etc.. What's interesting is that social inequality seems to breed male criminality and largely does so in the age range where mating's the top priority - the lower the class status the more proof of this kind seems to be needed.

I do believe testosterone is a strong influencing factor in certain criminal behaviors, combined with other variables. That is to say, testosterone won't turn everyone into a violent criminal, but some people would not be violent criminals if not for having been exposed to and/or the continuing presence of certain levels of testosterone in their system.

I could not say whether or not free will is an illusion, but for practical purposes we can claim it is not, though free will is much like logic. A logical person can come to an inaccurate conclusion because of limitations in their ability to see all variables to an equation or situation, and limitations in memory as they work through the logic. Similarly with free will, one's decisions are affected by one's cognitive and emotional provenience.

There is no such thing as total and complete "free will."

There is no such thing as total and complete lack of "free will" (i.e., that we have no power over our fate).

However, some people have more "free will" than others for many reasons. In some ways, I'm totally "free." In others, I am totally stymied.

Overall, though, I would say that my "free will" rating is somewhere between 60 and 75%.

When I retire and get a pension, my "free will" rating will increase.

Criminals are not deviants.

Poverty breeds crime.

Except white collar crime, they are just greedy pricks.

Poverty may breed crime, but all criminals had decisions before they committed their crimes. Even the most insane had a decision.

Because men are better at it?

Nevermind I forgot that there are people were starving and desperate before I made that post.

I've known plenty of women who are damned good at crime.

Also on the free will issue I'm pretty sure it's something like 0%. That said we're highly complex beings and we yield complex results however I'd strongly suggest that both internal and external freedom are illusions.

Yes, I agree.

We castrate male animals (dogs, cows) and it does the trick of curbing their aggression.

I think these statistics should be broken into younger men, and older men categories.

As testosterone levels drop in older men (starting around age 30), so the penis shrinks, the testes shrink, and they effectively go through a chemical castration. So, their crime proclivity likely drops.

Typically, when women want someone murdered they either get a man to do it for them or they use a passive and difficult to prove method, such as poison or staged accidents. So while the majority of verifiable murders may be commited by men, there is some non-trivial nuance to be had there.


As for the rapes, when you use a definition of rape that excludes women from perpetrating that crime other than in very specific circumstances, this statistic is both unursprising and totally useless.


And I suspect the situation for robberies is somewhat similar to the situation with the murders

I would love some actual evidence that women commit as much violent crime as men, or even a significant portion of it, but through indirect methods.

Preferably not from an MRA blog.

Yes, but so what?

So women get men to do the robbing, the extortion, and the murder for them.

You still need to explain why an equal number of men arent able persuade women, to rob, extort, and murder, for them as well.