are criminals really guilty?

Personally, I think the answers to this question can be divided upon cultural and political lines. Here in the US, we're a fiercely individualistic culture; and while some folks might think that means large amounts of personal liberty, all that really means is people are held accountable for everything they do, unless someone's holding a physical gun to their head.

This stance is often adopted by many right-wing political positions, as well as certain elements of the left: If someone's insurance company rejects their claims for a new and potentially very expensive-to-treat condition, for example, it's "their own damn fault" for not getting a better policy. In that same vein, if someone steals, does drugs, yadda yadda yadda; it's still their own fault; they knew the laws, they just chose not to follow them.

As a center-leftist though, I can say that this is complete bogus. In truth, though personal initiative might play a big part, the majority of people's lives are determined by the material conditions they are born in. I was fortunate in that I've had a stable home for three quarters of my life, and that I could afford a cheap university (with scholarships), but some folks have a huge head start on life due to their affluent parents pushing them in the right direction. Conversely, many people aren't even as lucky as me; I've lived next to ghettos my entire life, and the things I saw were hardly savory. Time and time again, I got to talk to wonderful people - young people, met through a charity organization - who clearly had deep-seated mental health issues, but were too poor to afford professional diagnosis and treatment. Combine that with a turbulent home life, and you've pretty much got a crock-pot recipe for thugs, muggers, and even murderers.

The key issue here is mental health. If we could treat people's psychological maladies before they become unstable, crime rates would drop sharply.

Criminals are only defined as criminals because of our laws.
Personally, I think that only three things should be illegal:

• Harming another person (physically or emotionally)
• Infringing on anothers right to keep their property (including intellectual property)
• Harming the environment (except for air pollution as a byproduct of transportation)

Basically, the only things that would be illegal are muder/assault/theft/dumping trash.
Although, these are only laws that would pertain to individuals. There would need to be laws that pertain to companies as well (e.g. minimum wage and maximum working day length)

So if we change our definition of criminal, there would be much fewer criminals.

Pururin wrote

their parents dont teach them how to be a virtuous, kind and good person.

There are an innumerable amount of virtuous kind and good people who are also criminals. Without going into unwarrented detail, some of the wisest, intelligent, and kindhearted people I've ever met were undoubtedly criminals. I'm more inclined to believe it's law enforcement and fed agents who were raised without being taught these virtues; or the corporate big wigs who bankroll the legislation that declares these "good" people criminals.

That being said, is it their fault for being criminals? I'd contend that yes it is their fault. Though it isn't necessarily a "fault" at all. Morality isn't black or white; it should be your heart that dictates your behavior not your super-ego or any fancy laws.

Furthermore, I'm more likely to trust a criminal than a law-abiding middle class citizen with a clean record. Atleast being a criminal inherently means you've on some level thought for yourself; a quality that I value infinitely higher than blind obediance. I guess to put my beliefs on the matter simply:

There is something to be said of a man who follows the speed limit because he fears endangering his passengers and fellow drivers. There is nothing to be said of a man who follows the speed limit because he fears breaking the law.

It depends on the circumstances:

If you're stealing to live then they are not necessarily bad people, however there are better ways to make money than mugging people, although they're not always available.
I believe that the problem stems from the prisons, they do not rehabilitate, they get thrown in jail, do their sentence then leave with nothing to go to, they're back where they started if not worse. So where do they go? Back to committing crimes to get money.

However there are the other type of criminal who is making it in life, is not starving on the street but just wants to a quick way to make money. They are the type who deserve to rot in a prison cell.

Kenshiro wrote

Criminals are only defined as criminals because of our laws.
Personally, I think that only three things should be illegal:

• Harming another person (physically or emotionally)
• Infringing on anothers right to keep their property (including intellectual property)
• Harming the environment (except for air pollution as a byproduct of transportation)

Basically, the only things that would be illegal are muder/assault/theft/dumping trash.
Although, these are only laws that would pertain to individuals. There would need to be laws that pertain to companies as well (e.g. minimum wage and maximum working day length)

So if we change our definition of criminal, there would be much fewer criminals.

Isn't that just denying laws while reaffirming private property?

There's is no such thing as free will, but if we acknowledge this and go by it, I am entirely certain we would be worse off as a whole. Many persons are genetically "primed" to become criminal under our current laws, which isn't their fault in the great scheme of things, however, we ought not to see this as a reason to maintain their freedom nor is a good reason to let them maintain their lineage.

This affirmation to exist a criminal gene is not correct, it is at least a century delayed. In fact there are pathologies that make people psychopathic or sociopathic, but this distances itself from the idea because the individual is not totally responsible for their actions. But when it comes to good theories, i bet heavily on Theories of Social Behavior, they are the ones that come closest to concrete cases and have good hypotheses. I do not say that it is something random, all this depends a lot on the community where you live, where you study and if you have a good education. This feeds violence because how could you study if you have the need to defend yourself from others? Social injustice generate violence. When there are just social institutions that promote good education, basic sanitation and good quality of life, the chances of decreasing violence are very high.
Sorry for my inglish.

The answer is very trivial if you don't try to depthen[1] your mind to a level which could cause recursive mistakes on the subject. There are no 'criminal genes' that a single person could have, it's just not something evolution is going to give you. Perhaps you could call them 'instinctive genes' or things you would've had when humans were non-civilized and at a state of dismay and war against each other. Live, kill, eat and repeat would be cycle of life, that's by natural instinct, it's what evolution proposes.

However criminalistic behaviour takes itself to the moreover environmental influence; whereby you would be tamed to being of an indecent behaviour because that's all you have seen your life, that's what you've been forced to do and see and be involved in, it's the same thing that goes for bullying and depression. Depression isn't something that comes at birth, not clinical depression at least- it comes from the environment and the people around you, if you get bullied you'll be putting your mind at a place where you think you're worth nothing when reviewing your situation and it'll cause more and more thoughts.

[1] archaic word for to deepen