National Article 16: So, who is the (real) criminal?

Stressed so I took my boss hostage (thesun.co.uk)

I found this part interesting:

Thompson then tied his victim to a chair and subjected him to a 20-minute ordeal that left Mr Grady suffering depression and post-traumatic stress. He remains off work five months later.

The court heard the worker (Thomson) told his boss: “This is the only way people will listen to me. I told them I was dangerous.“

It is painful to be the victim. So we go after the criminal.

Yet there is no criminal until there is an act of crime.

But, who or what is the cause of the act of crime?

Do our Penal Codes deal with the reasons for the act or the acts themselves?

But if we wish to bring crime down, would it suffice to focus on the acts?

Do you think ‘crime’ and ‘the quality of our listening to each other’ are inter-related?

So can crime necessarily be linked by race, nationality or tribal or is there something deeper veiled by those words that we are not watching (or listening to)? What is that?

Are the ways we listen to men (or boys), the same as it would be as listening to women (girls)?

By the way, does anyone have data on the overall budget we spend globally to fight crime?

Should we map the budget spent (including for the judicial systems and then incarcerations) against the crime rates over time (see below for a sample), what would the behaviour suggest to us?

Are we winning?

Do you think it is a battle we can win from the police stations? Then if not, where?