Originally Posted by Scarlett O Hara
From what I'm reading, people in this thread seem to think it wrong to be wary of criminals in general. I find that bizarre. But maybe I'm misreading.
It's wrong to tar all criminals and all their families with the same brush - even amongst the most despictable crimes there are differing reasons why people do it and different characters types - for example a lot of child abusers were themselves abused as children - someone on the radio once said that rapists consisted either of the arrogant or the mental disturbed. Some criminal's families probably were in some way to blame for them becoming criminals - some probably aren't - a friend of mine ended up confronting the family of a lad who was chucking rocks at him and his then very young son - and encountered a nice lady who didn't know how to cope with her son's reckless behaviour - the friend was greated with a despairing "what has he (meaning her son) done now?" - it turned out his bad behaviour had been going on for years and she'd moved out of London in an attempt to curb it. There are also shades of criminality - housebreaking is not child murder - would I give money to a charity that helps the families of those who have stolen off me over the years (I've had stuff nicked from various places I've lived, from various cars I've owned and from my tent at Glastonbury) - yes I probably would.
Being wary isn't the same as outright condemnations and blanket judgement - without knowing the circumstances you can't judge.