No, it would be going to far to say that it had nothing to do with their socio-economic environment, particularly with regard to them not giving a shit in the first place. But on a spectrum that ranges from the former to the latter, I'd place it much closer to the former.
But I think it is easy to say, and to think, that because they are from a particular environment, whatever they do is because they are from that environment. You seem to extend that argument without any limit really. I disagree
In this case, I particularly disagree because the crime committed was out of character and extreme even by the standards of life in that socio-economic environment.
You made this question in another post:
And again, I completely disagree. Many thousands of people have been born into the same conditions and circumstances that they were, many thousands are living in those circumstances as we speak, but they are not engaging in similar. So far, they have all managed to avoid engaging in activity of a nature or scale anywhere near what happened with this handful of individuals.Quote:
If you were born into the same conditions and circumstances they were, chances are you'd be engaging in similar.
Perhaps we simply disagree on the extent to which this crime stands out in comparison with the kind of activity we can expect in deprived areas. Certainly, we cannot pretend to be surprised that anti-social behaviour, petty crime, vandalism, etc, are more likely to occur in such areas. It's pretty much an inevitability. But wantonly ripping apart a roof with a digger? In no way is this an inevitable outcome of life in such circumstances, in my opinion.