# The Root Causes of Crime



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2005)

This article is about the root causes of crime...

http://www.preventingcrime.net/library/Causes_of_Crime.pdf

It lists the following...

1.  Poverty
2.  Social environment
3.  Family structure

Thus, does it follow that government programs that reduce poverty, improve social environment (improve education), and bolster families would reduce crime?

Wouldn't cutting programs that do this increase crime?


----------



## mrhnau (Aug 29, 2005)

*Poverty*:
Was the USSR crime free? Cuba? Redistribution of wealth via the government sounds a good deal like communism. Even if communism somehow stamped out crime, I'd still not want to live there. To what extent should we strive for being crime free? Is that the paramount goal? How about forcing everyone to stay home and imposing martial law? Limit our liberties all for the proclaimation that we are crime free? With freedom comes the possibility of crime, so I refuse to use crime as a metric of health in society. Sure, lets try to limit crime, but there is a practical limit to how low it will go w/out extreme measures geared towards limiting our freedom or barbaric treatment of criminals.

[Sarcasm] Imagine, all those hard working people who spend their life working hard, getting educated and struggling to succeed. Lets take a good portion of what they earn, and give it to those who did nothing to earn it. They don't deserve to keep what they earned. [\Sarcasm]

Of course, there are extreme circumstances when the government should do something, but I think its alot less than it currently is doing... The problem is that dropping or reducing social programs tends to make politicians unhappy since constituants don't tend to like it. I believe that we should try and help people who want to learn and grow, those who don't desire to stay in poverty. Part of what we are doing is providing free education (k-12) and public universities partly paid at tax payers expense. Thats part of what makes America great, the opportunity to rise and excel. A man is not limited from where he is from or what he looks like, rather where he wants to go and what he can do with the tools he has been blessed with. Is it an easy path? Seldom, but hard work and desire takes you a long way. Its not easy, nor is it impossible. Is throwing money at a man who does not want to work "bolstering" his family? Is he not teaching his family dependancy? My dad worked 60+ hours a week to make sure we were provided for. As a result, I've got that same work ethic. I'll be providing for my family, and don't desire having government officials trying to take over that role.

*Family structure:*
Government should dictate certain family characteristics? From the same government that took discipline out of public schools? Don't want a beaurocrat trying to enforce any family structure or stability. Thats totally not there job. Not even sure what the government could do to preserve "family structure"! I believe most family structure is inherited, your family is somewhat similiar to what you grow up with. Of course, modifications can be made, but its often the case that many problems are inherited (drunkards often have kids who drink, people abused tend to abuse, though of course this is not a hard and fast rule). Helping deal with those problems might show merit, but they often show up long after the incident. At that point, the damage is mostly done. Combing society at large to identify problem people seems dangerous and starts impinging on freedoms.

The "community" helps raise my children? Are you serious? I'm not sure where everyone lives, but I don't want my "neighbors" to help raise my children (when I have them). There is family and close friends, but I do not consider them "community" or "society at large". Of course, you build relationships and friendships, but its not the role of the world at large to raise my children. Thats my familes responsibility.

*Social environment*:
Everything they listed as a social cause of crime is related to the individual, and not enforcable, with the possible exception of lack of services. You can't force leadership in the community, support of friends and family, ect.. I suppose you could enforce equality, but I've had horrible experiences with that personally, and I'm not sure I desire enforcement in that area, but thats another topic 

*Overall:*
I don't think throwing money and new programs at problems is the smartest way to change things. if you want to change family structure, you need to inspire families to change. Throwing money at the problems just ensures its dependancy. New programs seldom go away, and find new ways to require more money. We had problems in society before government got big, but the problems were generally dealt with on a local basis. My parents poor or sick? They would come live w/ me. Others in the family would help when possible. Both parents need to work? Kids can stay w/ grandmother, aunt, ect.. Did this require a vast government program taking a large chunk of our tax dollars?

Anyways, as you can probably tell, I'm not the hugest fan of big government hehehe


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Anyways, as you can probably tell, I'm not the hugest fan of big government hehehe


I can understand this, however, I would have to change the statement to, "I'm not a fan of useless government" in order for it apply to me.

I'm very interested in whether countries that have lower crime rates then we do are lower because they do something regarding poverty, education, and families.  

I think that places where one finds a real living wage being paid, free public education, and limited workweeks with subsidized childcare are going to have a marked decrease in the amount of crime.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 29, 2005)

People feeling they have the right to...and no fear/remorse over..taking from others against their will.

Thats the root cause.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 29, 2005)

If we've learned one thing from Enron, Microsoft, Martha Stewart, et. al., it is that crime is not limited to the poor. It has more to do with the greedy, IMHO.


----------



## mrhnau (Aug 29, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I can understand this, however, I would have to change the statement to, "I'm not a fan of useless government" in order for it apply to me.
> 
> I'm very interested in whether countries that have lower crime rates then we do are lower because they do something regarding poverty, education, and families.
> 
> I think that places where one finds a real living wage being paid, free public education, and limited workweeks with subsidized childcare are going to have a marked decrease in the amount of crime.


public education is free (well, tax payers pay for it), and most public colleges are mostly free. Got that one.

Limited workweek. For the most part, got that one. Don't know alot of people working 60+ hours a week unless they own their own businesses, and those are typically not the people committing a ton of crimes. Mostly got that one.

Subsidized child care. Alot of companies do that. I don't think government should force that, but thats just me. Its just an incentive.

The living wage is a tough one. I know what you mean, but many businesses are run with the assumption of a certain level of expenses. If companies like McD's are forced to pay $10 as opposed to something like $6.50, there will be problems. Prices will have to go up, or less people will be hired. Most of the lower paying jobs are generally designed as entry level jobs and cater towards young people, not something you wind up doing for 50 years. When I was not making much money, I had to live differently. Had to share a bedroom at times. You do what you have to if money is not present. otherwise, get an education and try to improve your future. Find a different job w/ some degree of opportunity.

What would you choose to label "useless"? What is useless to you might not be useless to me. What is useless 50 years ago may be purposeful now and vice versa. For instance, there was a legitimate reason Social Security was started back in the 30's (I believe? correct me if wrong). Do we still have the same conditions? But like most social programs, its practically impossible to get out of now without seeming heartless. Regardless of the program, eliminating a program is going to make someone unhappy....

I'd be interested in seeing stats on your query. That would be interesting. What would you do with the results? Lets take a heavily socialized country, like France. Would we want to mimic our country after a heavily socialized country to mimic their crime rates? What would you think if our crime rates were pretty decent compared to other countries? Need to consider other factors too. In some Islamic countries, the penalties are quite tough. You steal, you lose a hand. Steal again, you lose the other. Find some way to steal after that? Lose your head. Stealing is pretty low in such countries... care to mimic that?

A somewhat easy solution regarding taxes... need more taxes? start taxing illegal immigrants. If they are using our social services (police, well far, public education), then they should be paying for it. If you work in the US, you should be taxed. That gets me about as upset as having to raise taxes!

I don't think government should act as an ideal father figure. Dad's/mom's should do that.


----------



## TonyM. (Aug 29, 2005)

I think crime is a lack of personal integrity of which everyone is ultimately responsible for their own.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> People feeling they have the right to...and no fear/remorse over..taking from others against their will.


Culture produces that behavior.  What produced the culture?  Is there such a thing as the "Culture of Poverty"?


----------



## tsdclaflin (Aug 29, 2005)

The more freedom, the more potential for crime.

The more control from the government, the less crime.

For example, Great Britain has fewer gun crimes because very few are allowed to own guns.

Non-democratic countries that have swift and severe punishment for crimes, I suspect have less crime (no stats to back that up).

At the risk of being spiritual, selfishness as at the root of most evil.

My 2 cents,


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2005)

I thought I'd contribute some statistics to this discussion.  See this site for Crime Comparison Statistics by Country.

See this link for a comparison of total adults prosecuted for crimes.

These statistics show that the US has the highest crime rates of the countries compared.  Many other comparable large industrialized countries that have provided measures to reduce poverty, increase education, and strengthen families have marked lower crime rates.  

However, there are some countries that have lots poverty and low crime rates.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 29, 2005)

The Root Cause of Crime

http://patriot.net/~crouch/adr/kids.html


> *CHILDREN NEED FATHERS, STUDY SHOWS*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 29, 2005)

I think that the cause of crime is dependant on the nature of the Crime.

For example, if someone kills a woman's husband because he desires her, and thinks he can make her come to him when the Husband is gone... Reduction of Poverty would not stop that.  I think that even Family Structure, and Social Environment may not be able to prevent that, if it's what he truly had in mind...

Its a crime of both Passion and Greed... 

Now, lets say I live in a reletivley dangerous neighborhood (not much of a stretch there) and I choose to break the gun laws and carry a firearm illegally to protect myself... Upgrading the social Environment in my neighborhood might very well prevent that crime...

So... I do think its very subjective on what causes crime.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 29, 2005)

Everyone likes to avoid the obvious...we are all simply animals, higher evolved primates (though some would disagree with higher evolved). Many of us have adapted to the point where we are willing to accept the authority of the group...some of us have not. Those that have not are either called criminals or visionaries, depending on whether their actions moves us forward, or simply serves the more base biological desires. The triggers for crime (poverty, social learning, single parents) are merely triggers, they are not the root causes. The root causes lie in genes that were not originally designed to yield to abstract lawful authority. 

Through millenia of conditioning, we have forced human beings to evolve in to more malliable citizens, but some of us refuse to conform, for better or worse. The most incorrigable, we used to kill and remove their genes from the gene pool, now we warehouse them for long periods of time. From time to time we have delusions of granduer and believe that we can "rehabilitate" them, and occassionally we even succeed, convincing us we have actually found AN answer, though it's never universally applicable.

In short, crime is nothing more than people who refuse, for whatever reason, to obey the laws that we as a collective society decide to enforce. Sometimes we'll think we found an answer to crime, but as long as we are all merely animals with clothes, some of us will still rail against the rules the rest of us live by.  

Some of us are born with a desire to have more than society saws we can possess, whether that be wealth, women or the lives of others.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2005)

Do a little thought experiment with the city in which you live.  Get a map and circle the areas that poor people live and circle the areas that are more well to do.  Next, see if you can affix crime statistics to the areas circled.  Can anyone predict the results?

Areas with poverty will have marked increases in crime.  At the very least, crime and poverty are intrinsically tied.  How would one show that poverty is a causal factor for crime?  Case studies.  Look at cities that boomed economicaly and busted.  What happened to the crime rates?  They went up.

Again, wouldn't reducing poverty go a long way in reducing crime?  Catholic Digest published an article on this a ways back.  The Church seems to think so.  In fact, the article quoted the Pope as saying that crime was more a result of poverty and less of selfishness and wickedness.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Everyone likes to avoid the obvious...we are all simply animals, higher evolved primates (though some would disagree with higher evolved). Many of us have adapted to the point where we are willing to accept the authority of the group...some of us have not. Those that have not are either called criminals or visionaries, depending on whether their actions moves us forward, or simply serves the more base biological desires. The triggers for crime (poverty, social learning, single parents) are merely triggers, they are not the root causes. The root causes lie in genes that were not originally designed to yield to abstract lawful authority.
> 
> Through millenia of conditioning, we have forced human beings to evolve in to more malliable citizens, but some of us refuse to conform, for better or worse. The most incorrigable, we used to kill and remove their genes from the gene pool, now we warehouse them for long periods of time. From time to time we have delusions of granduer and believe that we can "rehabilitate" them, and occassionally we even succeed, convincing us we have actually found AN answer, though it's never universally applicable.
> 
> ...


How does this theory explain the difference in the statistics posted above?  Why does the US have such a high crime rate in comparison to other countries according to this theory?  

In my opinion, if this theory is true, then we could expect to see even crime statistics from country to country.  Every Homo Sapians shares very similar DNA and anomolous differences that you describe tend to happen regularly and randomly in a population.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 29, 2005)

Throw money at the problem...never works. Being poor is no excuse for being a criminal. 

I suppose at least then you have criminals with LCD televisions, X boxes and nice spinner rims for the car...


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 29, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I suppose at least then you have criminals with LCD televisions, X boxes and nice spinner rims for the car...


Ah, Hanging out in my neighborhood I see.

I love seeing the "Ghetto Trash" pull up in their mercedes and then pay for their food with a food card. (the new food stamps)

Somedays, I think I SHOULD sell drugs for a living.

*sigh*


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Being poor is no excuse for being a criminal...


Have you ever been poor?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_poverty


> The following are some of the cultural rules unique to poverty:
> 
> 
> While criteria for middle class decisions often relate to work and achievement, generational poverty class decisions are often based on the importance of one's personality to sustain multiple relationships.
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Aug 29, 2005)

A government will never have the power to wipe out poverty. People have the choice to decide what they are going to do with their lives and how they are going to live them. In this country, a poor person on welfare is living at a high standard of living compared to other countries like China and North Korea. If a person drops out of high school, commits crimes, or ruins his life with drugs or alcohol, he will quite likely end up in poverty. This is the choice he made, and our government does not control these types of personal life choices.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 29, 2005)

So should there be a "poverty defense" for violent crime???


----------



## Tgace (Aug 29, 2005)

http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=2090&printable=Y



> This is probably the most widely held view of criminal causationand probably the easiest to refute. Whatever might be said of the prevalence of unsavory social conditions today, surely they were even more prevalent in decades and centuries past, and are more prevalent today in Third World nations. Yet despite the fact that conditions and circumstances have been constantly improving for the vast majority of people, crime today is increasing; and it is increasing faster in America and other developed countries than in most poorer parts of the world.[15]
> 
> The sociological excuse (of which Marxist class warfare theory is a subset) flies in the face of common sense and empirical evidence. Even within the same poor, inner-city families, some youngsters become criminals, while the majority do not. Sociology (including Marxism), based on the collectivist premise that men are interchangeable members of undifferentiated groups, cannot account for such obvious diversity in individual behavior under identical circumstances.
> 
> Or consider the following example: During the 1960s, one neighborhood in San Francisco had the lowest income, the highest unemployment rate, the highest proportion of families with incomes under $4,000 per year, the least educational attainment, the highest tuberculosis rate, and the highest proportion of substandard housing of any area of the city. That neighborhood was called Chinatown. Yet in 1965, there were only five persons of Chinese ancestry committed to prison in the entire state of California.[16] Clearly, factors other than economics and ethnic status affect the propensity toward criminality.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> A government will never have the power to wipe out poverty.


Perhaps a defeatist attitude is the reason why...



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> People have the choice to decide what they are going to do with their lives and how they are going to live them.


Ones choices are limited by the circumstances of birth.  Whether one is equiped to make good choices in their lives depends on the resources that the individual has been able to access.  



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> In this country, a poor person on welfare is living at a high standard of living compared to other countries like China and North Korea..


The poverty in this country would surprise you.  People starve to death in the richest country in the world.  I know from experience.



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> If a person drops out of high school, commits crimes, or ruins his life with drugs or alcohol, he will quite likely end up in poverty. This is the choice he made, and our government does not control these types of personal life choices.


There are two types of poverty.  Situational and generational.  A persons choices can land them in situational poverty.  A person's birth lands them in generational poverty.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> So should there be a "poverty defense" for violent crime???


Not at all.  The punishment should fit the crime.  However, punishment, by itself, will never reduce crime as long as the root causes of crime exist.  If we do nothing about poverty or the other two factors listed above, crime rates will probably never change.

Again, I must point to the statistics on this.  Look at the countries where something has been done in regards to these things.  What happened?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=2090&printable=Y


http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=2090&printable=Y 



> This is probably the most widely held view of criminal causationand probably the easiest to refute. Whatever might be said of the prevalence of unsavory social conditions today, surely they were even more prevalent in decades and centuries past, and are more prevalent today in Third World nations. Yet despite the fact that conditions and circumstances have been constantly improving for the vast majority of people, crime today is increasing; and it is increasing faster in America and other developed countries than in most poorer parts of the world.[15]


The simplest explanation and the one that is cited most often is the fact that in Third World countries, crimes often go unreported and unpunished. The judicial systems are either broken or non-existant. If you trust the statistics in this case and go to a Third World country and expect it to be some crime free paradise, then you are gravely mistaken. Most of these countries are FAR more dangerous then anywhere in the US. In industrialized countries, we have laws that are "enforced" and real statistics can be gathered. These statistics clearly show that when something is done regarding poverty, crime rates drop.



> The sociological excuse (of which Marxist class warfare theory is a subset) flies in the face of common sense and *empirical evidence*. Even within the same poor, inner-city families, some youngsters become criminals, while the majority do not. Sociology (including Marxism), based on the collectivist premise that men are interchangeable members of undifferentiated groups, cannot account for such obvious diversity in individual behavior under identical circumstances.


Actually it doesn't fly in the face of empirical evidence at all. As I have demonstrated in this thread, both qualitatively and quantitatively, poverty and crime are link. Further, poverty is a causal factor regarding crime...among other things. The writers use of jargon should clue readers into his/her real intent...promotion of an ideology that has no basis in empirical fact.



> Or consider the following example: During the 1960s, one neighborhood in San Francisco had the lowest income, the highest unemployment rate, the highest proportion of families with incomes under $4,000 per year, the least educational attainment, the highest tuberculosis rate, and the highest proportion of substandard housing of any area of the city. That neighborhood was called Chinatown. Yet in 1965, there were only five persons of Chinese ancestry committed to prison in the entire state of California.[16] Clearly, factors other than economics and ethnic status affect the propensity toward criminality.


Poverty is a cause of crime, not the cause. There are other factors that contribute. For instance, good education and good families can combat the effects of poverty. When someone says that "Poverty is THE cause of Crime" they are demonstratably wrong.

However, it also has been demonstrated that when a country takes measures to combat poverty, increase education, and strengthen families, crime rates reduce.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 29, 2005)

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/405/405lect02.htm

EMERGING DEFENSES TO CRIME
"Social Science is to explain, courts are to judge" (James Q. Wilson)


Adopted Child Syndrome

Accommodation Syndrome 

American Dream Syndrome

Antisocial Personality Disorder

Arbitrary Abuse of Power Syndrome

Attention Deficit Disorder aka Hyperactivity

Battered Child Syndrome

Battered Woman Syndrome

Black Rage Syndrome

Cherambault-Kandinsky Syndrome

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, or Yuppie Disease

Chronic Lateness Syndrome

Computer Addiction

Cultural Norms Defense

Distant Father Syndrome

Drug Abuse Defense

Elderly Abuse Syndrome

Everybody Does It Syndrome

Failure-to-File Syndrome

Fan Obsession Syndrome

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome

Football Widow Syndrome

Gangster Syndrome

Genetics Defense

Gone with the Wind Syndrome

Gulf War Syndrome

Holocaust Survivor Syndrome

Legal Abuse Syndrome

Meek-Mate Syndrome

The Minister Made Me Do It Defense

Mob Mentality Defense

Mother Lion Defense

Multiple Personality Disorder

Munchausen-By-Proxy Syndrome

Nice-Lady Syndrome

Nicotine Withdrawal Syndrome

NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) Syndrome

Parental Abuse Syndrome

Parental Alienation Syndrome

Patient-Therapist Sex Syndrome

Pornography Syndrome

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

Premenstrual Stress Syndrome

Prozac Defense

Rape Trauma Syndrome 

Repressed or Recovered Memory Syndrome

Ritual Abuse (Satanic Cult) Syndrome

Rock and Roll Defense

Roid Rage 

Self-Victimization Syndrome

Sexual Abuse Syndrome

Sexually Transmitted Disease Syndrome

Sitting Duck Syndrome

Situational Stress Syndrome

Stockholm Syndrome

Super Bowl Sunday Syndrome

SuperJock Syndrome

Sybil Syndrome, aka multiple personality syndrome.

Television Defense

Tobacco Deprivation Syndrome

Twinkie Defense

UFO Survivor Syndrome

Unhappy Gay Sailor Syndrome

Urban Survival Syndrome

Vietnam Syndrome

:shrug:


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 29, 2005)

This thread is living support of the thesis put forward independently by philosopher Ken Wilber and professor Cornell West that:

1) Conservatism is rooted in a philosophy of interior causation, and

2) Liberalism is rooted in a philosophy of exterior causation.

Personally, I think both positions are only half-right.

That being said, I wouldn't put too much weight in solutions offered by evolutionary psychology. The bulk of the claims cannot be empirically tested, and are little more than philosophical speculations about human psychology based on a knowledge of Darwinian biological principles. It will likely go the way of its parent discipline, sociobiology.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## Tgace (Aug 29, 2005)

It is interesting that in the case of "white collar criminals," there seems to be no hunt for causal explanations. The motivation is always portrayed as willful...greed, power, a desire gain by outsmarting the system. The "reasons" seem strangely absent in attorneys' arguments and in media reports. 

A bank robber and an Enron defendants, backgrounds may be different. Their means of obtaining power, control and money may also differ, but the thought patterns are the same. They know right from wrong. They ignore conscience and consideration of consequences long enough to do what they want. Both operate as if they are the center of the world.

What is more important, the conditions in which a person grows up or how he chooses to deal with those conditions? Most poor people are not criminals.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 29, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> What is more important, the conditions in which a person grows up or how he chooses to deal with those conditions? Most poor people are not criminals.



True, they are not.

However, the fact remains that there is a significantly positive correlation between violent crime and poverty. This simply cannot be ignored. There are also many other external social factors that contribute to crime outside of sheer poverty --- relatively easy access to firearms, violent imagery in our media and entertainment, current events (there is marked increase in domestic violence during wartime), and probably a dozen other things I've missed.

Likewise, there are also correlations between things like violent crime and, say, low scoring on Kohlberg's moral reasoning tests. Outside of moral reasoning, things like moral beliefs, moral emotions, and moral traits have all been demonstrated to influence how a person behaves in any given situation. 

And, despite the obvious shortcomings of evolutionary psychology as a whole, things like genetics and biochemical imbalances have also been demonstrated to play a role. I seem to recall one homocide case cited in my first biopsychology class in which a man incarcerated for several years was released after it was revealed his actions were due to overexposure to a particular chemical he encountered at his job.

The hard truth is that this is a complex, multilayered subject. Simple answers like "criminals are just bad people!" or "criminals were just poor, abused kids!" or "criminals are just chemically imbalanced!" comes nowhere near to the reality of the problem.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 29, 2005)

Moving kids into higher income neighborhoods reduces their criminal tendencies:

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache...poverty+crime+correlation&hl=en&client=safari


Here's one to consider:

http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/punishing/punishing.html

This suggests incarceration isn't the palliative for crime reduction.  On the other hand, social programs that address poverty might be.  

Note please the crime rates in countries like Sweden, Denmark, and Japan (which I have not included)...all very low compared to ours, and all with fewer social problems, racial tension and inequality, and economic woes.  


A socio/economics study found the high price of rye wheat in the 19th century Germany caused a reduction in crime.  The price of alcohol went up as a result, and people ostensibly drank less.

Drug usage is also a root cause of crime.  But then, the poor are the most ardent drug users.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tgace (Aug 29, 2005)

Are not most of those countries much more ethnically and socially homogeneous?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 29, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> True, they are not.
> 
> However, the fact remains that there is a significantly positive correlation between violent crime and poverty. This simply cannot be ignored. There are also many other external social factors that contribute to crime outside of sheer poverty --- relatively easy access to firearms, violent imagery in our media and entertainment, current events (there is marked increase in domestic violence during wartime), and probably a dozen other things I've missed.
> 
> ...


True.

Look Im not saying that poverty has NO corellation, just that its not the CAUSE. And comparing a country of immigrants to much more homogenous European countries has flaws all its own. By what I recall, NYC during the big immigration push that brought my great-grandparents here things were much tougher.....


----------



## FearlessFreep (Aug 30, 2005)

By default, 50% of all people are of below average intelligence. Even if you make everyone smarter, 50% will *still* be 'below average' by definition. In a society where social position is determined by intelligence, some will be 'rich', some will be 'average' and some will be 'poor'

 It's the same financially, some will always have more and even if you give the 'poor' more, they will still be poor because they still have less than everyone else. The law of supply and demand and 'what the market will bear' will raise prices such that the 'poor' will have more money than they had before, but everything is more expensive as well and the 'very poor' will still fall short.

  Unless you implement something like this and really level the field, but even that fails.


> "All men are not created equal. It is the purpose of the Government to make them so."


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 30, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> How does this theory explain the difference in the statistics posted above? Why does the US have such a high crime rate in comparison to other countries according to this theory?


 A lot of the difference in crime rate can be explained by several factors. Difference in cultural influences account for one. There is some evidence to suggest the honor culture in the south, for instance, yields itself to a greater violent crime rate. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> In my opinion, if this theory is true, then we could expect to see even crime statistics from country to country. Every Homo Sapians shares very similar DNA and anomolous differences that you describe tend to happen regularly and randomly in a population.


 You misunderstand the theory. If crime has a genetic variable, countries who have been civilized for quite sometime would show lower crime rates today (Hence Europe, which you would agree have lower crime rates) as societies who have been dealing with criminal behavior for a long time tended to have weeded out much of it's criminal reservoir. In addition, crime rates would be greater among more recently civilized socieities (as we see), as they tend to still have a more robust genetic criminal genetic reservoir. In fact, the evidence seems to have bared this out. 

Anywhere where enforcement of laws has a long history with the cultures that live there (i.e. Japan, France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Canada) we see lower crime rates. Places where enforcement of laws tends to have begun more recently, we see higher crime rates. 

So again, you've done nothing to alter my theory.

Furthermore, the fact that poverty and criminal behavior are correlated could also be explained as easily as the fact that people who engage in criminal activity have a much harder time maintaining employment. Perhaps crime contributes as much to poverty as poverty to crime.

Nothing you've listed as evidence shows causation, merely correlation. If you have further evidence, show it. It is clear that chronic criminal behavior manifests itself multi-generationally. Social-learning theorists may conclude that if someone grows up in a crime ridden environment, they are more prone to crime. That may be true, but we don't have any evidence to determine if that is the case, or if there is a genetic link. Perhaps criminals tend to have criminal children.

What's just as likely is that criminals tend to have children more prone to crime, and growing up in a crime ridden environment tends to further increase the tendency toward that behavior.

Many of the most hardcore criminals i've dealt with have been the result of several generations of criminal behavior. What I speak of is habitual criminal behavior, not a singular criminal event. I refer to people with a long term committment to criminal behavior. 

Again, these folks find it difficult to hold down gainful employment, and tend to live on or below the poverty line. Their only direct means of income usually involves criminal activity. When they are incarcerated, the state becomes responsible for rearing their children, who soon follow suit in criminal behavior. 

Again, UpNorth, it's very difficult to learn the root causes of this type of behavior by reading the internet. Perhaps you should actually get out and meet the criminal element before trying to come to a conclusion about what causes crime. I'm sure Tgace or myself might be able to point you in the right direction as far as some good places to start looking at criminal behavior. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Have you ever been poor?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_poverty


 This is what i'm talking about. Perhaps we should call this the "Culture of Criminal behavior". If the culture is self-perpetuating, there is nothing externally we can do to stop it. If criminal behavior is inborn AND taught, and it LEADS to poverty, how will combating poverty attack the root cause if it is criminal thinking and criminal behavior itself? Perhaps poverty isn't the disease, it's often the symptom. 

That's not to say all poor people are criminals, as all criminals aren't poor. Perhaps there isn't causation, merely correlation. A successful criminal can be wealthy, as an unsuccessful honest person can be poor. Perhaps poverty doesn't lead to criminal behavior, less than successful criminal behavior leads to poverty.

As for "Have you ever been poor?"  Heck, i'm poor right now.  Poverty does not lead to criminal behavior.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 30, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Are not most of those countries much more ethnically and socially homogeneous?


Are you implying that diversity is a cause of crime?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 30, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Again, UpNorth, it's very difficult to learn the root causes of this type of behavior by reading the internet. Perhaps you should actually get out and meet the criminal element before trying to come to a conclusion about what causes crime. I'm sure Tgace or myself might be able to point you in the right direction as far as some good places to start looking at criminal behavior.


Okay, I see where you are coming from with this theory.  The problem is how do you test that?  Can one create an artificial experiment or situation in order to provide positive data?  It seems to me that the time frame involved is too large.

For the last five years, I've taught at a school that serves adjudicated youth.  50% of my students are felons and many are violent criminals.  In the course of my work, I deal with the students and their families, so at least I have that background experience.  

Also, it is a simple fact that there is a strong correllation between poverty and crime.  There are statistics and studies posted that show this.  Further, there is a study posted that shows that when an individual is removed from an impoverished area, their propensity for crime reduces.

This is one of those things that is very complicated and probably will never be proven with a high degree of accuracy comparable to a physics experiment.  However, the evidence exists and it is piling up so that its harder and harder to ignore.  The rest of the industrialized world seems to have figured out that the more one does to fight poverty, the less one has to deal with crime.  The US is lagging behind.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 30, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Are you implying that diversity is a cause of crime?


 I think he's simply adding to my point, that certain cultures have culled much of their genetic criminal reservoir more than others.  No culture has a predisposition to crime, in the sense that some are superior, but certain cultures MAY have merely trimmed the genetic predisposition of crime through centuries of enforcement that slowly resulted in a more civil society.  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Okay, I see where you are coming from with this theory. The problem is how do you test that? Can one create an artificial experiment or situation in order to provide positive data? It seems to me that the time frame involved is too large.
> 
> For the last five years, I've taught at a school that serves adjudicated youth. 50% of my students are felons and many are violent criminals. In the course of my work, I deal with the students and their families, so at least I have that background experience.
> 
> ...


 Of course it may simply prove that the rest of the industrialized world has centuries of enforcement of laws and punishment of criminal behavior coupled with a homogenized, fairly static population, who have simply, through centuries of selection, resulted in a more stable, less violent, less crime prone society. In fact, it's possible that with success in fighting criminal behavior, and reducing the criminal genetic reservoir in a society, that resources are freed up to fight poverty. Perhaps reduction in crime reduces poverty.

Either is just as likely as the other, both theories explain the data, which one is correct? That is the question isn't it.

That's the problem with correlations, it's easy to jump to conclusions about causation, when all that is illustrated is correlation. You're right, it's extremely complex.


----------



## RickRed (Aug 30, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Do a little thought experiment with the city in which you live. Get a map and circle the areas that poor people live and circle the areas that are more well to do. Next, see if you can affix crime statistics to the areas circled. Can anyone predict the results?
> 
> Areas with poverty will have marked increases in crime. At the very least, crime and poverty are intrinsically tied. How would one show that poverty is a causal factor for crime? Case studies. Look at cities that boomed economicaly and busted. What happened to the crime rates? They went up.
> 
> Again, wouldn't reducing poverty go a long way in reducing crime? Catholic Digest published an article on this a ways back. The Church seems to think so. In fact, the article quoted the Pope as saying that crime was more a result of poverty and less of selfishness and wickedness.


Is there any way to see which crimes are more common than others between these countries?  How do these countries define/punish the same crimes differently?  Can you trust statistics that don't have the same root meaning or definition.

If I said "90% of Americans eat Fruit at least 2 x's a day" and I find out that the Def. for 'fruit in the study is real fruits, snacks with a certain amount of 'real fruit extract' and fruit juices (whole or percentage).....I would look at that study a little differently when they compared it to the "25% of fruit eaters in Lithuania" because Lith. don't have access to all the other 'fruit' alternative sources.  I don't know anything about Lith.  just a 'what if'


----------



## RickRed (Aug 30, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I think he's simply adding to my point, that certain cultures have culled much of their genetic criminal reservoir more than others. No culture has a predisposition to crime, in the sense that some are superior, but certain cultures MAY have merely trimmed the genetic predisposition of crime through centuries of enforcement that slowly resulted in a more civil society.


I remember watching a Discovery Channel special about Japan and one of the things they said was a reason for low crime rate IS the fact that Japan is Ethically Japanese, so the culture is more unified that way.  The Japanese are democratic/socialist I think?  But, the businesses run like Feudal communities.  Employees live in recommended or owned company housing, shop at the company store.....

The US is always getting newbies with new cultures and clashes between the new immigrants and the old immigrants.  How much a culture looks the other way at certain crimes also affects how they are reported for stats too.  Stuff that is 'normal' or 'legal' in Japan would make the average American squirm and arrested for the same sexual practices.  Just look at the animation and the cultural difference is pretty clear.

It looks like a trade off.  If the gov.  let that kind of thing happen or supported big businesses to run like that, wouldn't it be unconstitutional?  Not to mention that the crime stats might be lower in Japan than in the US, but it is rising from what it was because of international contact.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Aug 30, 2005)

I'm going to go on a limb and say that the root cause or prevention of crime is pretty simple.  It's all based on how much each generation teaches the next generation two things:

 1) Respect others and the rights of others
 3) Understand the need for rules in living in a stable society

 How and why each generation and social group passes this along to their children, or doesn't, can be attributed to a lot of factors, I think.  I think we look for those correlations that are causation, though, in looking for a root cause to fix but I think those 'root causes' are symptoms of larger issues; trating those symptoms won't solve the problem.  

 For example, the upper-income family where the husband made a ton of money in real estate and the wife is hanging out with her club friends and both of them are too busy living the high life to spend time with their kids so they buy their kids everything and spoil them with everything the kids want as they run over to a two week vacation to Europe leaving their 16 yo daughter home alone with the house to party in is almost the same as the the single mom working two and a half jobs trying to pay the bills and doesn't have time to be with her children so her kids are growing up being taught their values on the street.  Whether it's insider trading or knocking over a 7-Eleven, both end up living outside the law because nether respects the need for law, or other people.  I mean, does anyone really think that Enron and WorldCom and the S&L collapse were really caused by poverty and lack of adequate health care?  The people in  those cases had no respect for others, and no respect for law...where did they learn..or fail to learn...their values?


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 30, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Are you implying that diversity is a cause of crime?



Not to agree with Tgrace here but, well, I agree with Tgrace here.

It is pretty well-established, at this point, that both ethnic and cultural "diversity" are major contributor to aggression and crime in societies. Just look at what happens to some west European countries (such as England or France) when an "ethnic element" is introduced: violent crime spikes.

It would perhaps be more accurate to describe poverty, diversity, and "immoral values" as being _contributors_ to aggression and crime in society. I'm not sure if any of them can be said to strictly "cause" crime, per se.

However, the fact remains that they all contribute. It isn't an either/or situation.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 30, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> I'm going to go on a limb and say that the root cause or prevention of crime is pretty simple.  It's all based on how much each generation teaches the next generation two things:
> 
> 1) Respect others and the rights of others
> 3) Understand the need for rules in living in a stable society
> ...



I see my call for a complex, multilayered, integral approach to crime was ignored. Not surprising, considering arguments like "criminals are just bad people!" are much, much easier to cope with. Not that "criminals are just poor kids!" is much more cogent.

There is just as much evidence that social situation influences criminality as there is for internal influences. You can't just summarily ignore one while embracing the other. Ideology needs to be set aside for issues like this.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## Tgace (Aug 30, 2005)

America the most violent nation?

And this guy brings up some good points too.
http://www.darkendeavors.com/commentaries/1999/05-19-1999.asp


> First off, world, the United States is probably _not_ the most violent country, this charge has always been absurd.  It is true that America took up the myth of the white knight, transmogrified it to the cowboy, and gave him a legal gun.  Cultures that fear the _hoi poloi _think that foolhardy, and they ridicule us for it.  Anyone who has ever traveled, spent time in the world's bars and in the world's streets, must know this.  Here is the proof.
> 
> If a man slugs his wife here in Boulder, police are called and it is mandated that charges be brought.  It becomes a multiple statistic, a product American culture - the home of baseball - loves.  It also becomes a statistic available for Europeans to use condemning our violence.  In virtually any other nation on earth, this does not become a statistic but a family or village story.  The police are not called, the neighbors are not particularly upset if it doesn't happen too often.  Even where this is considered a taboo, statistics are not reliably kept, because there is no financial incentive to do so except here in the United States, where police budgets are dependent upon this sort of thing.  If there is a riot here on the Hill in Boulder, people are arrested, the full horror of burning sofas in the streets is documented and it becomes a million dollar project with people's legal lives in the balance.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Aug 30, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I see my call for a complex, multilayered, integral approach to crime was ignored. Not surprising, considering arguments like "criminals are just bad people!" are much, much easier to cope with. Not that "criminals are just poor kids!" is much more cogent.
> 
> There is just as much evidence that social situation influences criminality as there is for internal influences. You can't just summarily ignore one while embracing the other. Ideology needs to be set aside for issues like this.
> 
> Laterz. :asian:


I agree. However I also believe that Freep has a point. You cant just discount personal responsibility.

Another interesting point about "diversity and crime" is that most of the crime committed BY a member of an ethnic group is usually committed ON people of that same group.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 30, 2005)

Is diversity a real factor is or is the inequitable treatment of minority populations the real factor?

btw - I've seen some pretty well to do diverse neighborhoods that have very little crime.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 30, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I agree. However I also believe that Freep has a point. You cant just discount personal responsibility.



If you'll note, I'm not discounting personal responsibility. In fact, I'm putting it on equal importance with external socioeconomic variables.

The point I was trying to make, however, is that any pragmatic "solution" will simultaneously try to address as many of these variables as possible --- both internal and external. These one-sided approaches, which are typically exemplified by conservatives (internal) and liberals (external), are ultimately doomed to failure.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 30, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Is diversity a real factor is or is the inequitable treatment of minority populations the real factor?



Both.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 30, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Both.


How could diversity, by itself, be a major contributing factor to crime?  One would think the SEC level and difference measured between groups would be difficult to tease apart and explain separately.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 31, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> If you'll note, I'm not discounting personal responsibility. In fact, I'm putting it on equal importance with external socioeconomic variables.
> 
> The point I was trying to make, however, is that any pragmatic "solution" will simultaneously try to address as many of these variables as possible --- both internal and external. These one-sided approaches, which are typically exemplified by conservatives (internal) and liberals (external), are ultimately doomed to failure.


Nothing I can disagree with there. :asian:


----------



## FearlessFreep (Aug 31, 2005)

I think my point was pretty much missed.

 Ultimately, a 'crime' is simply disobeying an established law.  That comes down to a judgement that the law can be set aside. Usually a crime will be against another person, which again comes down to a judgement that what we get from the action is worth more to us than what we do negatively to the other person.  At some point, the person has to make a decision that what they want or feel they need is more important to themself than  the consequences or effects of ther actions on others.  

 At some point, I have to make the call at some level of awareness "I am going to pull the trigger, cheat on my wife, steal from the company". A lot of external influences can nudge the balance point of making that decision.  Poverty can make the decision to steal more of a perceived life or death decision.  But some poor people steal and some don't and some rich people steal and some don't and some whites hate blacks and some blacks hate whites, and some don't.

 Unless we, as adults and parents, teach our children that 'stealing is wrong', than it won't matter how much money our kids have.  They'll steal to get what they want, or what they think they need.  Kids who are taught to respect others, no matter what their skin color...diversity is not a problem.  A dad who loses his job and blames foreigners loudly in front of his kids is teaching them that it's ok to hate some people for being different.


----------



## qizmoduis (Aug 31, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> How could diversity, by itself, be a major contributing factor to crime?  One would think the SEC level and difference measured between groups would be difficult to tease apart and explain separately.



It isn't the diversity itself that is a factor, but rather the fear and distrust of "outsiders" that causes friction among various ethnic or cultural groups.  Basically, tribalism.

Unfortunately, idealogues on both sides of the political spectrum want simple, hammer-style solutions to everything and are unwilling or unable to consider multiple influences for what are problems as complex as human society itself.  You see this type of moronic approach to all sorts of things, not just crime.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> America the most violent nation?
> 
> And this guy brings up some good points too.
> http://www.darkendeavors.com/commentaries/1999/05-19-1999.asp



After agreeing with Tgace on the past few posts, I'm gonna have to switch gears for a moment and address these articles.

Sorry to say but, in my opinion, the arguments and premises used in both of the above articles are little more than smokescreens. Radical, sometimes outlandish, claims are constantly made --- such as police forces being "not very good" outside of America, accusations of political cover-ups, cultural differences in "murder", and the exemption of some incidents in statistical analysis --- all with no evidence to support such claims. In other words, the claims remain little more than interesting speculation on the part of the authors.

Now, don't get me wrong. I think that most (if not all) of the claims probably have some partial validity to them. I also think the statistic of the U.S. being in the middle-range as far as suicide rates go is also interesting, and perhaps indicative of problems other nations face that aren't as prevalent here in the States.

However, even if we accept all of the claims and accusations to have some truth, it doesn't change the statistics to any significant degree. The truth is that the U.S. being cited as having the highest homocide rate in the world isn't a differential of plus or minus 5%, in which the "exempt" figures might have some validity. The differential is closer, in most cases, to plus or minus 250% --- in which case, unless tens of thousands of homocides are being "exempt" in every other nation on the plant, this indicates we have a serious problem here. Of course, the exemptions are rested upon the assumption that "multiple statistics" are a "product" of America --- meaning, they are only used in America. Unfortunately, this claim is false.

All of this is evident from the obvious political biases of the authors. They aren't impartial social scientists or statisticians citing value-free data. Rather, they seem to be more akin to political scientists or colmnists with an axe to grind. In this case, against the "hate America" people that are supposedly waiting to shred the Bill of Rights (eh?).

You should always be skeptical when social scientists and statisticians cite data and say one thing, but the politicians and pundits rigidly claim another with accusations of "fraud" --- and provide no solid data whatsoever, just accusations and speculations.

Laterz.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 31, 2005)

So how do these factors everyone bought up effect things like crimes of passion?


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 31, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> I think my point was pretty much missed.



Your point was made. The problem is that its a one-sided, partial, ideological point and should be made note of as such.

"Solutions" like this have been tried in the past and, ultimately, they failed. Only addressing internal variables will have no more success than only addressing external variables. Its time to try something new.



			
				FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> At some point, I have to make the call at some level of awareness "I am going to pull the trigger, cheat on my wife, steal from the company". A lot of external influences can nudge the balance point of making that decision.  Poverty can make the decision to steal more of a perceived life or death decision.  But some poor people steal and some don't and some rich people steal and some don't and some whites hate blacks and some blacks hate whites, and some don't.



I like how you apply this logic to external variables, but summarily and conveniently ignore applying it to internal variables, as well.

Some people that score 'egocentric' on Kohlberg's moral reasoning test will commit crimes, and some don't. Some that have next to no beliefs in morality or moral values will commit crimes, and some don't.

The problem many don't seem to be getting here is that there is NO "the" cause of crime. There are contributaries, and the more contributaries there are the more _likely_ any given individual will commit a crime.

I see criminal behavior more as a chemical reaction. You can have 5 "molecules" of poverty, and that person may never commit a crime. Likewise you could have 5 "molecules" of immoral values, and still never see a crime commited. However, it may just take 4 "molecules" of poverty and 1 "molecule" of bad values --- or, 1 "molecule" of social oppression, 1 "molecule" of easy access to deadly weapons, 1 "molecule" of poor values, and 1 "molecule" of a really bad day --- to set things off.

Once again, this isn't a simple issue. There aren't simple answers. Anyone claiming otherwise is just deluding themselves.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 31, 2005)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> It isn't the diversity itself that is a factor, but rather the fear and distrust of "outsiders" that causes friction among various ethnic or cultural groups.  Basically, tribalism.



Exactly.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 31, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> So how do these factors everyone bought up effect things like crimes of passion?



I think the chemical reaction analogy I gave before probably explains it fairly well.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 31, 2005)

So it leads me to wonder, when poor people from another country move to America and are still poor by our standards, but rich by their old countries standards, what their rate of criminality is?


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> So it leads me to wonder, when poor people from another country move to America and are still poor by our standards, but rich by their old countries standards, what their rate of criminality is?



No idea, but it would be an interesting statistic to find out.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 31, 2005)

Wouldnt it though. . Just a little rambling there.


----------

