The Root Causes of Crime

[Tgace]

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]

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

Perhaps a defeatist attitude is the reason why...

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Tgace]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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

Are you implying that diversity is a cause of crime?

 

[Makalakumu]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.