The Root Causes of Crime

[heretic888]

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.

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]

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.

Even in Britain, where guns are essentially illegal, there is a comparable amount of violence because fist fights outside pubs or soccer matches are not even of particular interest to the participants, much less the police. And because the world's police forces are not very good outside the United States - which is very scary and very true - a whole lot of crimes are just forgotten. If a body washes ashore in an African harbor, nobody does fingerprints or tries to trace it down beyond running notices in the local paper. They have no resources to do more. It is an accidental death off a boat, and the connection to a man seen being hustled into a car by thugs four hundred miles inland is never made. This is not a slam against Africa. But it is true.

Given that until recently the United States was one of the very few nations where lots of people could legally assemble and vaguely riot at all, it seems somewhat fanciful to consider this a sign of love of violence. Especially in the Latin countries, where ritual animal abuse, wife beating, and the more ridiculous aspects of machismo are venerated, and the corrupt governments are not so inclined to keep crime statistics beyond suspect political troublemakers, the charges against the United States are, shall we say, hollow.

 

[Tgace]

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]

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]

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]

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

Both.

 

[Makalakumu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[heretic888]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Wouldnt it though. . Just a little rambling there.