Is poverty the main factor affect crime
In the essay I’m going to talk about criminology and criminology is the scientific study of crime and criminals. Is one social group Involved In crime more than other social groups? Crime Is an unlawful act punishable by the state, harmful act or Arnold’s against the public which the state wishes to prevent and which, upon conviction Is punishable by fine, imprisonment and in some countries death.
No conduct constitutes a crime unless it is declared criminal in the laws of the country and poverty is the state of being extremely poor and being without things, having little none, not many material possessions and the need of essential goods.
Being poor means people have nothing and struggle to survive every day. Some sociologist have suggest that being tortured with poverty after a while leads to evil thoughts and the struggle of being in the poverty cycle committing crimes gradually becomes a new way of them wanting to break out of the poverty cycle some say there a high correlation of poverty with crime .
According to mainstream media under/working class citizens are more exposed towards crime, many theories of crime are based on national statistics with are taking out every year. According to official data the working class group are more likely to commit crimes then the middle class, sociologist have taken these figures and came up with theories on the case.
Sociologist are beginning to seriously question if poverty is the main factor by using correctional data , this essay is going to argue about the factors affecting crime, if it’s based on social statues or if more factors are involved. I will begin by stating that there actually is change in crime but also the people committing the crimes, although I’m talking about crime and the influences I’m still going to bring in other factor that ay have had an influence on the individuals committing the crimes . Or example psychical factor such as the biological explanations, sociological explanations and social biological; I’m also going to be talking about the modern crime theories, sociology theories of crime, subcultures explanation of crime, biology theories and crime, genetics and criminal behavior ,psychological theories of crime and personality and crime expansions are psychology factors I’m going to people talking about and I’m going to talk about sociologist theories such as other crimes such as fraud, crime of passion , serial murder etc.
Bear absolutely no link to poverty this suggest they may be an inverse link, since poor people are not in a position to carry out a crime like fraud or insider trading. No matter how much norms and values an individual has if poverty threatens his or her life then there likely to indulge into such criminal acts and could try to attack the prevailing social structure. Mom timer honest people who hate corruption from the depth of their soul fails to keep their mental balance and due to pressure of poverty they indulge Into crimes just to maintain their existence , the mainstream media only looks at the crime committed Instead of ending the real cause that lead the committee to such and act.
Psychology AS for AKA [Crawled Clark Mildred] Fourth Edition psychopathology (Abnormality) section I used Psychology AS for AKA to do research on Freud this was a really good start for me, it clearly showed the psychology behind and crime and how I could structure is in my essay. But in reality I had to do more research of psychology behind crime on the internet because the book wasn’t able to give out clear criticism of Freud theory and the criticism were needed in order for me to have a balanced argument.
Overall the psychology be was very useful in giving me point hat I can adapted on and structure it into the essay but even though the little bit of information they had was helpful I personally believe it wasn’t enough to help Sociology AY for AKA [Stephen moored Steve Chapman Dave Keen] Third edition crime and deviance section I used sociology AY for AKA to do research on criminology, I personally believe out of the entire book I went though it had the most information for me, it was useful and very resourceful.
But the only problem I had with the book is that it had a lack of criticism for my essay and I needed it to keep my argument balanced. Overall, the sociology book was the most useful out of everything in my research but even though it was useful it still pushed me to for further research. John William] the seductions of crime’ In this newspaper article John William tried to explain why crime exist with sociological evidence supporting what he has written, this was useful because [Tracy childish and Robert McDonald] ‘Understanding youth subcultures’ Discussion MARXISM AND CRIME Marxist theory in general is that they believe that capitalism can only thrive though the explorations of the working class, Marxist believes that they’re a clear link teen human nature and the way we operate in a capitalist society.
Marxist believes that capitalism is not only an economic system but is also a political system, in all aspects of society ; this provides the bourgeoisie with a supple mass of workers who do not mind working for external rewards of a constant wage. Some people say that the main factor that links in with crime is poverty and strong example of people who think this is Marxist. Marxist see crime as not coming from moral or biological defects but defects with social order (social control), Marxist say that crime happens because of social class differences . Irking class crimes are a lot more common if you don’t conform to the unjust system then you will be punished, for example intuitions such as the polices and the Justice system encourage individuals to conform. Marxist argues that white collar crimes with tend to be committed but middle class are ignored , while blue collar crime which are crime committed by working and underclass such are robbery are more focused on in the media. Marxist say this is a superstructure because it maintains and reflects ruling class ideology. The state (people in politics) who are part of the middle class pass laws which is inefficiency towards them .
Laws are made by the state which represent interest of the state which has positive impact on ruling class and negative on working. Marxist would also argue that crime is an inevitable part of capitalism as it stem from social inequalities because working class crime is caused by labor exploitation and lack or materials. Traditional Marxist believes that majority of the population are exploited by the ruling class (the bourgeoisie), exploitation provides the key to explaining why less privilege people commit crimes. They focus on the unequal conflict between the woo classes of society.
Marxist believe it’s by nature it inevitably causes crime, this is called carcinogenic ; Marxist see crime in the capitalist system as a tool of the ruling class where they can control the working class and crime Marxist say crime is unavoidable because of the result of the oppression the working class are in by the state. An example of were the state oppresses the working/underclass is that 80% of laws that exist is to protect private property, this suggest that the state are more concerned about martial and possession then they do about they’re society and the peoples well-being.
Neo Marxist are another branch of Marxism also known as radical criminology; they discuss more contemporary ideas of crime. They believe that the Marxist theory is too simplistic they are wider factors that lead to recidivism. Traditional Marxist view crime in 3 key aspects; Carcinogenic capitalism – idea that crime is inevitable because of the nature of capitalism is Marxist idea that crime and their ideas e. G. Such as saying crime is a result out of political anger.
Carcinogenic capitalism is the Marxist idea that crime is inevitable because of the nature of fatalism. ; The state and law making- law enforces widely supports the ruling class over the working class because the law making widely supports the ruling class over the working class, Marxist claim that laws enforced are very selective and repressive e. G. The police largely ignores crimes of the powerful in society and instead focus on; Ideological functions of crime and law-Marxist claim sometimes laws are passed that- on surface to benefit the working class.
According to the Marxist theory of crime it highly suggests that they do believe that poverty is the main factor when talking bout crime. However, one criticism of Marxist theory towards crime is white collar crimes. White-collar crime refers to financially motivated nonviolent crime committed sociologist Edwin Sutherland in 1939 as “a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation. ” An example of a white collar crime is false advertising, anti-trust violations, environmental pollution or dumping product on the market below cost.
This goes against Marxist theory because they believe that crime is only done by the working class because of the huge divide teen the upper and the working class but Marxist theory doesn’t explain why middle class people are committing crimes. White collar crime carried in a business or fraud. Because most of the time it is done on a smaller scale, it is harder to detect when the crime is being committed. However, when it is caught out, a lot of the time the criminal isn’t punished as harshly.
Reasons for this could be that the crime isn’t as serious as violent crimes or to save the reputation of the company that the person has been stealing from whilst working there. However, in larger scale situations, the crime is more than likely to be reported. One the other hand, another criticism to Marxist is Cambridge University study and they came to the conclusion that Poverty is not an excuse for crime as morality is the biggest factors commit crime because they lack morals and not Just because of the environment they live in, according to a new study.
Cambridge University studied around 700 young people in Petrography for over a decade and discovered that most adolescent crime is not Just because of poverty. In fact, while it is agreed that urban environments trigger some young people to commit crime, it is their morality which is the biggest factor. Other managers that were experiencing similar situations as the young criminals remain highly resistant to committing crime because they were raised with morality.
Functionalist perspective on crime Functionalist main theory is that believe social order benefits everyone, crime is bad as the weak suffer, social progress would be limited by disorder and all would suffer, thus crime must be limited, some crime can be positive. They believe some crime can be positive because can act a warning device, can help society progress, provides employment, acts as a safety valve, helps social cohesion, reinforces the boundaries f society.
Druthers believed in consensus and the need for social order, basis of society was a set of shared values which guide our actions called the collective conscience, tells us what is acceptable and what is not, re-affirming boundaries, and anomie. Functionalist believe that crime is inevitable in society, this means that it’s almost impossible for crime not to exist because not everyone will buy into the collective sentiments of society and some few may deviate from these social norms and beliefs Druthers argued that crime is an inevitable and normal aspect of social life.
Crime is present in all types of society; indeed, the crime rate is higher in the more advanced, industrialized countries. According to Druthers, crime is an ‘integral part of all healthy societies’. It’s inevitable because not every member of society can be equally committed to the collective sentiments (the shared values and moral beliefs) of society since individuals are exposed to different influences and circumstances, it is ‘impossible for all to be alike’ . Functionalist believes that certain amount of crime and deviance as normal and an integral part of all healthy societies.
This is because it acts as a ‘safety valve’, providing a relatively harmless way for someone to express their discontent. For example, Cohen said that “prostitution family’, this is because he believed this crime of prostitution could relieve the stress in a discrete way without damaging the rest of the clients life. Clarinda said crime also served the function of acting as a warning device. This is because the crime indicates that there is an aspect of society that is malfunctioning. So the crime draws attention to the problem within society, which can then be fixed.
Druthers said that crime in society isn’t genetically produced, but is natural in society. However, he did say that too much crime was dangerous in a society, and this is an idea Morton developed. To conclude Functionalist believe that crime is inevitable which means that anyone can commit it, this is because not everyone will buy into the collective sentiments of society and some may deviate from these norms and beliefs. However, Druthers doesn’t explain why certain people are more likely to commit crimes than others.
He appears not concerned with this problem – he was most interested in the nature of the relationship between crime and order in society. If questioned on individual motivations of criminals, he would probably have invoked their lack of solicitation. Also, he stresses harmony of society and the belief that the law reflects the interests and views of the majority of the population, but he seems to ignore the concept of power – it is generally accepted that in all societies some groups have greater ability than the bulk of the population to influence the law making process.
Marxist, for example, argue that the powerful in society control the law making system along with everything else and thus are able to pass laws which eight appear to be fair but which actually work to help preserve their position of power. Thus, the criminal system may not be as harmonious as Functionalists believe; indeed, Functionalists are often criticized for looking at life through rose tinted glasses which means they see everything as it was positive but they don’t look at the true picture.
Biological theory of crime Another factor they may have a link to crime is the biological theories of crime. Biological Theory is a peer-reviewed scientific Journal covering the fields of evolution and cognition. Biological theories are based on the nature versus nurture debate. Are we born criminals or do we learn crime, biological theories also see crime as a form of illness caused by pathological; factors specific to certain classes of individuals which is bad behavior vs.. Sick behavior. ‘Does the way you look say that you are a criminal?
Limbos (1876) introduced the first theory. We can assume that some people are “born criminals”Punishment is inapplicable. Limbos (1876) believed that you have an innate predisposition towards criminal behavior, In other words crime is something you are born to do. We frequently make inferences about another arson’s character based on his/her appearance Ancient Greeks and Romans believed in “physiognomy’ (physical features can reveal a person’s natural disposition) for example “Do not trust beardless men and bearded women” .
Cesar Limbos was an Italian criminologist who in 1876 promoted the theory of ‘anthropological determinism’ that essentially stated that criminality was inherited and that someone “born criminal”‘ could be identified by physical defects, which confirmed a criminal as savage. Limbos believed that by studying someone’s physical features, you could identify a potential criminal. Lumbago’s criteria for this cheekbones, flattened or upturned nose; handle-shaped ears; large chins, very prominent in appearance; hawk-like noses or fleshy lips; hard shifty eyes, scanty beard or baldness and insensitivity to pain.
Limbos finally concluded that a criminal would have long arms. Lumbago’s studies of female criminality began with measurements of females’ skulls and photographs in his search for “atavism”. He concluded that female criminals were rare and showed few signs of “degeneration” because they had “evolved less than men due to the inactive nature of their lives”. Limbos argued it was the females’ natural passivity that withheld them from breaking the law, as they lacked the intelligence and initiative to become criminal.
Limbos had also stated that these criminals behaved in a different way to everyone else. These different behaviors are as follows an inability to adjust to social and moral issues an inability to differentiate between right and wrong, a low inability to show any kind of guilt or remorse, an inability to show any kind of feelings toward, and an inability to form any kind of relationship. However, Biological theory as much criticism but in the following paragraph I’m only going to speak on 3 of them.
The first criticism is Goring (1913) in his experiment he criticized Limbos on the issue of born criminal and found that such thesis is inaccurate as well as dangerous, he tested a group of criminals and non-criminals to see if they showed any differences in behavior and he found that no significant difference between them, he then concluded that no one is criminal until he or she commits a crime.
Another criticism of the biological theory is environmental factors, this is because hey may have had a poor family history in which they were deprived of their mother at a young age (hence maternal deprivation) or they lived in poverty for many years and had trouble coping with bills or buying food to eat. They may have been subjected to crime at a young age because they may have had a parent who took drugs or smoked and if there was no money to buy the drugs then they would be made to steal in order to get the money.
However, the next criticism of the biological approach is stereotyping and encouraging stereotyping would then encourage prejudice and discrimination. For example if children are shown a picture of a man with upturned nose; handle-shaped ears or large chins , they will indicate a negative attribution towards the picture rather than to a picture of a man without upturned nose; handle-shaped ears; large chins (these features on a man are known to be a good indicator of being a criminal).
Yet, the only problem with stereotyping is that there is no strong evidence to prove it and that the research methods used were defective. It has also been criticized on methodological grounds because a proper control group hasn’t been used so it can’t be reliable. Psychological explanations of criminal behavior Psychological theory which has first developed by Freud this states that all humans have natural drives and urges that is repressed in the unconscious. Additionally, all humans have criminal tendencies. These tendencies are curbed, however, through the process of Colonization.
A child that is improperly socialized, then, could develop a personality disturbance that causes him or her to direct antisocial impulses either inward or outward. Those who direct them inward become neurotic while those that direct them outward become criminal. Freud had his own views on what makes a as a result of an overdeveloped superego. People with overdeveloped superegos feel guilty for no reason and wish to be punished in order to relieve this guilt they are feeling and committing crimes is a method of obtaining such desired punishment and relieving guilt.
In effect, a person commits the crime so that they can get punished and thus relieve guilt – the guilt comes before the crime. According to this view, crime is a result of a poorly integrated psyche. Freud also identified the “pleasure principle”; that humans have basic unconscious biological urges and a sire for immediate gratification and satisfaction. This includes desires for food, sex, and survival. Freud believed that if these could not be acquired legally, people would instinctively try to do so illegally.
Freud also believed that people have the ability to learn in early childhood what is right and what is wrong and though we may have an instinctive nature to acquire what we desire, such nature can be controlled by what is learned in our early years. He believed that people primarily get moral principles as a young child from their parents and that if these were missing because of poor renting, that child would grow up into being less able to control natural urges to acquire whatever is needed. However, the greatest criticism of the psychodrama approach is that it is unscientific in its analysis of human behavior.
Many of the concepts central to Fraud’s theories are subjective and as much impossible to scientifically test. For example, how is it possible to scientifically study concepts like the unconscious mind? In this respect the psychodrama perspective is unfeasible as the theories cannot be empirically investigated. However, Kline (1989) argues that the psychodrama approach comprises a series of hypotheses, some of which are more easily tested than others, and some with more supporting evidence than others.
Also, whilst the theories of the psychodrama approach may not be easily tested, this does not mean that it does not have strong explanatory power. Nevertheless, most of the evidence for psychodrama theories is taken from Fraud’s case studies e. G. Little Hans. The main problem here is that the case studies are based on studying one person in detail, and with reference to Freud the individuals in question are most often middle aged women from Vienna I. . His patients. This makes generalizations to the wider population (e. G. The whole world) difficult.
Another problem with the case study method is that it is susceptible to researcher bias. Re-examination of Fraud’s own clinical work suggests that he sometimes distorted his patients’ case histories to ‘fit’ with his theory Galloway, 1991. The humanistic approach makes the criticism that the psychodrama perspective is too deterministic – leaving little room for the idea of personal agency I. E. Free will. Finally, the psychodrama approach can be criticized for being sexist against women. For example, Freud believed that females’ penis new made them inferior to males.
He also thought that females tended to develop weaker super ego and to be more probe to anxiety than males. Also the theory such as id ego and superego are difficult to define and research. Sub cultural Explanations of crime Subcultures theories are theories which examine the behavior and actions of various groups within society these groups which reject or depart from the subcultures, and subcultures theories attempt to explain why these groups most are concerned with youth gangs’ and gang delinquency engaged in criminal acts . N 955 Albert Cohen came up with status frustration ,this is seen as a functional perspective of subcultures behavior (it improves their status) many working class youths who cannot gain status legitimately, become frustrated and therefore try to gain status through illegitimate means then they create their own subculture and reject the norms and values of mainstream society. Cohen have noted that Delinquency was lower in areas of high economic status while it was seen to be high in areas of low economic status linking back to Marxist theory that people of a lower class background are more likely to commit crime.
Their studies also found that these findings remained constant over time, They therefore came to the conclusion that “delinquency-producing factors are inherent in the Community and is culturally transmitted. Another explanations for subcultures and crime is Miller (1992) and Miller does not see the criminal behavior occurring due to the inability of the lower class groups to achieve success. Instead, he explains crime in terms of the existence of a distinctive lower class subculture.
He believes that this lower class group has for centuries possessed their own culture and traditions with a fundamentally different room those in the higher classes. This thus suggests that this lower class culture has been passed on not by one generation but for much longer than this. What are the Concerns of this Culture, Compared with the Higher Strata? Toughness: this involves a concern for masculinity and finds expression in courage in the face of physical threat and a rejection of timidity and weakness.
In practice this can result in assault, and battery as the group attempt to maintain their ‘reputation’. Smartness: this involves the ‘capacity to outfox, outwit, dupe, and take others. Groups that use these sequences, include the hustler, conman, and the cardsharp, the pimp and pickpocket and petty thief. Excitement: Involves the search for thrills’, for emotional stimulus. In Practice it is sought in gambling, sexual adventures and booze, which can be obtained by a traditional night out on the town. Fate: They believe that little can be done about their lives – what will be will be…
Trouble: young working class males accept their lives will involve violence, and they Will not run away from fights. However , one criticism of sub cultural theory is Miller claim that the six focal encores are central of sub cultural tradition but he doesn’t give enough evidence to show that this is lower class values , therefore how are we supposed to trust miller theory on sub cultural if it’s not reliably. Also miller says that it applies to male’s right across the class structure but doesn’t give any mythological evidence.
Another fundamental weakness of these theories stems from precisely this: an overemphasis on the importance of a ‘gang response’ to crimes, it places far too much attention on a group response rather than on individual responses. Notwithstanding the fact that cost Juvenile crime such as Joy-riding is conducted by ‘gangs’, these theories fail to explain why crimes such as rape and murder, which are very individualistic, occur Gender and crime According to official static there an overwhelming predominance of males compared with females on committing crimes.
Given this there has to be something in the these difference . Len the paragraph I’m going to explain why there are gender differences in offending rates and to be able to explain sociological evidence for the reasons from different offending rates,. Sex-role theory argues that women are less keel to commit crime than men because there are core elements of the female role that limit their ability and opportunity to do so. There are a number of different versions, all of which can fit quite comfortably together.
The first form of sex role theory is solicitation, this is the process by which children and adults learn from others. We begin learning from others during the early days of life; and most people continue their social learning all through life process : according to this approach, girls are socialized to be famine, polite and innocent while boys are socialized to be masculine strong and powerful. Over all this explains the large inequality when it comes to crime suggesting it’s not males fault that they commit crime its societies fault for enforcing social roles on children.
According to Gender and crime theory male colonization is the main factor of crime. The second form of sex role theory is Normalization this is the idea that males are opportunist because they have m However, the gender and crime theory is criticized because Frances hedonism say that criminology has tended to be dominated by males, in the main they have been studied by men and the studies have been about men. This may be an explanation of the big difference between males and females in crime .
Frances hedonism has suggested 3 reasons for this and the first one is the most obvious and it’s that male dominance of offenders this has an impact because many sociologist are more likely going to study them rather than the minority of female offenders . The second explanation for lack of information on female crime is male domination in sociology and this suggest that the majority of academics have been male this suggest investigations have been a reflection of males view points and intersect.
And the last reason hedonism put forward was sociological theorizing this is the idea that male sociologist constructed there theories and not thinking how It could be applied to females, this is because most traditional theories are gender blind in affect that means they ignore the specific viewpoint of women. To conclude the objectives of this essay was to argue if one social group involved in crime more than other social groups?
Make a clear distinction between what other factors cause crime, to analysis the arguments for and against whether poverty is a justification of crime and to draw a conclusion to weather poverty is the mother of crime. I believe that in my argument I was able to reach all my objectifies . The original purpose of this study is to examine the different perspective on crime and come to a sensible conclusion on whether it was Justified for people under the bread line to commit crimes and to come to a conclusions if it is fair for them to go prison if being court..
By looking at the evidence and argument, I must conclude that poverty is a key factor when approaching the theory of crime, the reason why I say this is cause both Marxist and the sub cultural theories both agree one the fact the poverty and crime have and ongoing relationship, but they also bring in key evidence to back .
But according to the information I got from my AY sociology book middle class individual It would have been unwise from the outset to assume that I would have come to an absolute Answer to my research question due to the wide range of factors that have been researched. The project has allowed me to explore to a great depth a topic not only of great interest to me, But one that will bear great important during my future as a social psychologist.