Poverty Is The Main Reason For Crime Rates Accelerating?

It can be looked at from either side, firstly poverty causes many to sell drugs or somehow raise funds through illegal means. On the other hand, a life of drugs, violence and lack of education can prevent any group/race of people to stay economically disadvantaged, with no pathway available to lead them to a more economically stable lifestyle. It is common knowledge that crime is more recurrent in poor areas than in nice middle class suburbs; however it’s not as simple as how rich the area is the less frequent crimes happen, there’s far more involved. Firstly if areas are considered to be rough, there will be more policing in that specific area.

Memphis Tennessee statistics report an overall downward trend in crime based on data from fourteen years with violent crime increasing. In 2012 the city violent crime rate was higher than the national violent crime rate average by 352.41%. However Memphis crime rate is still high. Memphis was ranked third most dangerous city in America in 2014. The rate is steadily increasing. (neighborhoodscouts.com)

In this article, as the title suggests, it explains the use of social class differences to explain racial differences in crime. Among earlier arguments are the subculture of violence and subculture of poverty theories, which argue that African Americans tend to have pro-crime norms and values. The article's author, Robert D. Crutchfield, goes in depth with recent and more advanced theories to explain the link between poverty, crime, and race, while criticizing the subcultural theories. These new theories tell a different view from that of the subcultural theories with evidence showing that economic disadvantage and the way how society is structured accounts for the link between poverty, crime, and race. From these evidence, ethnographers conclude

Why do people commit certain crimes? Crimes are committed for many different reasons by people, but there is category of people who commit crimes in response to a State in which is biasedly against them and is posed to create some sort of statement and in many instances poverty can contribute to crime. Lets take the instance that if someone has grown up in a situation of poverty and is in a hopeless situation some individuals given those circumstances will turn to crime to get out of their poor conditions. Some may argue it is not an excuse because they are many who are poor who do not commit crime but on the contrary there are also many who are rich that do commit crime and get away with it due to their power or legitimacy. So we see that clearly if the conditions are bad or poor for somebody chances are that they is a higher possibility that some of those people might be involved in crime. There are some determinants that factor out in this consideration which is depending on the area and environment the individual surrounds themselves around with, there is a saying that “you are a product of your own environment”, due to this proposition the poor people get lack of opportunity to network with wealthy and educated individuals up in the hierarchy. They can only resort to the streets because of their environment, these people grew up in poverty and all around them is gang-affiliates, violent and drugs. The norms is that society considers

There is a positive correlation between poverty and crime. In addition, crime does not need an economic motivate to reflect this positive correlation. Sanyika Shakur validates this notion when he reveals that, “we all were, children. Children gone wild in a concrete jungle of poverty and rage” (1993, p. 129). Shakur also postulates what members of gangs stand to gain from their devout affiliation when he contends that “gangs supply wayward youth with an idea of collective being and responsibility” (p. 375). However, it was common, rather, expected, that incarceration was the result of this inadequate social

Poverty fosters large crime rates. Where you find poverty, you often find crime. Urban areas are commonly known to be densely populated. High population along with the close proximity of businesses provide criminals with larger amounts of potential targets. For many impoverished people, the potential benefits of crime outweigh the risks of being caught. The pressing need for material goods, such as food, can steer people to commit crimes. Often threats and violence produce larger quantities of goods, which provokes people to commit even more violent acts. These acts are carried out primarily by people from poorer segments of the population and who are more likely to live in urban areas.

When it relates to violent crimes, specifically murder, the level of poverty in a city has been shown to be a contributing factor. According to (Horton, 2002), in his research comparing the rate of poverty to the rate of homicide, he found that there was a correlation between the two. In his article he talked about how those who fall under the poverty line tend

The second theory I would like to discuss is the Strain theory. The strain theory basically states that crime breeds in the gap, imbalance, or disjunction between culturally induced aspirations for economic success and structurally distributed possibilities of achievement. The theory assumes fairly uniform economic success aspirations across social class and the theory attempts to explain why crime is concentrated among the lower classes that have the least legitimate opportunities for achievement. It is the combination of the cultural emphasis and the social structure which produces intense pressure for

The relationship between Crime and less fortunate people cannot underestimated; it may just be the way the media has conditioned us to characterize what a criminal looks like and how they live their lives. There are many low income cities and crime rates widespread across America. One may say that people with low income have nothing to lose when they commit crime or depressed or desperate to the point that they will commit crimes for the profit of money. Even though crime is committed at all walks of life, one can still pose a question to know if crime is more likely to be committed by people with low income that those with high income.

Crime and criminalization are dependent on social inequality Social inequality there are four major forms of inequality, class gender race and age, all of which influence crime. In looking at social classes and relationship to crime, studies have shown that citizens of the lower class are more likely to commit crimes of property and violence than upper-class citizens: who generally commit political and economic crimes. In 2007 the National Crime Victimization Survey showed that families with an income of $15000 or less had a greater chance of being victimized; recalling that lower classes commit a majority of those crimes. We can conclude that crime generally happens within classes.

The causes of crime seem to be indefinite and ever changing. In the 19th century, slum poverty was blamed; in the 20th century, a childhood without love was blamed (Adams 152). In the era going into the new millennium, most experts and theorists have given up all hope in trying to pinpoint one single aspect that causes crime. Many experts believe some people are natural born criminals who are born with criminal mindsets, and this is unchangeable. However, criminals are not a product of heredity. They are a product of their environment and how they react to it. This may seem like a bogus assumption, but is undoubtedly true.

A violent crime occurs every 23.5 seconds in the United States of America. Even though crime has been at a low during the past decade, violence is still prevalent in today’s society. Most of these crimes happen in places that are socio-economically disadvantaged. There then is the debate of whether violent crime is associated with environments struck with poverty. There is a correlation between violent crimes and poverty because of the unemployment rates in major cities, the culture of poor areas, and drugs.

“Many people living in poverty do not want to be living in poverty. In order to obtain a higher level of socioeconomic status, crime is seen as the only option.” (Wilson, 1987).

Poverty and the relationship it has to crime is a long standing sociological, humanists and historical phenomenon. From the plight of the third world to the violence soaked inner city streets of the 1980’s, the relationship of crime and poverty has been the source of a great deal of social commentary. In societies throughout the world and throughout history there has always been a traditional measure of deviance through relative income gaps. Both poverty and crime as well as their connections are heavily weighed topics of political and social discourse. Opinions in these areas contain a great deal of variance. The prejudices of the old guard from the professional police era still utilize association with poverty as a measuring stick for social deviance. Meanwhile, intelligent social science continues to give insight to factors such as social disorganization, socialization into violence, as well as, the far reaching impact political, economic and justice based policies have on those in poverty.

Crime and poverty often seem to go hand in hand in the modern world, or so is the perception. With poverty rates edging higher this is even more important in our modern day. The unemployment rate is one of the key indicators of the health of our economy. The standard of living for most people falls greatly once they have reached the poverty rate, which makes people live nervously, frantically, and gives greater incentive for them to commit a crime possibly just to get by. In 2007 when the major economic recession took place, the unemployment rate started to rise steadily, peaking at an annual average of 10% in 2009, which was 5% higher than the average the four years prior.1