The Effects of Poverty upon Crime and Disorder

For years, gang crime has been loathed by society, as society has perceived it to threaten the well-being of its members. In addition to the fear of gang violence, concerns have been raised of gangs polluting youth; hence, policing strategies have emerged more increasingly in an attempt to put an end to the delinquency. Nevertheless, for society the causation of gang crime has been discussed to a lesser extent; thus, the objective of this essay will be to depict a viable explanation of gang crime through the use of two criminological theories. To accomplish the task at hand; I shall, define gang crime, provide a description of social disorganization theory, illustrate how the application of social disorganization theory provides an explanation of gang crime, describe differential opportunity theory, demonstrate how differential opportunity theory can explain gang crime, and exemplify as to which theory provides a superior explanation of gang crime. In the end, it will be clear that social disorganization theory is a superior explanation of gang crime in comparison to differential opportunity theory, due to its ability to deliver a more enhanced explanation than the one that is provided by differential opportunity theory.

1. Text 1 “Experts Cite Underlying Causes for UK Riots” is a news report by Al Pessin published on Voice of America website the 10th of August 2011. The report consists of people giving an estimate of the causes for the UK riots. The inhabitants of London believe at first sight the riots are a response in reaction to lack of jobs and cuts in government services following a

Charles Murray (1990) had developed a theory called the ‘underclass’, this theory categorises those living in poverty and defines them as non-working, inadequate and dangerous to society. Such writings have been an influence on the right realists and have a need to reinforce personal responsibility for an individual’s behaviour. Murray goes on to discuss two different types of underclass, firstly, the poor. These are people that only have low income but maintain their morals and standards and secondly, there are those with low income and their morals and standards match that. Those households with low standards are stereotyped as untidy and contain drunken and disorderly behaviour. He claims the men cannot keep jobs and the children are ill-educated resulting in antisocial behaviour and juvenile delinquency. This theory talks about a ‘fear of crime’ that would be instilled into communities by the underclass because the underclass is a classic example of the habitual criminal.

The Neo-Marxist “new criminology” developed in the early 1970’s is also key to understanding how Marxists explain crime. Taylor, Walton and Young’s work maintained that crime was best understood in the context of capitalism and the inequalities it creates. One way that the neo-Marxists slightly differ with the traditional Marxist theories is that it says there is more freedom of choice that people have when choosing to commit crime and people are not just puppets of the economy. Here it could be said that the Neo-Marxists are taking interactionist theories on board and are moving away from the structuralist theories of traditional Marxism and Functionalism. With their book “The New Criminology” Taylor et al. attempted to come up with a fully social theory of deviance and looked into the importance of the labelling of certain groups within society as being criminal, in their case it was black working class men being labelled as criminal and dangerous by the law and order systems as well as the media. The book analyses the crisis faced by British capitalism during the recession of the 1970’s and the resulting threat to the authority of the state. It argues that the state responded to this crisis by mounting a law and order campaign which lead to a moral panic over mugging. As a result, black youth became increasingly

The conservative view is illustrated by then Prime Minister David Cameron, in his 2011 speech on the riots where he disregarded social poverty and unemployment as motive for the 2011 riots. Cameron then stated that: "And this riots were not about poverty", furthermore blaming 'Irresponsibility. Selfishness. Behaving as if your choices have no consequences' (Cameron, 2011 cited in Andrews, 2014, p. 309). This is an example of conservative ideology on riots. Geoff Andrews in his analysis of David Cameron's speech, highlights how Cameron is using words such as irresponsibility and selfishness, and is placing the blame on individuals rather than social inequalities (The Open University, 2016b). Although this was not a new idea. In Reflection of the Revolution in France, published in 1790, Edmund Burke argues that French Revolution was 'motivated by self-interest and disruptive elements' (Burke, 2003 [1790] cited in Andrews, 2014, p. 304). Burke further pinpoints that the riots were induced by 'greed and violence', citing the actions of the 'mob' (Burke, 2003 [1790] cited in Andrews, 2014, p. 305). This reference to the power of the mob is still used today when Ian Kinsella describes the 2011 riots on the BBC in the film 'Newsnight on the 2011 riots' (The Open University, 2016a). Mr Kinsella, a Business Man from Manchester with conservative view, pinpoints the fact that there were no rules and that the disorder was reflected in the power of the mob. In summary, the conservative view of riots stresses the disorder, the irresponsibility, the individual lack of moral, the threat to private

So far, both theories are able to explain the crime inequality observed insides neighbourhoods; however, when it comes to explaining the difference in crime rates between neighbourhoods with similarly low levels of poverty, social disorganization theory is not able to fully explain why such difference may occur, as it places a greater focus on the internal dynamics of the neighbourhoods than on the external contingencies (Peterson & Krivo, 2010, p. 92). Based on Table 4.5 of Divergent Social Worlds: Neighborhood Crime and the Racial-Spatial DivideI, minority low-poverty areas have roughly two and a half times more violence than their white counterparts (Peterson & Krivo, 2010, p. 88). Social disorganization theory insists that residential instability (percent of those who owns and percent of those who rent) , population heterogeneity (internal differences, including ethno-racial differences), poverty (percent of those who live in poverty), income, deteriorating neighbourhood, and population loss (percent of those who leave due to deterioration) are mechanisms that leads to the absence of informal social control and increases social disorganization, causing the loss of control over youths who then hang out at spontaneous playgrounds and form gangs with delinquent traditions that get passed down through cultural transmission. If such was the case, then one would expect neighbourhoods with similar and comparable local conditions to have similar average rates of crimes. However,

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.

Almost half of the 83,000 people in prison ran away from home as a child and cannot read as well as an 11 year old. Almost 30 per cent have been through the care system and similar proportions were homeless before entering prison.

Social class and crime and punishment has always been an issue in the UK if not globally. For the elite, the criminal justice system serves a purpose to deter and prevent crime, but the reality is that the poor are punished for crimes they commit more so than those of a upper class who commit the same crime. The question is who is to blame for this image of the poor being criminals and the working class crime phenomenon, is it the moral Panic created by the media to distract from the reality of the white collar corporate crime being carried out by the most powerful of society or is it down to Poverty, Labelling, economic and social positioning which all contribute to deviant behaviour. The aim of this essay is to provide a critical criminological view of the punishment of the poor with a wide range of theories and ideas to contribute to the understanding of the poor being punished from the 18th century to today 's contemporary society. It will aim to develop an understanding how criminals and deviant behaviour were defined and perceived from historical periods to now.

Crime in this country is an everyday thing. Some people believe that crime is unnecessary. That people do it out of ignorance and that it really can be prevented. Honestly, since we live in a country where there is poverty, people living in the streets, or with people barely getting by, there will always be crime. Whether the crime is robbing food, money, or even hurting the people you love, your family. You will soon read about how being a criminal starts or even stops, where it begins, with whom it begins with and why crime seems to be the only way out sometimes for the poor.

The effects of crime on victim can have a mixed feeling about making a victim impact statement. They may want to tell the judge or parole hearing officer how the crime affected their life and yet they may be anxious because you don't know how to prepare an impact statement or you don't want to bring back bad memories by describing how the crime has hurt you. The victim impact statements may include descriptions of:

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).

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