In Focult’s “Discipline and Punish” (1977), he stated that laws were made for the rich to serve their needs. Its applicability and the way it’s administered and enforced caters to the rich and not the poor (Foucault, 1995). When crimes are committed by the rich, they have an arsenal of attorneys who are able to keep them from jail in addition to keeping the information away from the media. The poor do not have the luxury of retaining adequate representation. Inequalities do not end with once a guilty verdict is delivered. They continue on through the penalty phase as lower class citizens are processed through the penal system. The incarceration rates of those in the lower socioeconomic class have increased significantly over …show more content…
These inequalities are not a recent phenomenon; Edwin Sutherland (1947) in “Principles of Criminology” presented an argument on how crime rates are low in egalitarian societies and high in inequitable societies due to lower socioeconomic groups’ propensity to have high rates in offending. There have been numerous studies conducted since Sutherland’s book. The results of studies conducted vary with some failing to show a consensus between economic class and crime, and with others showing a direct link between the two (Sutherland, 1947). In “Poverty, Income Inequality, and Crime” authors Hsieh and Pugh conducted a meta-analysis of over 30 aggregate data studies. The studies reported variables such as crime, poverty and income inequality. The results of their study showed that poverty and income inequality had a bearing on crime (Hsieh & Pugh, 1993). Although the few studies mentioned in this paper are not representational of all studies ever conducted on crime causation, many do share commonalities. The most significant is the rich and powerful are given considerable latitude when it comes to laws and the criminal justice system.
Future Research Future research on social class, inequality and crime is needed in order to build upon what’s already known about crime causation. With the passage of time, some variables will remain constant while others will fluctuate. Regardless of the
Social inequality means inequalities in life that people may face such as employment, gender, race, education. Personally, I do think there is a link between social inequality and crime, for example if you are brought up in a lower class, you may be less inclined to get an education because of your environment and people around you. If you are unemployed and cannot seem to find employment you may lean toward crimes such as theft to be able to get what you cannot afford. These social inequalities may make you more susceptible to crime.
Inequalities exist within every system. Stories are often told of people escaping punishment for crimes due to their “acting”. When one asks, are all criminal offenders given and offered the same opportunities? The
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
Unfortunately for the 99%, the lower class is at greater risk for incarceration than the financially elite - regardless of the virtually non-existent gap between the socio-economic crime rates. It all comes down to money; the upper-class have more of it and, subsequently, more access to education and legal aid, giving them the tools to evade persecution. Although a life of extreme poverty can place greater emphasis on survival rather than morals, leading to increased crime and incarceration rates, the affluent are just as likely to commit crime, just less likely to be vilified and jailed for it.
7) In criminological theories, we saw how police activity is largely geared towards minor visible crimes committed by individuals from the lower stratums of society as oppose to “white collar crimes” committed by those of higher stratums (Dubé, CRM 3701, 2011). Abolitionists argue that by severely punishing some of the poor in order to deter society from committing crimes; we are only further contributing to the inequalities in today’s society.
Just as Grendel’s social status precludes his being shunned from society, so today is society’s relationship to wealth and social status significant in determining criminality within a population. The 2008 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) stated that “[i]n
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,
Class is defined as “the system of ordering a society in which people are divided into sets based on perceived social or economic status” (Oxford Dictionary). Most people commit crimes based on what their status in life is. If a person is poor, they are more likely to steal food, and other material possessions. If a person is rich, they are more likely to commit white-collar crimes, such as fraud. Variances in socioeconomic status, such as the disparities in the distribution of wealth, income, and access to resources, mitigate social problems. Lower socioeconomic status, and the things that are influenced by it such as low education levels, and poverty, affect many parts of our society (APA). All of these factors, have been shown to be more prevalent in prisons, and thus affect the prosecution phase of the judicial system. In this paper, I will analyze how class, both social and economic, has an effect on sentencing, and the trying of a person accused of a crime.
contributor to crime in the United States is a young, black male living in an
The challenge of crime policy is that crime is not evenly distributed across the socio-economic population. There are a multitude of reasons why this is a fact, but what is important to know, is that it greatly impacts crime policy. Criminal justice policies have vastly changed, especially in the last fifty years, in an effort to respond to citizens’ needs because of the uneven distribution of crime. Therefore, this means it is a reactionary response. It is imperative to remember that crime tends to effect the poor, the young, and particular ethnic groups more, when examining criminal justice policies. Policies that are of the criminal justice persuasion in their nature, in the extent of the policies, and in their impact directly effects the liberties of a governments’ citizens are always in flux.
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.
In this research paper, analysis is done to conclude whether the level of education and poverty influence the total crime rate in the United States of America. Using descriptive statistics such a mean, standard deviation, variance, histograms, scatter diagrams and simple linear regression analysis performed upon both independent variables separately, it can be analysed till what extent do these two independent variables, i.e. education and poverty cause fluctuations upon the dependent variable, in what proportion (direct or inverse) and of the two independent
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.
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.