Does Poverty Cause Crime.....

Crime mean Voilation of social norms.....

What is poverty?

Definition: Poverty, scarcity or poorness is the lack of income source to buy food. In some cases
it is not only the state of having income that is below the line of poverty but it is also the inability to
sustain a specified level of well being.

How is it connected to crimes?

It is in fact that most of the crimes that occur are due to poverty, except for countries where the
minimum necessities of life are met. No matter how much moral the person is, if the poverty
threatens his or her life then he/she is likely to indulge into such criminal acts and could try to
attack the prevailing social structure. Some times honest people who hate corruption from depth
of their beings fail to keep their mental balance and due to the pressure of poverty and resort to
crimes just to maintain their existence. In such circumstances the judge only looks at the crime
committed instead of finding out the cause that lead the committer to such an act. What happens
is the person is sent to jail and is labeled as a criminal and after his release he is further
humiliated by the society and therefore is forced to become a habitual thief.

Is there any solution?

My answer, yes there is. The solution to all these antisocial activities is in the creation of a sound
economic and social structure. The person who is indulged to crimes and is labeled as a criminal
by the society might be a genius if he had been brought up in a healthy environment. The child
who is despised as a thief and is ill-treated by the society might have been an honest and
respected man if he had received sympathy by the society in the early part of his life. Therefore I
contend that those unfortunates who carry a burden of sins are not responsible for their acts. In
my opinion their sins are less or no greater then the sins of the selfish and mean-minded people
who call them selves honest.

It is a duty of the government to help those unfortunate ones who cannot maintain a balanced life
by providing them with jobs so they could earn an income to reach that specific level of well-being
and then it is the job of the society to treat them with kindness and provide them sympathy.

I would end my topic by saying that the government should play an important role by putting an
end to poverty so to make a peace full, economical and social environment.

History has proven that there is in fact a direct link between poverty and crime. America, although
full of good-hearted citizens, has yet to recognize the importance of balancing the economic
makeup of its inner-city and urban areas with that of the money spent on imprisoning those who
commit crimes.

Read more: Does Poverty Cause Crime? | eHow.com

http://www.ehow.com/about_4570679_does-poverty-cause-crime.

It is a common myth that a major negative aspect of a society can be logically linked to another
prevalent aspect that has a negative connotation. One such example is that poverty is a major
cause of crime (Hollin 1992.)
But an unrevealed question in an anonymous voice continues to echo in my classrooms and
seminar halls: Is this true? Is this the whole truth?

History
A study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office released in 2007 showed that those who
are in areas where poverty is abundant had fewer options in life. People living in poverty-stricken
areas were more likely to have adverse health issues due to unaffordable health care, risky
behavior and the lack of proper education. Those who experience poverty are more likely to
suffer from health conditions due to being closer to freeways and industrial buildings that are not
usually welcome in higher-income areas. There is also a notable historical rise in property
damage that parallels the unemployment rate throughout American history (see Resources
below).

Poverty is the state for the majority of the world’s people and nations. Why is this? Being a
student of economics, I have to relive the causes of poverty on fingertips.

Read more: Does Poverty Cause Crime? | eHow.com

http://www.ehow.com/about_4570679_does-poverty-cause-crime.html#ixzz14I6IjStS

Poverty In Pakistan

Poverty in Pakistan

Poverty is one of the major social problem Pakistan is facing. It is one of the most important and
sensitive issue not only for our self but for the whole world. Poverty can cause other social
problems like theft, bribe, corruption, adultery, lawlessness, injustice. To eradicate the evils of
society we have to fight with poverty. We can't control theft by enrolling thousands of police men.
Corruption and injustice can't come to an end through tight legislation but by demolishing poverty.
A low level of domestic income for an individual results in lack of access to education, health
care, and other communal facilities like lake of sanitation, transportation and communication. The
poverty of thought is the major social problem. To eradicate poverty in Pakistan we have to fight
with the causes and factors of poverty. Unless the causes and factors of poverty will be settled
the poverty will never end.

Considerations
The severity of poverty often goes hand in hand with the amount of crimes committed. Money is
often reinvested from the open market to the black market to bring about high yet risky return in
urban areas. Risks such as these are even higher when this activity is controlled by violent mob-
type organizations and gangs, whose existences are structured around capitalizing on the poverty
of others. Realistic and reachable role models are far and few between, if any exist at all, which
causes the children of those who live in these areas to look up to more unsavory figures who are
living the high life through low living.
Theories/Speculation

Gangs are an ongoing threat to urban youth.

Some theories suggest that those who are in poverty got that way merely of their own accord. It is
true that drug- and gang-infested neighborhoods of today often do invest in their own downfall
through discouraging new growth and an infusion of economic and social relief through unsavory
acts of crime. However, many of the reasons why America's downtrodden got that way has to do
more with its historical dealings with the impoverished immediately after the Civil War than any
other factor. Speculation among some communities suggests that after the Civil War, slaves were
turned loose without education and fair opportunity to provide for themselves or their families.
This, along with the already lowered perception of these freed slaves, caused a longtime rift in
social and economic standards in equality, education and opportunity.
Misconceptions
Society on a whole has a general misconception of the link between poverty and crime. Although
crime is often committed by those who are impoverished, all those who are poor do not commit
crimes. Other misconceptions include the assumption that people of color are automatically more
likely to commit crime because of the color of their skin rather than their surroundings and
upbringing. Many of these misconceptions may lead to adverse effects of racism and bigotry in
real-life meetings between those with and those without. Understanding and solving the root of
the link between poverty and crime will inevitably cause citizens to take pride in their
neighborhoods and become productive participants in the labor force.
Time Frame
Obliterating poverty has been the goal of many politicians throughout history, but nothing of this
magnitude will be solved overnight. Improved means of wealth distribution, better economic
policies and a society-wide commitment to solving the problem, eradicating poverty--and
therefore some of the crime that goes with it--may take decades or longer, but it is certainly a
worthy and noble cause.

t is a common myth that a major negative aspect of a society can be logically linked to another
prevalent aspect that has a negative connotation. One such example is that poverty is a major
cause of crime (Hollin 1992.) This being that although poverty may be a factor in crime, it is not
as significant as others. In this essay the sustained argument is that poverty does contribute but
so do other factors and to more of an extent. Within the paper two other reasons for crime
occurring to a greater degree are examined. Initially however poverty is examined and reasons
for this being seen as such an influential factor in crime are given. Predominantly to quash the
assumption of poverty being the lone cause of crime, the antipode is explored: greed in corporate
crime. Thirdly the quasi-taboo factor of the family and peers in childhood being the breeding
ground for juvenile summary offences that grow into indictable crimes is questioned. It is
concluded that the inference that poverty being a major cause of crime is in fact erroneous and in
assuming this, the tactics of crime prevention are being misused both in resource efficiency and
resource allocation.
Poverty being defined in the Penguin Dictionary (2002) as a lack of sufficient money or material
possessions for a life of moderate comfort is seen as social bad (Felson 1998) which Felson
argues is often mistakenly linked to other evils in society. Thus if it is assumed that poverty is a
linked social bad to crime, a syllogism is formed, being that prosperity would be a means to a fall
in crime rates. This theory however is found incorrect by Felson, arguing why then did Sweden's
crime rates increase greatly, despite the fact that the prosperous Swedish government bought in
more and more programmes to enhance equity and protect the poor. Thus in this circumstance it
was the factor of prosperity which increased the crime rate and could be linked, not so logically to
the social bad of crime.

However Poverty does appear to play a major role, but not a solitary one when it comes to
suicide. Lester and Yang display Emile Durkheim's consideration that financial crises lead to an
immediate rise in the suicide rate (Lester and Yang 1997.) Despite this Durkheim concludes
poverty protects against suicide because it, in itself, is a restraint. Consequently financial crises
do not increase the suicide rate because of the increased poverty but rather because they disturb
the collective order. Therefore it can be said that this lack of sufficient money (Penguin 2002) did
contribute to the rise in suicide rate slightly, but it was primarily the disruption in collective order
that influenced additions in suicide rate. Thus Poverty is not a major cause of crime.

Another example of how poverty is initially seen as the major social bad connected with crime but
later can be transitioned into another is given by Leonard. It is argued, many people believe
poverty is a significant cause of crime (Leonard 1982), yet in any area stricken with poverty at
least half the population is female, and their crime rate is typically low. As a result Leonard argues
if poverty were the considerable cause of crime this discrepancy would not exist. Consequently in
this circumstance the factor that influences this trend is gender, not poverty. Therefore poverty is
not a major cause of crime.

The second major aspect that will be explored is the trends in white-collar crime and how this is
an example of how poverty is not a major cause of crime. John Walker gives the total cost of
fraud, forgery and false pretences in the 1995 symposium of crime as being between $6710
million and $13 770 million (Walker 1992). This in cost to society is seen a major cause of crime.
Also white-collar crime is not just confined to the perpetrator's initial crime scene, for example the
workplace. Criminals involved in serial fraud will not confine their activities to one city, state, or
even one country (Palmer 1995.) Additionally as in other indictable crimes computer technologies
will greatly enhance the ability to successfully commit a white-collar crime such as fraud (Smith
1999.) The main reason being behind these crimes is that within capitalism, emphasis is on the
individual. Predominantly this circumstance highlights that people do things a normal "moral"
individual would not contemplate (Jackall 1988.) One then understands the only way an individual
would commit these convenient crimes, in numerous locations through their own corporate
position is to harness greed for the overall "corporate good" (Moore 2003.) Consequently greed
and nepotism are major sources of crime, poverty is not in this example.

The final social bad that will be discussed in this essay is the thought that the family's actions
along with influential peers at a young age can be predictors of future criminals. These actions by
the family include poor parental supervision, harsh parental discipline, parental disharmony and
rejection of the child are seen as important signs that lead towards criminality in children (Loeber
and Stouthamer-Loeber 1986.) In addition to the circumstance of larger families has held an
association with delinquent behaviour. It is seen that there are a number of variables, which must
be taken into account such as income, family composition and parental criminality (Fischer 1984.)
This inturn is seen to have a "contagion" affect on the siblings, being that one delinquent sibling
will influence another more impressionable sibling to criminality (Hollin 1992.) Therefore even if
the socio-economic context of a family is a variable in the contagion theory, the idea of poverty in
combination with the family's domestic influence creates a criminal. Ergo, without the one another
(poverty and contagion) this example of crime would not exist, thus they are equal contributers.
Neither is more significant than the other.

The final factor is the impact of peers. It is understood that young teenagers are susceptible to
malevolent influences particularly through their own peer group and their family, as noted
previously. Peers do have an influence, but only in certain circumstances (Agnew 1991.) With
situations where minor crimes are committed the strength of the influence is limited, but with
delinquents who commit a "serious offence... the peer group exerts its strongest pull." Since all
criminals were once children or still are, Agnew sees this as a dominating factor in criminality.
Hence poverty maybe the factor behind some crimes, but the major poverty alone does not cause
crime.

Poverty does contribute to crime rates as seen for example in some suicide cases by Durkheim.
However there is many other factors which give a larger foundation to criminality, a small amount
of which have been referred to in this essay. These being greed in positions of power, the given
family context and the impact of peers. Consequently the myth that poverty is a major cause of
crime is incorrect as it is clear there are other factors that go unobserved as more significant
reasons for crime. These need to be addressed before crime can be adequately prevented.

Usually determined by seeing what proportion of a family's income ends up spent on food and
rent. If you are below this line, you are wasting your time at work because you're going to be in
the exact same position when it ends as you were before you had it. Hand-to-mouth living.

Poverty’s effects on crime can be explained through a variety of reasons. “There is a higher rate
of mental illness in the poor than in the rich” (Brill 40). Poverty can lead to high levels of stress
that in turn may lead individuals to commit theft, robbery, or other violent acts. Moreover, poverty
may lead to an actual or perceived inferior education, which would cause youth to count on less
access to quality schools, jobs, and role models, decreasing the opportunity costs of crime and
increasing the probability of youth spending time on the street associating with gangs, etc

The research literature clearly demonstrates that children living in poverty are at a higher risk for
engaging in delinquent behavior (e.g. Peterson and Krivo 2005; Pratt and Cullen 2005). The
family context plays an important role in child outcomes. Some scholars have argued that poverty
affects delinquency by affecting family processes. Research has shown that poverty increases
family stress (Larzelere and Patterson 1990). Family stress, in turn, affects parent-child
interactions (Hanson 1997; Patterson et al. 1989; Sampson and Laub 1993). Public assistance
programs were designed to buffer some the negative effects of poverty; however, there has been
little research examining how public assistance receipt affects the relationship between poverty
and delinquency. Specifically, research has not examined whether or not public assistance
receipt ameliorates some of the negative effects of poverty on youths’ delinquent behavior. Using
the National Longitudinal Surveys’ NLSY79 Mother, Child, and Young Adult data, biennially from
1986-2004, this paper will examine whether and how public assistance receipt plays a part in
helping impoverished youth avoid delinquency. More specifically, I will examine whether the
receipt of public assistance benefits reduces stress in families, thereby reducing delinquency. The
results of this research help to disentangle the effects of socio-economic status and family
interaction on delinquency, which has implications for both criminological theory and public policy.

Crime offers a way in which impoverished people can obtain material goods that they cannot
attain through legitimate means. Often threat or force can help them acquire even more goods,
this induces them to commit violent acts such as robbery, which is the second most common
violent crime. For many impoverished people, the prize that crime yields may outweigh the risk of
being caught, especially given that their opportunity cost is lower than that of a wealthier person.
Thus, poverty should increase crime rates.

However, many other factors influence crime and are correlated with poverty as well. Higher
unemployment would certainly increase poverty and at the same time lead to more crime due to
depression associated with being unemployed. Personal income per capita, which is inversely
correlated with the poverty level, still may increase crime since greater wealth means greater
benefits to thieves and robbers. Furthermore, because of social class gaps, personal income per
capita rates may not affect poverty to a great extent (the income may be concentrated in a small
percentage of the population). It might even accentuate the difference between the upper and
lower classes, thereby inducing more crime.

I would say that in this country it would be hard to argue that there is not a relationship between
crime and poverty. Poor people make up the overwhelming majority of those behind bars as 53%
of those in prison earned less than $10,000 per year before incarceration.

“The poor delinquent child... is more apt to be expelled from school or have a police record than
a well-to-do delinquent...”

This study first examines how poverty affects crime in the simple regression model. Then,
controlling for the aforementioned factors - race, unemployment, personal income, population
density, geographic location, and age distribution - it again examines the relationship between
crime and poverty and how this relationship is influenced when these factors are held constant.

The rising levels of poverty, then, should alarm those of us engaged in ministry to prisoners, ex-
prisoners and their families. It follows that as goes the poverty rates, so go the crime rates and
subsequently the prison rates. If the relationship between poverty rates and crime rates holds,
and I suspect that it will, we can expect to be faced with the challenge of ministering to even
higher numbers of inmates and former inmates. Those of us who minister to men and women in
transition from prison and the families of inmates can expect to have our meager resources taxed
to the limit.

Poverty in Pakistan is a concern.[citation needed] Although the middle-class has grown in

Pakistan to 35 million,[1] nearly one-quarter of the population is classified poor as of October
2006.[2]. As of 2008, 17.2% of the total population lives below the poverty line, which is the
lowest figure in the history of Pakistan.[3] The declining trend in poverty as seen in the country
during the 1970s and 1980s was reversed in the 1990s by poor federal policies and rampant
corruption.[4] This phenomenon has been referred to as the poverty bomb.[5] The government of
Pakistan with help from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has prepared an Interim Poverty
Reduction Strategy Paper[6] that suggests guidelines to reduce poverty in the country.
As of 2009, Pakistan's Human Development Index (HDI) is 0.572, higher than that of nearby
Bangladesh's 0.543, which was formerly a part of the country itself. Pakistan's HDI still stands
lower than that of neighbouring India's at 0.612.[7]
Incidences of poverty in Pakistan rose from 22–26% in the fiscal year 1991 to 32–35% in the
fiscal year 1999. They have subsequently fallen to 25–26% according to the reports of the World
Bank and the UN Development Program reports. These reports contradict the claims made by the
Government of Pakistan that the poverty rates are only 23.1%.[2] Furthermore, the poverty rate
declined to 17.2% in 2007-08 according to the World Bank.[8]
According to the Human Development Index (HDI), 60.3% of Pakistan's population lives on under
$2 a day, compared to 75.6% in nearby India and 81.3% in nearby Bangladesh,[9] and some
22.6% live under $1 a day, compared to 41.6% in India and 49.6% in Bangladesh[10]
Wealth distribution in Pakistan is highly uneven, with 10% of the population earning 27.6% of
income[11] According to the United Nations Human Development Report, Pakistan's human
development indicators, especially those for women, fall significantly below those of countries
with comparable levels of per-capita income. Pakistan also has a higher infant mortality rate (88
per 1000) than the South Asian average (83 per 1000).

Many theories exist about crime and poverty going along with each other. I can offer a simple
example: a poor man sees a rich man with a watch, car, wife, house, suit, etc. He becomes
aware due to his life choices that he will not have the opportunity to attain these items or chances
in the future. However, he can attain them through crime. If he wants, he shall get!! This is the
anomie theory. Social strain and poverty keeps a person down long enough to destroy his hopes
and dreams long enough for him/her to notice alternative means to get it.

There is more high-end crime with the rich (they usually get away with it) than with the poor.
Although it appears crime is on the rise in the poorer districts of a city it's amazing no matter how
poor most people are they have a code of honor and hopefully pass it on to their children.

Answer

In my experience in social work and counseling, I have found that the social culture of an
individual determines the quality of their life.
The set of values with which individuals were nurtured will govern the choices they make in life.
There are numerous influences and temptations bombarding the psyche of people today, via the
global media (TV) and Internet. The minds of children are now governed by the suggestive
influence of television programming which promote the use of intoxicating drugs and sexual
escapades. The movie industry with all the disgusting sensationalism of gangsters, pirates,
murders, rapists and the host of other miscreants have contributed significantly to the
development of criminal minds.
Poverty can be linked to culture and genetics. Most people who came from tribal and uncivilized
cultures usually return to the comfort of their ancestry. Those people, who came from structured
administrative cultures, were more adaptable to changing conditions and as a result they attained
greater economic development. It was similar to the structures used by the Ants and the Bees in
maintaining their various communities.
From my study of human nature and my activities in social work I am of the opinion that poverty is
a cultural problem. Poverty starts in the mind and it is fuelled by the morals and values of the
individual. In order to end poverty you must end the culture of dependency. The other aspects
involving narcotics, crime and carnal behavior are all part of the syndrome that accompanies the
laziness and victim culture.
If you truly want to help someone out of poverty, you must lift him/her out of psychological
poverty. You must teach them how to fish as opposed to simply giving them a fish. You must give
them a Hand-Up and not a Hand-Out!
Wherever in the world, people have developed through structured educational systems; they are
more inclined to continue along that path. Those people who have developed within tribal cultures
are less inclined to adapt to formal educational systems. If you were to conduct a survey of
people from various regions of the world you should notice a significant difference in their
development. Those people who came from structured societies where they were educated in
subjects such as literature, grammar, art, science and numerology, had significant social, cultural
and economic adaptability. On the other hand, those people who came from primitive tribal
cultures have been more adaptable to the slum and ghetto type environment.
Children develop their values and social culture from the environment within which they are
raised. Their emotional intelligence is shaped by the quality of care and attention they receive
from a baby to approximately ten years of age.
If children are encouraged to be fixated with the negative things in life, they could get lost in self-
pity and may be psychologically drawn into destructive activities.
The Ghetto syndrome and the culture of criminality have more to do with dependency, laziness
and greed than with poverty.
An absence of strong family values and morals usually leads people to become delinquents.
The social environment (ghetto culture) within which teenager's associate, impacts upon their
choices in life. Smoking, drinking alcohol, sexual perversity, drug abuse and criminality are first
introduced into a person's life by their parents, friends or relatives. If the ghetto society has
endorsed these practices as being elegantly acceptable then what do you expect the youths to
do?

Answer

I agree with some of the above post, but that's text book. Many people have made a 'good life' or
become famous and have lived in the ghettos or come from poverty. Abraham Lincoln had a
Grade 1 education and became the President of the United States and there are many more like
him right up to date. Even today many who have not had a privileged life have become either
successful business people or famous. I do agree environment has a lot to do with how a
generation of children in poverty may choose the 'low road', but having talked to people of poverty
myself they want to be something and get out of the ghetto so to speak and become well
educated, becoming a doctor, nurse, executive, etc. It's a fact that people of poverty don't get the
correct educational background in the schools in the U.S.
There are hundreds if not thousands of white collar workers (in your own government) not to
mention Wall Street, etc., that are thieves and think they are intelligent enough to get away with it.
Just because 'you've made it' doesn't mean some of these people can't be thieves or commit
crimes. You can't make big money without stepping on a few fingers and toes! Most get away
with their crimes whereas, the average citizen (poor or middle class) wouldn't. All you have to do
is look at the news most nights.
It boils down to the fact we all possess the difference between right and wrong and which road we
want to take to achieve our very best. Crime is created by all races in all cultures from the rich
right down to the poor. It's just a matter if some of these people get away with it.