MOTION #86: THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT SOCIAL DEPRIVATION CAUSES CRIME
Since the advent of modern social science, sociologists and criminologists
have been preoccupied with finding the answer to what is the root cause of
criminal (or deviant) behaviour and, therefore, what are the best ways to
prevent it. Many theories have been put forward on the subject. Some of them
have since been completely discredited — like Lombroso’s theory that you can
determine a person’s propensity toward criminal behaviour by measuring certain
physiological traits such as head size. But much of the focus and research into
the causes of crime has centred around the impact of social deprivation or
poverty on those who commit it. Poverty is a huge problem worldwide, the US
census in 2010 recorded that 15.1% of people in the US live in poverty, and for
those aged under 18’s the rate was even higher at 22%. While the numbers in
absolute poverty have been dropping there were still 1.4billion people on less
than $1.25 per day as of 2005. Oxfam records that 1 in 5 in the UK live below
the poverty line, and this is mostly children, pensioners or disabled people.
The interest in poverty in relation to crime stems mainly from the factual
reality that there is a significant, proven correlation between the two.
However, in this debate the proposition needs to show there is more than just a
correlation, but that a major cause of crime lies in social deprivation. Also,
‘crime’ needs to be defined carefully, as it is a term which covers a very wide
variety of activities and behaviours which are very difficult to address
together (for example, burglary, incitement to racial hatred, insider trading,
paedophilic abuse, driving over the speed limit and murder).
Pros
|
Cons
|
People who are destitute are more likely to turn to
crime in order to satisfy basic living necessities. In some impoverished families there is simply no
possibility of work and in many countries where there is no welfare benefits
this means that the family cannot afford food, shelter or healthcare. Even in
some places where there are benefits, this is often not enough to cover the
family’s way (for example healthcare is the number one cause of bankruptcy in
the US) and thus some members of the family may be driven to desperate
measures in order to be able to afford provisions. If no other options are
open to them this desperation can result in measures such as theft, drug
dealing or blackmail (See appendix). Furthermore often extreme poverty is
linked to substance abuse, often as a respite from these terrible conditions.
This in turn breeds more crime as people have to fund their addictions.
However in this case it seems clear that it is the desperation of poverty
that causes these people to commit crimes. Many people believe racism, and
therefore crimes such as incitement to racial hatred or ‘hate crimes’, are
more likely to occur in areas of social deprivation. The theory suggests that
a mix of poverty, unemployment and segregation causes’ high tension can cause
a ‘scapegoat’ culture on either, and indeed both, sides.
|
Some people counter
this argument by claiming it is not that people who are in extreme poverty
that are more likely to take drugs, but those who take drugs are more likely
to be in extreme poverty, as drugs are expensive and many drug users are
unstable and therefore unable to keep a job. This could be taken to suggest
that poverty is not a cause of crime in itself, but might merely be
associated with other factors which cause it. Therefore to tackle the crime
of drug use, we do not need to tackle social deprivation, but the drug use
itself.
Furthermore the argument that poverty increases the
likelihood of racism or racist crime can be refuted if we acknowledge one of
the most famous cases of racist crime, apartheid in South Africa. This event is now considered a crime
against humanity, "committed in the context of an institutionalized
regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any
other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining
that regime". However, it was also created and maintained by politicians
and many of the upper class in a stable and well-off society, thus this hate
crime cannot be attributed to social deprivation. Even racist actions that
occurred in socially deprived areas at this time or later must be looked at
in a wider context and it seems clear that social deprivation alone cannot be
blamed.
|
We acquire our knowledge of what is right and wrong
through education. We are not born
with an innate sense of right and wrong, a prior knowledge of what is legal
and illegal. We acquire it through education, both at home and at school. The
internalization of these social norms is a crucial part of becoming a
law-abiding citizen and acquiring the respect toward the law our society
demands. Children from poor backgrounds are more likely to be raised in
environments where such distinctions are blurred, where they are exposed to
negative role models within their family or community. They may also
experience very erratic or low-quality schooling, This may be because the
schools have inadequate levels of funding or supplies, the classes are more
likely to have disruptive children or that better teachers are more sought
after and thus go to other schools. As a result, they might become
desensitized to crime, or violence as a result of being exposed to it on a
regular basis. They might then start to view crime not as against social
order but as a part of it and that will make them more likely to break the
law themselves.
|
While it seems defendable that we learn moral values at
a young age, the proposition argument does not look with the factual evidence
about the individuals who are most likely to get involved in criminal
activity. Criminologists came up with the ‘age-crime curve’. This reveals
that the profile of the average criminal is a male between the ages of 15 and
25. After the age of 25, the majority of criminals desist. Presuming that
this pressure of social deprivation affects everyone in society in the same
way, more steps need to be taken in order to explain why predominantly males
between the ages of 15 and 25 seem to respond to it in this manner. This
further goes to suggest that perhaps social deprivation is not a primary
cause, but that factors such as age and gender play as much of a part in the
likelihood of criminal activity.
|
People feel crime is the only way to get their
frustrations heard. Some people,
particularly those from deprived social or economic backgrounds may feel that
their government is not helping them or listing to/care about their problems.
When this happens to a large group of people, they may feel crime is the only
way they can have their frustrations heard. One example of this would be the
Brixton riots in 1981 (See Appendix). In some states where government
criticism is itself against the law, breaking the law is in fact the only way
to have your feeling heard. However, this is of particular importance to
those from socially deprived back grounds for three reasons, firstly they are
often the ones most ignored by their government and secondly they are the
ones who would benefit most if society were to change. Finally, for some
people from poor social or economic backgrounds, crime is the only outlet
they have to vent their anger or frustration as all other options have been
blocked for them.
|
The opposition to this argument is that nothing can or
should be gained through crime. There are many ways of making voices heard
without resulting to criminal activity. None-violent measures such as bus
boycotts, freedom rides, sit-ins and mass demonstrations were used during the
African American Civil Rights Movement. This movement succeeded in bringing
about legislative change, and making separate seats, drinking fountains, and
schools for African Americans illegal. Another example is the 2003 Women of
Libya mass Action for Peace, or the more current (2011) uprisings in Syria,
Egypt and Tunisia. To use an example of the Tunisian uprisings, the people
spoke out against huge unemployment and government corruption. Thus though
many of the protesters were from poor socioeconomic backgrounds, criminal
acts were not taken and yet they still achieved the freedom that followed
from the 24-year-ruling president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali fleeing the country
a month later.Therefore that people feel crime is the only outlet they have
cannot be a reason to support the idea that social deprivation is the primary
cause of criminal activity.
|
While the figures demonstrated in this argument clearly
illustrate that these large scale crimes are more often committed by those
who are not suffering from social deprivation, tax evasion constitutes a
small percentage of the world wide crime rate, and thus should not be taken
to prove that social deprivation is not the primary source of crime.
|
Some of the biggest
crimes that affect society the most are committed by huge multinational
companies or wealthy individuals. Tax evasion is costing the developing world around $160 billion a year
to those who most need it (incidentally this is more than the entire global
aid budget). These are huge, global crimes that have effects of billions of
people. It does not take a stretch of the imagination to illustrate how some
of the tax evaders can cause poverty, illness and even death to others; as
the money they do not pay in tax can therefore not be used for road safety,
pensions, healthcare, world aid or many other institutions (that the tax
evaders are still able to make use of). This illustrates how the crime of tax
evasion can have serious consequences. In the US the most common tax evader
is a male, under 50 and of the highest earning bracket. Globally the most
common tax evaders are large multi-national companies. This illustrates that
these large scale crimes are not being committed by those from deprived
backgrounds, but rather from the greed of the wealthy to have more wealth.
|
This opposition argument two is not as clear cut as it
seems. While it is true that society encourages us to value material goods,
and that this encourages crime, it is also clear that this effects those from
socially deprived areas much more than those from stable or wealthy
backgrounds. In many socially deprived societies, the lack of education and
resources invested in the younger generation mean that the poverty cycle
continues to define how well these young people will do as adults. The family
they are born into is still the biggest predictor of a person’s life
trajectory. If social mobility is not a truly viable option for young people
from impoverished backgrounds to succeed, they may see crime as the only way
to reach the material goods that so commonly are associated with personal
achievement. One current example of this is the riots that occurred in major
cities throughout the UK in 2011. Perhaps one of the most notable acts of the
riots was the looting, particularly as the majority of looting was from high
street stores not for necessities or for high end goods, but rather for
average things the looters wanted. Zoe Williams explains the riots as such
‘this is what happens when people don't have anything, when they have their
noses constantly rubbed in stuff they can't afford, and they have no reason
ever to believe that they will be able to afford it’. Therefore in this case
criminality is caused by consumerism as the opposition argument two suggests,
but this is compounded by the cyclical nature of social deprivation that
looks unlikely to be solved.
|
In an age of
consumerism, the primary cause of crime is a greed or desperation to ‘fit
in’, or ‘have it all’. We live in a
culture where success and personal achievement is measured on a material
scale - what you own, how much you make, what car you drive, what clothes you
wear. This means that it is the way society is structured to make us crave
material objects which is the primary cause of crime. As society values
wealth and material goods over everything else people might turn to crime in
order to acquire these much-vaunted markers of personal achievement, to which
they feel entitled. Seeing no other avenue for personal and financial success,
they might easily choose to get involved in illegal but somewhat profitable
activities — like drug dealing, theft or burglary, running prostitution
rings, racketeering, etc. However if society was to value traits such as
honesty, hard work or loyalty over personal holdings then perhaps the levels
of crime would not be so high.
|
This is ridiculous. Why is the drug dealer a drug
dealer? Because he is poor and has few other prospects. He is not poor just
because he is a criminal as something had to get him in to crime in the first
place. In many cases that initial motivating factor was poverty or a lack of
prospects. If it was true that the causation was reversed then there would be
much more social mobility because those who started poor and deprived but wanted
to work and were fundamentally honest would be socially mobile.
|
The statistics about
poverty and crime show correlation, not causation. While it is true that crime is correlated with people
coming from poorer socio-economic backgrounds this does not in itself prove
that poverty itself is the cause of crime. A lack of education or bad
parenting might be equally, if not more convincing explanations for both
phenomena. The causation may even be reversed, with those who indulge in
violent behaviour and who seek illegal short-cuts to success rather than
being prepared to hold down a steady job being more likely to end up poor.
For example, recent studies have found that street-level drug dealers make
less than the minimum wage. So poverty is not a cause of crime in itself, but
might merely be associated with other factors which cause it. In order to
tackle crime, therefore, we don’t need to eradicate poverty, but improve
people’s internalization of social norms through law enforcement and
education.
|
0 Comments