Thread: Crime and its causes?

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

I said the LOVE of money, not the need, but since this is not one of the options on the poll I'll leave it alone.

well you may be right. can you edit polls, does anyone know?

I don't think there's a way to edit the poll options once the thread has been posted. That's a crime

New option added.... jockeys PM or email me if you need anything else.

Originally Posted by ByronTodd

New option added.... jockeys PM or email me if you need anything else.

awesome, thanks BT

Thank you Byron Todd and jockey! I wonder if there are any who would like to change their vote.

Originally Posted by Bruno

I'd say a lot of crime is income related. A lot of people simply have no other options.

But imo upbringing counts for the most of crime. The saying goes 'It's always the parents' or 'Show me a bad kid and I'll show you the bad parents' This not always true, but from what I see (now that I have kids myself) 99% of the behavior of a kid stems from the lack of involvement of the parents (he's had a bad report?), from their apathy (whatever, kids will be kids) or from their willful blindness (my angel would never do that).

I know I have no moral base for this argument, but if I see how some parents raise and treat their kids, I think they shouldn't have been allowed to have them in the first place.

I went part upbringing and surroundings, but I say it's mostly upbringing (or lack of). Just look at kids who are raised by apathetic parents; they're generally all the same. Bad manners, get into trouble a lot, and just generally do whatever they want which in turn has something to do with surroundings. They throw fits until they get what they want, then claim their parents are ruining their lives.

Lack of involvement is a proven one. Someone is going to raise children, so if it's not the parent, it's likely going to be their peers- other kids at school or peer leaders (aka gangs, etc). In essence, we often get kids being raised by other kids, and that's a scary spiral. Things get out of hand with young men still acting childish but with access to adult things, and the result is what we see today.

EDIT: I also think part of it is a lack of consequences. Take that previous example of the Brit that did a good deed by keeping that shop destroying hood until the police arrived. Once criminals realize that the public MUST stand idly by and watch them commit their crimes, there will be no stopping it. If the public was allowed to help in instances like these, I'd say crime would drop considerably. It's like carrying a gun here: people don't want to pull a gun because chances are, 5 people around you also have guns and will put a bullet in your head without a second thought.

I am involved with research in this area at the moment, so funny you should bring this up.

Rob Sampson's Chicago study is a seminal work in this area and an interesting read. He developed an idea called Collective Efficacy - a measure of the "social optimism" of a community, which relates very strongly to crime for his study.

Bottom line is that it depends on what type of crime you are talking about. Property crime is mostly socio-economic if I recall correctly. Murder is mainly an opportunistic "heat of the moment" type thing. Other crime types have similar differentiations.

And of course it looks like it's culturally dependent too. We are running an Australian study at the moment, and I believe there was one done in Stockholm recently. We are working to get hold of both the Stockholm and Chicago data, and adding it to the Australian study to ascertain any cross-cultural differences.

Anyway, that's what the academics are thinking at the moment. Whether it has any "real" implications remains to be seen. But I suppose in today's world you do need a theoretical backdrop from which to develop and quantify these things, for future policy decisions.

James.

I think the academic work has an important place. It can be difficult to translate theory into practice, especially in the social sciences, and practical applications may be a long time coming. But we've got a better chance of solving problems if we have some idea of their causes.

Rich

I absolutely agree Rich. I think Sampson's work has already had some direct benefit in terms of policing policies, as has ours here in Australia.

It's interesting - I'm not a criminologist or a sociologist (I'm a statistician) but I do work closely with them. The current thinking in these areas in relation to crime is building community ties and community capacity. Communities with strong social ties, and the access to appropriate resources, seems to be the order of the day in terms of reducing crime. Things have become micro - I think this is a fairly big change to traditional thinking, which was mainly macro-level.

James.

I am sorry but I think we are attempting to paint with too wide a brush here folks.

Crime can mean many things.

If our definition of crime is "drug crimes" then I would say almost entirely economic.

If our definition of crime is "domestic abuse" then I would say cultural (within the family).

If our definition of crime is "sex crimes" then I would say mental issues.
Is that an option?

If we mean " inner city violence" then I would say most all of the choices apply.

BTW, been lurking for a while but generally am not a big poster.
Since I recently became unemployed however, that may change.

NICE FORUM !!