Some of the most asked questions in the criminal justice system are: what are the causes or factors that tend to formulate a criminal? What made him/her commit the crime? This question alone gives critical criminologists a job, amongst many other needed fields of interest. Criminology has various perspectives observed through a vast amount of theoretical and research approaches. The approach that is to be considered based on this topic would be the positivist school of criminology. “Many sociological theories are positivist and argue that the behavior of each individual is, to an extent, predetermined. This means that offenders are at least partially (often almost wholly) directed by forces outside the control of the individual. What sociological theorists generally suggest is that particular social or societal changes or factors may influence criminal behavior” (Case, p.367). The quote stated above perfectly explains the positivist school based on factors that can want creates a ‘criminal’ and a ‘non-criminal’ due to uncontrollable circumstances based on the life a being is dealt. The relation between economic status and deviant behavior is mostly associated with the sociological positivism approach. This tells that crime is not an accidental occurrence that is unpredicted, but rather a social pathology. According to Lemerts, social pathology is when “persons and groups are differentiated in various ways, some of which result in social penalties, rejection, and segregation. These penalties condition the form which the differentiation or deviation takes. Sociopathic differentiation and sociopathic individuation are theoretically considered and applications made to several groups of deviants: the blind, speech defectives, radicals, prostitutes, criminals, alcoholics, and psychotics” (Lemerts, 1951). Lemerts does explain how disassociating a group from the whole community causes rejection and a divide, but a group that was not listed by an obvious contender is those in poverty or low social economic class.
‘Poverty is a crime’, ‘the hungry man is a thief’, ‘crack cocaine vs cocaine’. These are just some of the many phrases that show some of the perspectives which make it possible for the United States to criminalize what is as simple as poverty. ‘The hungry man is a thief’ can be best understood by reviewing Becker’s theory of crime, which “demonstrates a direct correlation between poverty and crime. The model seeks to examine the dynamics of the poverty-crime system through stability analysis of a system of ODEs to identify cost-effective strategies to combat crime in metropolises” (Becker, p.225). Becker finds that criminal behavior and poverty hold a rather strong correlation, this is a crime theory, but also an economic theory. This explains that there is a higher likelihood of those in poverty more probable of committing a property crime than what is considered to be the general population. Another theory that can relate to this would be the criminal opportunity theory, which allows us to explain what is the foundation of who are potential victims and criminals when involving property crime. Social deprivation is the underlier in this case as stated by Lance Hannon, the absence of economic benefits which many consider to be a necessity in society, “economic deprivation has two countervailing effects on property crime: it causes strain and disorganization which may encourage some individuals to offend, but it also simultaneously lessens opportunities to engage in property crime by reducing the supply of worthwhile targets in an area. The present study examines the relationship between economic deprivation and rates of burglary and motor vehicle theft for census tracts in two large American cities (Austin and Seattle). Regression analyses support the opportunity saturation hypothesis derived from criminal opportunity theory. This hypothesis suggests that the relationship between levels of deprivation and property crime is curvilinear where the positive effect of deprivation on property crime is stronger at low levels of neighborhood poverty than it is at high levels. Research and policy implications are discussed” (Hannon, p.363).
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
‘Crack cocaine versus cocaine epidemic’ was an attack on what is believed to be the African American community but rather those in poverty. This is due to the significant amount of people considered to be in poverty are African American individuals who are in economic need. In 1986, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act was passed, this was months after a star University of Maryland athlete Len Bias overdosed on crack cocaine and passed away within hours after being drafted to be part of the Boston Celtics. This was the beginning of the spark of the war on cocaine. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act set a minimum mandate on illicit drugs, cocaine, for the first time. It was considered to be a 100:1 ratio between crack cocaine and powder cocaine, for example, if someone were arrested for 1 gram of cocaine would receive a minimum of a one-year sentence in a federal facility, while someone who had 100 grams of powder cocaine would receive the same time. With this large disparity in sentencing between these rather identical drugs. The targeting of low-income individuals because evident, as explained by Deborah J. Vagins. She states: “First, the current 100:1 drug quantity ratio promotes unwarranted disparities based on race. Because of its relatively low cost, crack cocaine is more accessible to poor Americans, many of whom are African Americans. Conversely, powder cocaine is much more expensive and tends to be used by more affluent white Americans. Nationwide statistics compiled by the Sentencing Commission reveal that African Americans are more likely to be convicted of crack cocaine offenses, while whites are more likely to be convicted of powder cocaine offenses. Thus, the sentencing disparities punishing crack cocaine offenses more harshly than powder cocaine offenses unjustly and disproportionately penalize African American defendants for drug trafficking comparable to that of white defendants” (Vagis, p.1). Another study that stands by Vagis’ findings is Joseph J. Palamar, Shelby Davies, Daniel C. Ompad, Charles M. Cleland, and Michael Weitzman’s study on both drugs and the potential risk of socioeconomic disparities. The findings of the study found: 'Full-time employment was a risk factor for recent powder cocaine use, but this was a protective factor against crack use. This adds to previous research suggesting frequent crack users tend to be more marginalized from employment and are less likely to have jobs (Cross et al., 2001; Palamar and Ompad, 2014). Higher income was also negatively associated with crack use. This differs from income findings from our MTF study in that higher student income increased the odds of use of each form of the drug (Palamar and Ompad, 2014). Previous studies have found that access to disposable income is often associated with cigarette use and alcohol consumption (Martin et al., 2009; Scragg et al., 2002; Zhang et al., 2008). Even though powder and crack cocaine are the same prices in terms of dollars-per-pure-unit, powder cocaine is ‘more expensive’ as it tends to be sold in grams, whereas crack is more often sold in smaller unit sizes (Caulkins, 1997). With respect to adults, it is fitting that those with higher incomes would be more financially equipped to purchase powder cocaine at higher market prices. Indeed, powder cocaine has been viewed as more of an ‘elite’ drug, sometimes associated with ‘glamour’ and luxury (Ditton et al., 1991; Grinspoon and Bakalar, 1985; Kleiman et al., 2011)” (Palamar, 2016).
“One consequence of this robust relationship between poverty and crime is the numerous theories that have sprouted to explain this relationship. Although these theories all posit a positive relationship between poverty and crime at the micro level of neighborhoods, some of them imply a different functional form for this relationship” (Hipp, p.956). John R. Hipp has a written piece of work that questions the true relationship between what is seen to be the cause of crime, poverty. As stated in the quote above, there are multiple explanations and theories on the reasoning behind what is the characteristics of a community with continuing crime, and there is always one bedrock result that more poverty consists of more crime. Hipp explains that within these neighborhoods there is something that causes what is known as social dislocation. This begins due to the typical poor inner-city neighborhoods missing social organization, leaving the people within that community to be left with minimal opportunities and little to no available social institutions, giving them a lessen chance to be part of mainstream society. When an individual is distant from their society, it indicates that they are less invested in their community. ‘A Sense of Ownership in Community Development: Understanding the Potential for Participation in Community Planning Efforts’ by Robert J. Sampson tells of how a sense of ownership in a community causes positive aspects in the environment. Giving people a place in society gives them a need to keep it a better place and a sense of need. To prevent social disorganization, it is important for those to actually support community organizations, especially in low-income communities.
An analysis by Noah Atchison of a community organization that leads to an impact on crime rates concludes: “Research shows that in a city of 100,000, each new nonprofit community organization leads to a 1.2 percent drop in the homicide rate, a 1 percent reduction in the violent crime rate, and a 0.7 percent reduction in the property crime rate” (Atchison, 2018). Atchison brings to light that the continuous problem with crime is it is always rooted in poverty, leaving it difficult to reduce crime rates if poverty is a social construct that will not vanish due to America's need for a hierarchy system. But supporting such community organizations can help greatly make a dent in the crime rates when financial wealth is not available. Another viable option brought up by Atchison is providing resources such as non-profits that can zone in on youth education, substance dependency, employment, and neighborhood development.
Substance abuse is tied to criminal activity as described previously with drug dependency programs can lessen the predictable high crime rates in low-income areas. According to the Addiction Center in the United States, it is not completely displayed what is the true explanation to why there is a cause for addiction in impoverished areas, but it is shown through studies there is a higher likelihood that individuals in lower economic brackets are addicted to substances. “Addiction does not discriminate based on socioeconomic status, but someone with a stable income is less likely to have an addiction than someone with no financial security. Years of data show that addiction rates are twice as high among the unemployed than those who have jobs, and in many cases, the stress of unemployment leads to substance abuse” (Correra, 2020). This quote perfectly explains the issue of financial difficulties resulting in substance issues, which can cause a cycle of addiction that is almost contagious to those surrounding them in the community. Dexter R. Voison concurs by explaining that “adolescents in poorer neighborhoods experience significant sanctions related to drug use and delinquency. Parental stress (i.e., substance use, mental distress, and incarceration) is associated with youth drug use and delinquency” (Voisin, p.139). To help there are programs to help with addiction such as rehab, but the cost is almost a deterrent to those in need. When taking this into consideration for the criminal justice system drug abuse is punishable by incarceration, rather than treatment. According to Atchison, there are statistics for decades that show substance abuse treatments are proven to reduce crime, but the actual access to these treatment resources in poor areas is extremely lower than those in high-income areas.
To aid individuals in poverty, one can provide them resources anywhere from welfare, housing and just support, as stated previously. But what happens when the government makes it impossible to receive such things? This is best explained and shown in Kaaryn Gustafson’s work ‘The Criminalization of Poverty Today’. Gustafson tells how people in financial aid were actually created into criminals based on their right of ‘economic citizenship’, the right to receive economic benefits from the government, being taken away. This began with the stigmatization and almost dehumanization on the basis of the need for welfare benefits for survival by society, making statements such as ‘poor people are lazy’, ‘the government encourages it’, or having an ‘anti-welfare attitude’. This began an uprising to criminalize and target welfare recipients, which actually created more criminals, not focusing on other criminals, reinforcing this stereotype, and keeping those in poverty by lessening potential opportunities. “The federal welfare legislation of 1996 included a provision that prohibits any individual who is wanted by law enforcement officials for a felony warrant or for violating the terms of parole or probation from receiving government benefits, including not only TANF benefits, but also food stamps, SSI, and housing assistance” (Gustafson, p.667). This was a threat to society, but most directly to those in financial need. This violated multiple rights but to many, it was the violation of privacy that so greatly impacted individuals. Operation Talon, which was backed at the time by Vice President Al Gore, gave law enforcement to be allowed to apprehend people by easily looking up food stamp records without the need for probable cause, substantial evidence, or any genuine form of judicial process. This resulted in thousands of low-income people being processed by this system, 10,980 citizens in the United States were arrested between 1997 and mid-2006. The problem with this found that on top of the many flaws of this operation the type of criminals: “31% were for offenses known as 'Group B offenses', such as writing bad checks, which are considered less serious. Many of the Group A arrests were for non-violent offenses: 11% were for fraud charges and 10% were for larceny/theft offenses, categories which may include welfare fraud; 23% were for drug-related crimes” (Gustafson, p.671). Meaning a vast majority of those who were refused aid based on this operation were non-violent criminals who were not an immediate danger to society as America viewed them. This brings to one's attention that society does view the poor as big sources of crime and drains the community, but the United States policies do not do much to help disprove this commonly stated notion. These stereotypes that have developed minimize and contain the impoverished community as a whole. How can society stop these stereotypes? Do we as citizens of the United States play a role in the relationship between poverty and crime? Can we better educate ourselves, can we provide better education to enrich the minds of adolescents to actually avoid the initial possibility of deviant behavior?
Poverty within the United States rings in around 15%, which leaves around 1 in 6 citizens living below the poverty line and 1 in 5 children. This is one of the highest adolescent poverty throughout the whole world. According to the Child Fund International Organization, children raised in poverty face multiple disadvantages, but the most prominent are health and education. “Poverty reduces a child’s readiness for school because it leads to poor physical health and motor skills, diminishes a child’s ability to concentrate and remember information, and reduces attentiveness, curiosity and motivation” (‘The Effects of Poverty on Education in the United States’, 2013). This cycle of unreadiness gives the child a feeling of alienation from society, anger, and insecurity. Statistics have also shown low income tend to have lower test scores compared to their richer counterparts and a higher risk of dropping out of school. “For some children, the effects of poverty on education present unique challenges in breaking the cycle of generational poverty and reduce their chances of leading rewarding, productive lives” (‘The Effects of Poverty on Education in the United States’, 2013), which could end the possibility of following unfulfilled prophecy (a socially constructed psychological usually formed through stereotypes that predict or an expectation of one's actions off the basis of societies beliefs ) of poverty and deviance. Rick Docksai’s ‘murderous economics’ delves into the matter of poverty-related crime being a social problem that can be solved through investment in education to create a brighter future. The most informative results on the relationship between education and crime are in a study by Lance Lochner and Enrico Moretti. Lochner and Moretti describe education for individuals not only as a private return but more importantly as a social return, meaning it benefits not only the student but society as a whole. Due to crime being a strain on society, that is described as a ‘social cost’ and even marginally minimizing crime can be economically important. It is found that with a rise of just 1 percent in the completion of high school within the United States between the ages of twenty to sixty years men could potentially save $1.4 billion annually in expenses from crime experienced by society. This is the perceived ‘social return’ that can be received from better education. Other reasons to show why education can help are best described in a passage found in ‘The Effect of Education on Crime: Evidence from Prison Inmates, Arrests, and Self-Reports’: “First, schooling increases the returns to legitimate work, raising the opportunity costs of illicit behavior. Additionally, punishment for the crime typically entails incarceration. By raising wage rates, schooling makes this ‘lost time’ more costly. Second, education may directly affect the financial or psychic rewards of the crime itself. Finally, schooling may alter preferences in indirect ways, which may affect decisions to engage in crime” (Lochner & Moretti, p.155-156), and with further education, elevate patience or risk problematic situations.
Stuck on your essay?
