What Societal Influences Predispose People to Become Criminals

[Nemo888]

The argument that more guns makes people safer does not make sense to most people. It will get almost no traction

I more logical argument would be to unlink guns and crime in people's minds. People think that more police and fewer guns will make them safer. I personally think that makes about as much sense as limiting the size of garbage cans and hiring more garbage men to reduce the amount of trash. Get to the root of crime and what turns people into criminals.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Get to the root of crime and what turns people into criminals.

...and maybe we'll all ride pink unicorns. 
Throwing out ridiculous statements like that does nothing but make folks who are on the fence about gun control wonder about the type of people who want guns.

 

[Nemo888]

There are a large number of correlations with social conditions and future criminality. Poverty being the largest.

Access to abortion was one of the most unexpected. Some prison populations in the UK were over 60% abandoned/care home kids. There is a direct correlation between the date of legalization of abortion and lower crime rates 20 years on. Ignorant statements like your own makes folks question the intelligence of people who want guns.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

There are a large number of correlations with social conditions and future criminality. Poverty being the largest.

I'm sitting on a treatment unit with 40 criminals right now,........I'm going to guess, at the most, 5 come from poor families............

Throw-money-at-the-poor types want you to believe that........

I was in jail at 16 because I was an asshole,..certainly not poor by any standards.

 

[Nemo888]

"There is a direct correlation between poverty and criminality (Kelly, 2000;
Block and Heineke, 1975). Becker’s economic theory of crime (1968) assumes
that people resort to crime only if the costs of committing the crime are
lower than the benefits gained. Those living in poverty, therefore, have a
much greater chance of committing property crime (Kelly, 2000, Chiu and
Madden, 1998) than the general population. Property crime is defined as
burglary, larceny, or theft (O’Connor, 2005). In his 1968 paper, Becker used
statistical and economic analysis to determine the optimal control of crime.
Here, we use a system of ODEs to try and get a more realistic, dynamical
solution to that same question.
Property crime is a major problem in metropolises. In the Bronx borough
of New York City alone there were 247 reported complaints of property
crime in one week (NYPD, 2005). There are over 36,000 cases of property
crime reported in one year (NYPD, 2005). The Bronx also has a poverty
rate of 37% (Kids Well-Being Indicators Clearinghouse, 2005) and has a
population of over 1.3 million (US Census Bureau, 2000).
225
Each criminal costs society about $5,700 per year due to lost productivity
(Kelly, 2000), and a total of $24 billion in goods is lost in the US each year
to property crime (US Dept. of Justice, 2004). The victims of crime suffer
an aggregate burden of $472 billion per year, including mental and physical
suffering (Anderson, 1999).
Crime is clearly an important problem that must be confronted. Ehrlich
(1981) suggests that the successfulness of rehabilitation and incapacitation
programs do have an effect on the aggregate crime level. However, it costs
about $25,000 to detain a person in a federal prison each year (US Dept.
of Justice, 2003). It also costs about $100,000 to build a new prison cell,
and the prison population is growing rapidly (The Special Committee on
Drugs and the Law of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York,
1994). We see that from an economic standpoint, detaining every prisoner
is actually a greater burden on society than crime itself is. Therefore, the
issue becomes one of balance. Ultimately, the goal is to reduce crime to such
a level that the total cost of controlling crime and the cost of the crime that
remains is less than the total cost of crime under the status quo.
What this model aims to do is find a cost-effective way to lower criminality,
thus lowering the cost of crime to society. Previous works have
addressed this problem (Becker, 1968, Ehrlich, 1973) using statistical and
economic approaches, while we do so by taking a mathematical (dynamical
systems) approach. The use of ODEs allows us to examine the dynamics of
the poverty-crime system and gives us a changing, rather than static, view
of how criminality is affected by varying intervention parameters. We know
that the problem of crime is alleviated by either decreasing poverty (Witte,
1980) or by increasing the severity of the ensuing punishment (Block and
Heineke, 1975). Our model considers both solutions concomitantly. Logically,
crime will decrease if one or the other intervention parameters is
increased. However, because we seek a pragmatic solution in a world where
resources are limited and cost is always a consideration, we cannot reduce
crime by simply relieving all poverty or by incarcerating all criminals. Instead,
we seek a cost-effective strategy to combat crime. Our model shows
that the optimal solution is actually a combination of the two control parameters
and pinpoints where that solution is."

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

theory

Next!!! 

[in a different thread of course]

 

[Nemo888]

Next!!! 

[in a different thread of course]

MATH actually, a little outside your lane.

Model
Naturally, not all crime can be stopped; that would not be economically
desirable. This model seeks to optimize interventions so that crime is reasonably controlled and so that the cost is minimal. The two interventions considered are , the rate of converting those in poverty to recovered, and
, the rate of incarceration. In the model, the population is divided into
five sub-classes: the non-impoverished class N, the poverty class P, the
criminal class C, the jailed class J, and recovered class (from jail or from
impoverished class) R. The total population is T = N + P + C + J + R.
Let  denote the rate of the flow from the non-impoverished class to the
impoverished class. It is assumed that sigma is omnipresent and dependent
upon the unemployment rate because of the nature of unemployment and
because of the dependency of poverty on unemployment. denote the conversion
rate from the P class to the R class due to government interventions;
 the rate at which criminals is captured;  denote the rate at which individuals
get out jails; µ is the death rate, and since T is constant (dT/dt = 0),
µ is also the birth rate. All rates are per capita.
We assume that there is a certain probability that a person in the P class
will resort to crime after coming into contact with a criminal. The term
PC/T is the conversion of impoverished individuals to criminals due to
contact over a certain period of time.  represents the “transmission” rate.
A recovered individual may also become criminal again but at a reduced
rate RC/T where 0    1 is the reduction fraction that accounts
for recidivism. The known rate of recidivisim is around 50% (Bureau of
Justice Statistics, 2005). The assumption is that those who have already
gone to jail flow immediately into the R class, and then, due to contact with
criminals, revert back to criminality at some reduced rate . The rate
is reduced because these people have a greater cost to commit their next
crime, according to Becker’s theory (1968). All parameters are assumed
non-negative. Under these assumptions the interaction between poverty
and crime is governed by the following system:
http://mtbi.asu.edu/downloads/Document8.pdf

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I'm not going to plug up this thread with a useless side-bar of comparing my 24 years of working with criminals after being one and a guy who lives to quote crap he 'googles' as fast as his little fingers will let him.............better things on my plate, like doing a round and making sure I still have 40.

 

[Nemo888]

In the real world everything from the number of police to the dollar amount a welfare recipient receives every month is based on those numbers. Your real world experience is valuable though. What are the causes of criminal behavior and how can it be curtailed cost effectively Bruce?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

If I had that answer I could afford that pink unicorn.............

 

[Brad Sallows]

>The argument that more guns makes people safer does not make sense to most people.

That depends partly on whether they receive an explanation as to why criminals might knowingly seek easier targets.  It is not hard to grasp why a home invader prefers neighbourhoods known to be relatively "unarmed" over neighbourhoods known to be "armed".  Regardless, the more interesting fact is that "more guns" do not appear to retard the decrease in crime rates.

Poverty can weaken inhibitions against committing misdeeds, but from the self-serving behaviour of many people in high positions I conclude the chief factor is the weakness of character of the person.  Some people have sufficient intelligence and resources to successfully skate the edge or to conceal their misdeeds, and some do not.

In the real world, the number of police etc depend on decisions made chiefly for political reasons.  Governments do not say "Oh, The Model shows more police are necessary; hire them immediately!"

 

[Pandora114]

My ex, who has an extensive criminal record (Note he is an ex)

What caused him to become a violent criminal? (Yes, violent)  dunno.  His family wasn't poor.

Poor impulse control and a predisposition to violence knocked him into the lower rungs of society.  Some people would say, it was because his dad was a raging drunk.  I've known people who've come from abusive alcoholic households and they're not criminals, so that isn't the reason.

At least for my ex, the reason why he's a violent criminal, all boils down to him.  He has a mental maturity of a 11 year old. He's prone to addiction. When an adult man thinks he's one of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse, and really REALLY sincerely thinks he could get a pardon for his (very violent, as in 1 strike away from being labeled a DO) criminal record so he can get in the military and join the JTF2, there's something wrong upstairs.  Seriously wrong.  It's  him, not "society". 

Crime is an individual choice.

If anything, the "Societal" influences that lead to the increase of violent crime is the removal of personal responsibility from people.  "I couldn't help it, I'm poor"  "I couldn't help it, my daddy beat me when I was a kid"  "I couldn't help it, I'm just mentally ill"  then it's a "Aww there there..it's ok"  When people are forced to own up to their individual bad choices, and face the full consequences of bad choices, beginning from childhood onward, crime probably will drop.  The "Societal" influence is the rampant gold stars for all, that is what's contributing.  No responsibility for bad choices.

 

[eurowing]

I wonder how much of a role Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder plays.  I see the effects in many of the children we foster. Poor impulse control, a lack of conscience or poor moral judgement.  It's something I never considered in my youth when I thought alcohol was a fairly harmless drug. 

 

[BeyondTheNow]

The argument that more guns makes people safer does not make sense to most people. It will get almost no traction

I more logical argument would be to unlink guns and crime in people's minds. People think that more police and fewer guns will make them safer. I personally think that makes about as much sense as limiting the size of garbage cans and hiring more garbage men to reduce the amount of trash. Get to the root of crime and what turns people into criminals.

I think a very important aspect of the gun debate to keep in mind is the particular population in question.  There are several nations that have as many guns (percentage-wise/per capita), if not more, than several others and their level of gun-related crime in general is lower. Why is that?  IMO, the psyche of a population whose area is flooded with gun crimes needs to be investigated thoroughly, and as a whole, in order to have a clearer understanding as to why they're having the problems that they do. It's very difficult to accurately accomplish this, because there are so many factors to take into account...

 

[a_majoor]

Many criminals seem to have poor impulse control; the "social" conditions that predispose them towards crime must also include living in a society that delinks actions from consequences.

The "Theory of Broken Windows" was applied in New York City back in the 1980's, where "broken windows" and other signs of decay were fixed; people in these neighbourhoods suddenly felt empowered to take a stand against petty crime and criminals who had plagued these neighbourhoods in the past to protect the newly fixed windows (rough paraphrase, I know).

At the same time, the NYPD was also embarking on an aggressive campaign to apply legal force and the criminal justice system to "petty" crimes (ones often overlooked in the past, especially because of the arguments linking poverty to crime). Nailing petty offenders like shoplifters or turnstile jumpers (people who jumped the turnstile to get a free subway ride) actively relinked actions and consequences, and the overall crime rate in NYC dropped rather remarkably. People who might try petty crime on impulse were deterred, and so never escalated from relatively small crimes to bigger crimes.

This argument can go on any scale; politicians do remarkably dumb things, or even engage in pretty borderline schemes because there are no consequences for doing so. Even hard core corruption takes a long time to resolve, and many politicians are able to simply walk away without even a slap on the wrist (In the United States, ask yourself how so many long term Senators and Congressmen are millionaires after years of serving on a nominal salary of $174,000 per year?).

So if you want to do something about crime, teach people there are consequences to actions, show them at an early age this is true, and have constant reinforcement throughout thier lives.

 

[ModlrMike]

What societal influences predispose people to become criminals?

The opportunity to abdicate any personal responsibility for the crime, and the choir of self appointed social engineers who claim that it's everyone's fault other than Johnny that he turned out bad.

 

[a_majoor]

And may I offer Stanley Kubrick for the defense:

When New York Times writer Fred M. Hechinger wrote a piece that declared A Clockwork Orange "fascist", Kubrick responded:

It is quite true that my film's view of man is less flattering than the one Rousseau entertained in a similarly allegorical narrative—but, in order to avoid fascism, does one have to view man as a noble savage, rather than an ignoble one? Being a pessimist is not yet enough to qualify one to be regarded as a tyrant (I hope)...

The age of the alibi, in which we find ourselves, began with the opening sentence of Rousseau's Emile: 'Nature made me happy and good, and if I am otherwise, it is society's fault.' It is based on two misconceptions: that man in his natural state was happy and good, and that primal man had no society...

Rousseau's romantic fallacy that it is society which corrupts man, not man who corrupts society, places a flattering gauze between ourselves and reality. This view, to use Mr. Hechinger's frame of reference, is solid box office but, in the end, such a self-inflating illusion leads to despair.

 

[BeyondTheNow]

...

So if you want to do something about crime, teach people there are consequences to actions, show them at an early age this is true, and have constant reinforcement throughout thier lives.

Yes, absolutely!

I feel in addition to parents/guardians applying this, it's also up to society, i.e. laws and law enforcement, friends, possibly church experiences (for some), media exposure, teachers, etc. I'm a firm believer that it takes a village...

Unfortunately, broken people raising people to be broken perpetuates the cycle, but this doesn't have to continue. I'm a perfect example. By all accounts and probably statistically speaking, my two brothers and I should probably not have succeeded to the point we have. (Single-parent family, poor, sparing the details--severely dysfunctional, moved around a lot, etc., etc.) Out of all of us, I acted out the worst while growing up--never arrested mind you, but I had my fair share of issues.  One brother is a H.S. teacher, my other brother is long-tme retail management, I'm successfully self-employed...we've done well.  So why did we succeed when others in similar circumstances can't? Why do some possess the tools to better their situations while others don't?  This is such a difficult subject to tackle because individuals vary with such detail that there isn't any one thing that will affect another the same way, either positively OR negatively...

 

[Steve_D]

I think that the "stats" about poor/dysfunctional homes being the reason someone acts the way they do is simply an excuse.  Sorry, but each and every one of us is capable of making our own choices.  "My family was poor, so I am poor" holds no water with me.  Just look at the number of examples of people (business or sports) who could have used their family situation as an excuse but didn't. They chose to set goals, work hard and rise above their situation.  If you argue that people act as a reflection of their childhood situation; why don't we put the children of criminals in jail now since they are going to commit crimes anyway?  Sounds a bit ridiculous, doesn't it?

My wife and I were both laid off from our jobs within 3 weeks of each other, leaving us pretty much broke in our early 40s. Instead of complaining of being a victim of society and the economy, we simply started over. I am now a happy, successful Naval Officer and my wife is a LPN.  If we can do it, anyone can.

Just my  :2c:

 

[cupper]

How do you explain white collar criminals?

I suspect that most of the studies cited only looked at so-called blue collar crime where some amount of violence occurred (such as brandishing or claiming to have a fire arm, to the other end of the spectrum of shooting a victim).

I would suspect that if one were to look at the background of a white collar criminal that you would find very few who came from a background of poverty.

It comes down to a nature vs nurture debate, and I would lean on the side of every situation is different. Sometimes nature wins, sometimes nurture wins.

There is a lot to the impulse control argument, but again nurture could overcome nature if given the opportunity.