by Jenab6 » Sun 15 Jun 2008, 13:32:31
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('desultorypawn', 'I')'m not sure if there have been studies that prove a causality or correlation between poverty and crime.
I am sure that if I'm cold/sick/hungry/dying and I know the neighbors aren't I'm going to do something about it, regardless of legality, and I think most humans are the same way.
There are weak positive correlations between poverty and crime (more incentive to obtain resources by robbery and theft) and between the degree of urbanization and crime (proximity of the criminal element and their potential victims). But there's a
much stronger correlation between crime and racial demographics. The very best predictor of the per capita crime rate in a region is the percentage breakdown of the races who live there. There is no "social" factor that accounts for this rate as reliably.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('aflurry', 'F')irst, people who are involved in chaotic behavior from addiction or predeliction to antisocial behavior in our current affluent society, will tend to end up poorer because they are marginalized or because their behavior destroys wealth as a side product, through say addiction or other risky behavior. Here there is a correlation between poverty and crime, but not a causation - in fact a better case can be made that violent or criminal behavior causes poverty than that poverty causes violent behavior. And so there is no reason to think that if the general economy suffered, people who would have otherwise lived non-violently would suddenly switch because they are poorer.
Second, people who have money and can afford to do so will tend to move out of high crime areas, while poorer people will be unable to move. this again would cause a correlation between poverty and crime, but not causation. So if the general economy suffered, decreasing mobility more generally, the nonviolent would remain in place and dilute the criminal activity.
So, I don't find the current correlation between crime and poverty, by geographic area to be a very convincing predictor.
Well said. This leads again into what I said to desultorypawn. Just for illustration, I'll dig out some statistics.
In 1995, there were 218.3 million Whites and 33.1 million Blacks resident in the United States. Of these, 11.2 percent of the Whites and 29.0 percent of the Blacks lived in economic circumstances below the federal poverty line. Doing the multiplications, we find that there were 24.4 million poor Whites and 9.5 million poor Blacks living in the United States that year. Poor Whites outnumbered poor Blacks in the United States by a factor of 2.57.
If poverty were the fundamental cause of violent crime, as the liberals say it is, then for each 100 (let us say) murders in the United States committed by Blacks during 1995, there would be about 257 murders during the same time frame committed by Whites. But that is not what happened.
In fact, about 55% of all murders in the United States in 1995 having a single perpetrator and a single victim were perpetrated by Blacks. In other words, for each 100 murders committed by Black US residents in 1995, only 82 murders were committed by all non-Black US resident groups combined. Even if you were to assume that Whites committed all the murders in the United States in 1995 that Blacks did not commit, the Whites could have been responsible, at most, for only 82 murders for each 100 murders perpetrated by Blacks.
The "poverty causes crime" hypothesis does not agree with observational evidence, and we must conclude, therefore, that it is false, however fond liberals might be of it.