The main cause of crime is money, actual cash money that is, most violent robberies involve money, the drugs racket, money laundering, bank robbery, muggings, cash machine robbery, and tax evasion all involve cash, a lot of car theft, burglary and bribery etc. cash is definitely the common denominator.
Who was it who said 'money is the root of all evil'?

Originally Posted by rociano

The main cause of crime is money, actual cash money that is, most violent robberies involve money, the drugs racket, money laundering, bank robbery, muggings, cash machine robbery, and tax evasion all involve cash, a lot of car theft, burglary and bribery etc. cash is definitely the common denominator.
Who was it who said 'money is the root of all evil'?

Now thats just not true. In the part of glasgow i live in, the highest forms of crime are not that of actual self enrichment. They are usualy vandalism, violent crime, knife crime, and gangs (non profitable gangs) mindless anti social behaviour" that seems to be a lifestyle. its not out of bordom or lack of money, the crime in my area is out of being involved. Having someone to persecute, in order to make your will more managible. these people from a very early age are rooted into hatred, violence and worst of all hopelessness. I would rather someone stole my money, than attacked me just cause i walked by, unfortunetly the later is more likely.

Poverty itself creates a situation where it is easy for crime to form, however IMO it's an education thing. If someone is raised to be honest, irrelavent of how poor they are, then they are likely to be honest people. Now on fixing global poverty, it can't be done. You cannot fix global poverty, it's impossible under the current system. Why? Because even if you did have the money to, applying it is impossible, which is why I'm against global aid. Billions, if not trillions, of dollars of aid have gone into poor countries over the last century, and the problems have not been fixed. Where poverty is decreasing (India, China, Brazil, etc) are where the nation itself is developing without foreign aid, investment yes, but not aid.

Originally Posted by fubar

so you all blame the poor am i corect in thinking that way or not PM me if you agree its the poor if you dont mind or a simple yes will do if you agree?

No, I equaly blame the rich as well if they commit crimes. It"s a state of mind, nothing to do with poverty. I am a long way from being rich now, by the way.

Originally Posted by Rick Maxwell

Now thats just not true. In the part of glasgow i live in, the highest forms of crime are not that of actual self enrichment. They are usualy vandalism, violent crime, knife crime, and gangs (non profitable gangs) mindless anti social behaviour" that seems to be a lifestyle. its not out of bordom or lack of money, the crime in my area is out of being involved. Having someone to persecute, in order to make your will more managible. these people from a very early age are rooted into hatred, violence and worst of all hopelessness. I would rather someone stole my money, than attacked me just cause i walked by, unfortunetly the later is more likely.

Oh yeah, like the jails are overflowing with vandals, try watching the news or even take a look at natiopnal statistics, how much does crime cost the entire country, a recent report reckons it's £78 billion vandalsism knife crime and "non profitable gangs" ain't costing us that sort of money.

The problem for the police is lack of resource, they are too busy trying to catch drug dealers, burglars and car thieves to sort out the problems on the streets.

The solution is to replace cash with different forms of currency, like smart cards etc. this would free up a massive amount of resouce and save society enough money to sort out the current financial problems.

I think you need to look beyond your own neighbourhood if you want to see the big picture.

http://http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...e-home-UK.html

I'm not normally a Wail reader and I don't agree with the spin it puts on this report, but It does reference the study.

Crime has very little to do with poverty and vice versa; since the late 1950s crime in the UK has been increased dramatically...as have living standards. Whilst there is a larger gap between rich and poor in modern Britain, the poor have in real terms never been so well off.

Poverty per se is not the cause of crime, albeit poverty is a sympton of a the form of malaise that is responsible for the majority of criminality, namely a lack of attachment to and identification with the bonds that tie individuals to society and its norms and values. Travis Hirschi's social bond theory has demonstrated that where individuals are strongly bonded to society their levels of deviance (in terms of sexual misconduct, criminally or the misuse of drugs and alcohol) is very low....irrespective of wealth (or the lack of it).

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

Crime has very little to do with poverty and vice versa; since the late 1950s crime in the UK has been increased dramatically...as have living standards. Whilst there is a larger gap between rich and poor in modern Britain, the poor have in real terms never been so well off.

Poverty per se is not the cause of crime, albeit poverty is a sympton of a the form of malaise that is responsible for the majority of criminality, namely a lack of attachment to and identification with the bonds that tie individuals to society and its norms and values. Travis Hirschi's social bond theory has demonstrated that where individuals are strongly bonded to society their levels of deviance (in terms of sexual misconduct, criminally or the misuse of drugs and alcohol) is very low....irrespective of wealth (or the lack of it).

A few factors you miss

1. The number of laws has risen sharply over recent years while the level of deviant crime, rapes, sexually driven murders etc has remained more or less static throughout history as far as we can tell, although the data is always sketchy.

2. These new laws like many that have come before are designed to target the poorest (traditionally) or (more recently) those at the margins of society, such as socially excluded young people.

As such I do not think poverty sits neatly in a casual relationship with crime, on that we can agree, however this is the wrong level of abstraction. Crime (defined as breaking the law) is a discourse that attempts to legitimise targeting those of the fringes of society. This has long been the case, from the poor laws of Victorian England to Blair's Anti-social Behaviour Act.

Thus crime is caused by the establishment who make the laws (without laws there would be no crime). So in fact Crime is caused by the rich (or at least brought into existence by rich elites) defending their interests. Now this is not always the case (although my guess would be it is in 99.99999999999% of examples) and does not hold for all examples but as far as generalisations go it is not a bad one at all.

Hirschi;'s theory would also seem to back up this analysis. Those who are strongly interpellated (Althusser - ISA) by the ideological apparatuses of the state will of course be less likely to commit crimes, as they find their identity to be strongly articulated with the norms and values in which they are embedded . However those who have been marginalised by the law will no doubt represent a rupture with the ideological state apparatus and so not identify with it. As the poor are often marginalised (and mediated by a logic of contingency - thus am not positing a deterministic relationship here) will be more likely to commit crime.

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

A few factors you miss

1. The number of laws has risen sharply over recent years while the level of deviant crime, rapes, sexually driven murders etc has remained more or less static throughout history as far as we can tell, although the data is always sketchy.

2. These new laws like many that have come before are designed to target the poorest (traditionally) or (more recently) those at the margins of society, such as socially excluded young people
As such I do not poverty sits neatly in a casual relationship with crime, on that we can agree, however this is the wrong level of abstraction. Crime (defined as breaking the law) is a discourse that attempts to legitimise targeting those of the fringes of society. This has long been the case, from the poor laws of Victorian England to Blair's Anti-social Behaviour Act. Thus crime is caused by the establishment who make the laws
.

Funny how i find myself agreeing with you on this lol

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

(without laws there would be no crime)

And without laws we would have nothing?

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

So in fact Crime is caused by the rich (or at least brought into existence by rich elites) defending their interests. Now this is not always the case and does not hold for all examples but as far as generalisations go it is not a bad one at all

DAM, DAM, DAM, DAM, AND DAM AGAIN,

I AGREE AGAIN LOL. ARE YOU SHURE YOUR A MARXIST NUTTER?

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

A few factors you miss

1. The number of laws has risen sharply over recent years while the level of deviant crime, rapes, sexually driven murders etc has remained more or less static throughout history as far as we can tell, although the data is always sketchy.

2. These new laws like many that have come before are designed to target the poorest (traditionally) or (more recently) those at the margins of society, such as socially excluded young people.

I agree with you that the number of laws have risen, particularly so under nuLab who appear to be obsessed with the strange notion that virtually every problem requires specific legislation. That said, the majority of criminal offences committed have been the 'traditional' offences of property crime (theft, burglary, robbery), non-lethal violent crimes (assualt, public order) and drugs offences. In these three areas crime has dramatically increased over the past 50 years and there is ample evidence to show this: Background Briefings: Crime Policy

Given that the poorer members of society are disproportionately affected by crime, it could argued that rather than targeting the poorest they are designed to protect the poorest. Anti-social behaviour legislation has mainly been attacked by left-wing middle-class individuals, yet such legislation appears to have found great favour with those who live on "sink" estates whose lives were blighted by those 'on the margins of society'.

Thus crime is caused by the establishment who make the laws (without laws there would be no crime). So in fact Crime is caused by the rich (or at least brought into existence by rich elites) defending their interests. Now this is not always the case (although my guess would be it is in 99.99999999999% of examples) and does not hold for all examples but as far as generalisations go it is not a bad one at all.

This is a strange argument: whilst at one level it follows without criminal offences being on statutue there would be no criminality, yet without laws and in particular without criminal legislation and the penalties they bring there would only be one law: the law of the jungle. Historically many laws were passed to protect privilege, but it is difficult to argue that this has been the case since the late Victorian era.

Hirschi;'s theory would also seem to back up this analysis. Those who are strongly interpellated (Althusser - ISA) by the ideological apparatuses of the state will of course be less likely to commit crimes, as they find their identity to be strongly articulated with the norms and values in which they are embedded . However those who have been marginalised by the law will no doubt represent a rupture with the ideological state apparatus and so not identify with it. As the poor are often marginalised (and mediated by a logic of contingency - thus am not positing a deterministic relationship here) will be more likely to commit crime.

I think you are distorting Hirschi's theory. Like other social control theorists, Hirschi believed that humans are born without any internalised concept of right or wrong, pro or anti-social behaviour; such maters are learnt, primary through the extent of one's attachment to parents and school, with further bonds to society and its values reinforcing these values. Therefore it is the degree of positive parenting and prevailing social trends and values that tend to be independent of politics (for instance honesty and telling the truth tend not to be apparatuses of the state) are the major determinants of crime and criminality.

Poor parenting is the major cause of crime: parents not investing sufficiently in their children (emotionally speaking), children not learning pro-social values or moral values from their parents, not learning the value of education, etc, e.g. there is a direct corrolation between the number of times children share a meal with their parents as a family unit and the childs level of deviancy / criminality, this is where the foundations of deviant behaviour lie. Poverty is not the cause of criminality, poverty is merely a symptom.