Crime, Violent Crime, and Poverty

							                  Crime, Violent Crime, and Poverty

It has long been assumed by the public and by public officials that these
three co-vary. The reality is both more complex and yet simpler. While the
contributing factors to all three may be the same or similar, each issue is a
separate process. There are some unspoken assumptions that go along with
linking these three that need to be articulated.

Assumption 1. A significant amount of crime is committed by poor people
who a. do not have the resources to meet either their basic human needs or b.
the “goodies” that more affluent people possess.
Assumption 2. Guns are the principle weapons of violent crime related to
robbery.
Assumption 3. People who commit violent crime unrelated to robbery or
property are unbalanced, “torqued-up” by drugs, or have had something
violent done to them.
Assumption 4. The people responsible for most of crime, violent crime, and
poverty are either minorities or unassimilated immigrants.
Assumption 5. People in the upper classes either involve themselves in
more sophisticated crime, have lawyers that “get them off,” or cheat the rest
of us by legal means.
Assumption 6. Law enforcement is inept, corrupt, and prejudiced.
Assumption 7. Crime, violent crime, and poverty are rampant in our society
today.

The first problem with these assumptions is that most people believe them.
The second problem is that, in some cases, there is a grain of truth to the
stereotypes.

From the top, data from the Uniform Crime Reports indicate that general
economic conditions are imperfectly correlated with crime. Sometimes
when poverty increases, crime goes up; sometimes it does not. We would
also expect that when economic conditions are good that crime would go
down. Sometimes it does and sometimes it does not. While those arrested,
convicted, sentenced, and incarcerated are predominantly poor and minority,
only 1/7th or less of all crime results in a conviction, and of those, less than
30% serve any time over a year. We really do not have an accurate picture.
In fact, victimization studies indicate that up to 50% of all crime known is
not reported. How much crime is there that goes unnoticed is another
question.

Next, guns are rarely used in violent crime. Knives, blunt instruments,
physical assault and battery, and physical intimidation with or without
weapons are each used more than guns. Even where guns are used, they are
even more rarely discharged. Sometimes they are empty or fake. All crime
should be considered violent whether someone gets hurt or not. Burglary,
robbery, extortion, even pick pocketing, and “stealing candy from a baby”
should be considered violent. The distinction is arbitrary and does not take
the disruption and costs into consideration.

While it is the case that violent behavior is not acceptable when it comes to
the attention of law enforcement or other agents of social control, it is
learned just as non-violent behavior is learned. The human being has no
instincts and even if we consider the fight or flight mechanism, the resulting
behavior is a function of how well one has been socialized and enculturated
into behaving in a conforming, acceptable manner. Focusing on the media
as the source of violent behavior ignores the responsibilities of agents of
socialization. Individual parents and other role models could and can
counterattack any messages delivered by other agencies of socialization.

Rarely does a medical diagnosis of mental or emotional illness include a
tendency toward violence. Most mentally ill, and for that matter, drugged
individuals are not capable of doing any violence, and if they are, they are
more likely to do violence to themselves. Suicides always out number
murders. Poor people are no more likely than rich people to have mental or
emotional illnesses. The differences are in treatment and treatment
protocols. Poor people who have these issues are more likely to go
undetected, and even if detected, unlikely to receive minimal treatment, if at
all. Those who receive treatment are more likely, if hospitalized, to be sent
to over-crowded public facilities that do not have the inclination, staff, or
resources to do much good. These patients are often deinstitutionalized and
released out into the environment from which they came without the
resources or tools to avoid the revolving door. Others are incarcerated
because the behavior in which they engage comes to the attention of law
enforcement and without strong advocacy end up in jail. If not hospitalized,
they are given medications without the supports to utilize, evaluate, and
know what to do if the medication is inappropriate or ceases working.
Those apprehended are more likely to be poor and from minority segments
of the population. How much of this discrepancy is due to profiling,
labeling, unequal justice, bad luck, not being good at crime is a matter of
debate. We do know that there is differential reporting, pursuing, and
adjudicating of perpetrators involving those who are identified by victims
and law enforcement as minorities. But it must be noted that crime and
violent crime may be underreported in poor and minority sections of the city
because of a distrust of law enforcement and the criminal justice system.