|
Firstly, I apologise if this OP is a little light. This is simply a topic I was ruminating on and was interested in discussing with D&D - if it really belongs in another thread or isn't considered worth having a whole thread over, please let me know. Basically - what do you believe is the primary cause of theft? Or robbery, burglary - any crime that involves taking the possessions/money of others. Is it primarily a crime committed by the desperate, who are poor and struggling and so have resorted to thievery to get by, or are most thieves in a relatively comfortable financial position and simply want more without caring who suffers? Or are there other reasons you can think of? Obviously there will always be examples of both and then some, but I'm talking about the more common cause. I've asked a couple of people about this so far, and both have answered the latter, while I tend to believe the former, and that theft in general would likely drop significantly with superior social safety nets/a basic income/etc. I'm very interested to hear various opinions on this.
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 11:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 05:55 |
|
|
BreakAtmo posted:I've asked a couple of people about this so far, and both have answered the latter Do they have an explanation for why when the economy goes to poo poo and there is high unemployment and no safety net property crimes increase and vice versa?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:Do they have an explanation for why when the economy goes to poo poo and there is high unemployment and no safety net property crimes increase and vice versa? Heh, well, the desire for that sort of in-depth discussion is why I made the thread. I'm guessing not, though, and I would like to read some literature on the subject if you have any links - I tried googling but came up short. Some studies would be very useful, even though I've found too many people who don't care about 'academic bullshit' because their 'life experience' has taught them that people are lazy and selfish.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
Breaking into a random house is pretty high risk and low reward. Financially stable people wouldn't do this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:Do they have an explanation for why when the economy goes to poo poo and there is high unemployment and no safety net property crimes increase and vice versa? I don't think there's very strong proof for either of those claims.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
Jippa posted:Breaking into a random house is pretty high risk and low reward. Financially stable people wouldn't do this. Very good point, though I should clarify that that is just one of the crimes I'm talking about - any kind of stealing would qualify, from purse-snatching to con-artistry to armed robbery to hacking a bank.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
Jippa posted:Breaking into a random house is pretty high risk and low reward. Financially stable people wouldn't do this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
Poor people created by neoliberal policy with the root caauause originating from capitalism. labor exploitation, and alienation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
Theft/robbery/burglary/etc is caused by kinds turning away from Christ, listening to heavy metal and holding hands out of wedlock.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
dilbertschalter posted:I don't think there's very strong proof for either of those claims. As someone living in an austerited country it's feeling pretty real.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
Are we talking only about theft of physical property, or are we also talking about fraud and/or identity theft? My general feeling is that poor, desperate people are more likely to steal physical things, but the more well-off who just want more will typically go for fraud of some sort. Also, if the well-off want something physical stolen, they will pay a poor person to steal it for them and pay them only a fraction of what the goods are ultimately worth (as you would purchasing any stolen goods in general), thus insulating themselves from most of the consequences. I know that part because my friend's shop was broken into by just such a steal-to-order operation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
The latter, of course. Our economic system is founded on theft.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Are we talking only about theft of physical property, or are we also talking about fraud and/or identity theft? My general feeling is that poor, desperate people are more likely to steal physical things, but the more well-off who just want more will typically go for fraud of some sort. Also, if the well-off want something physical stolen, they will pay a poor person to steal it for them and pay them only a fraction of what the goods are ultimately worth (as you would purchasing any stolen goods in general), thus insulating themselves from most of the consequences. I know that part because my friend's shop was broken into by just such a steal-to-order operation. Good question. I think that would qualify - I pretty much meant any crime designed to give the criminal more money or possessions, whether those possessions are food and medicine because they're desperate or some kind of luxury item that they just want. Fraud or identity theft would count as long as it had that kind of purpose.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
OP, I believe phrenology has all the answers you need.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
Crime types and levels are actually very interesting because it does quite openly combine morality and economics; what is and is not morally right to do as determined by the structurally powerful of the society (you're allowed to starve but not to steal) and (through inflicted punishment as retribution) a rough guide to how bad they think those things are and then what impact does that have on what everyone actually does to survive. It's also a pretty good proxy for measuring discrimination, both in what things are illegal and how demographic groups are prosecuted (crack and powdered cocaine being the textbook example) but also in measuring crime levels in mixed demographic communities while controlling for poverty to see how the different groups co-exist with the identifiable 'other'. Beyond that you've got the difference between violent and non-violent crimes where crudely put violent crimes are caused by lack of community, where an 'other' group develops and people learn to fear it which creates a cycle of mistrust and violence, and non-violent property crimes which relate to poverty directly but also wealth inequality particularly when they otherwise share similar traits which makes people wonder why that particular section of people get to have that particular item and they don't. Then there's the lead hypothesis which basically says the amount of lead in industrial society had braindamaged most of the population and made them more violent but since it's being cleared out then that's why crime is generally decreasing, there seems to be reasonable statistical evidence for it but it's very biologically essentialist to argue and drat depressing if true. Basically if when you've been asked 'What causes crime?' and you start talking about the character of the criminal, you're a loving idiot who needs to get back into their Victorian timemachine and go back to 1843 and you're still missing the wider picture if you only talk about the criminals individual poverty level.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
namesake posted:Crime types and levels are actually very interesting because it does quite openly combine morality and economics; what is and is not morally right to do as determined by the structurally powerful of the society (you're allowed to starve but not to steal) and (through inflicted punishment as retribution) a rough guide to how bad they think those things are and then what impact does that have on what everyone actually does to survive. It's also a pretty good proxy for measuring discrimination, both in what things are illegal and how demographic groups are prosecuted (crack and powdered cocaine being the textbook example) but also in measuring crime levels in mixed demographic communities while controlling for poverty to see how the different groups co-exist with the identifiable 'other'. Oh, I thoroughly agree that these crimes are largely caused by issues with how societies works and how we treat each other. My intention was to find whether people here thought stealing due to desperation (caused by the societal issues you brought up) was more common than stealing due to selfishness or vice-versa - I know that the question is larger than that. As I said, I do believe it's something a great many people are forced into, and I tend to roll my eyes when someone tries to paint all thieves as "Evil Criminals Who Want To Take What YOU WORKED SO HARD FOR". That stuff about the lead hypothesis is also intriguing. I should look into that more - at least I saw the Cosmos episode.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
BreakAtmo posted:Oh, I thoroughly agree that these crimes are largely caused by issues with how societies works and how we treat each other. My intention was to find whether people here thought stealing due to desperation (caused by the societal issues you brought up) was more common than stealing due to selfishness or vice-versa - I know that the question is larger than that. As I said, I do believe it's something a great many people are forced into, and I tend to roll my eyes when someone tries to paint all thieves as "Evil Criminals Who Want To Take What YOU WORKED SO HARD FOR". There are a lot of different kinds of crime. Obviously Bernie Madoff was not motivated by a desire to feed his children.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
See it's better when you have more money than less money and crime offers a possibility that one will get to have more money. I imagine the true cause of crime is poor education in the areas of probability and expected value, since there's no way that the expected value of a B&E is positive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Desperation mostly. Imagine growing up in a household with parents who are abusive, absent, single parents working 2 jobs just to not get kicked onto the street or any situation where your upbringing to try and actually teach you morals, ethics and actual learning is non-existant. An eduction system in your area that is severely underfunded and staffed by people who have to spend more time just keeping the peace than actually teaching or just don't give poo poo. If you graduate at all from your perspective the highest you'll achieve is working 60-hour weeks as a McDonald's shift manager for barely enough to cover basic necessities of life but too much to get any kind of federal assistance. You also live in a society that drives home the "More stuff=better" lifestyle idea. If you cant see (And many times honestly don't have) any way out of your situation, just stealing the stuff that will make your life "better" can seem like the only option. A decent amount is just greed or stupidity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
Personally, I think it's a bad idea to concentrate poor people together into slums. The alternatives (A random subsidized house here and there in every neighborhood.) will piss a lot of people off but I think it would be better for everyone in the long term.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
One word: unemployment. That, or precarious, low-wage jobs with no opportunities for advancement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
TURN IT OFF! posted:Theft/robbery/burglary/etc is caused by... heavy metal. Lead exposure is youths is correlated to crime in adulthood. http://cen.acs.org/articles/92/i5/Crimes-Lead.html  Edit: This shows two time ranges. They're 23 years apart to show a relationship between childhood exposure and adult criminal behavior.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:There are a lot of different kinds of crime. Obviously Bernie Madoff was not motivated by a desire to feed his children. Yeah, I think this is all that really needs to be said. Does anyone really thing Madoff or Martha Stewart were acting out of desperation? More to the point, a good amount (I don't know if it's the majority, does someone have stats?) of fraud and theft is committed against people from a similar or lower economic stratum than the offender. Poor people are, from everything I know, vastly more likely to be the victims of property crimes than the rich, so even if it's done out of desperation, don't pretend it's even the least bit just.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
The most common form of theft is taxation, which is generally committed against the rich on the behalf of the poor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
^ Actually wage theft and property are more common.  PT6A posted:Yeah, I think this is all that really needs to be said. Does anyone really thing Madoff or Martha Stewart were acting out of desperation? More to the point, a good amount (I don't know if it's the majority, does someone have stats?) of fraud and theft is committed against people from a similar or lower economic stratum than the offender. Poor people are, from everything I know, vastly more likely to be the victims of property crimes than the rich, so even if it's done out of desperation, don't pretend it's even the least bit just. Desperate people go after easy targets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
BreakAtmo posted:Basically - what do you believe is the primary cause of theft? Or robbery, burglary - any crime that involves taking the possessions/money of others. Is it primarily a crime committed by the desperate, who are poor and struggling and so have resorted to thievery to get by, or are most thieves in a relatively comfortable financial position and simply want more without caring who suffers? Or are there other reasons you can think of? Obviously there will always be examples of both and then some, but I'm talking about the more common cause. I would say "All of the above," but economics isn't the only issue. Cultural issues also play a large role. The people who study this stuff are called criminologists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminology
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
GROVER CURES HOUSE posted:Desperate people go after easy targets. I agree. But let's not pretend they're all Robin Hood, even if they're legitimately desperate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
Sure, but people seem generally more terrified of some desperate addict breaking your car window to steal a stereo than a gang of highly paid criminals evaporating your retirement to some secret PO box in Aruba.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
There was no crime increase during the recent recession. Crime is caused by being a criminal, which is caused by being raised by lovely parents.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Crime is caused by being a criminal, which is caused by being raised by lovely parents. I take it then that being rich makes you a great parent because I don't see many rich kids committing "theft, robbery, burglary". Financial crimes yes but no one has actually argued that Madoff or Martha Stewart committed their crimes because they were poor or that all crimes are a result of poverty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:I take it then that being rich makes you a great parent because I don't see many rich kids committing "theft, robbery, burglary". Financial crimes yes but no one has actually argued that Madoff or Martha Stewart committed their crimes because they were poor or that all crimes are a result of poverty. Exactly - my question was which kind people thought was more common. Clearly both kinds happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Obviously there are rich people who commit crimes. Some of them are prosecuted. Some are not because it's harder to prosecute a person with resources. Some are qualitatively different from the kinds of crimes being discussed. Martha Stewart was convicted of insider trading, not smashing the window of a jewelry store. I would go so far as to claim that 100% of people indicted for insider trading are fairly wealthy. With that said, the question was the causes of committing certain kinds of crimes, not the differences in what happens to a criminal suspect who is poor and one who is rich. It's unavoidable that we will have to admit that to some extent, poverty and crime are both caused by certain common factors, though this is is hardly a complete phenomenon. The same people who are raised to be violent and impulsive by insufficient parenting may end up as either criminals or unable to hold down a job as a result. I know this is going to get pilloried as blaming ALL poor people for being poor or calling ALL poor people criminals. I'm certainly not saying that. But it explains SOME portion of social reality, and it has more to back it up than the idea that there is no criminal personality and people just decide to become shoplifters because of economic conditions, which flies in the face of all statistics on crime and the experiences of anyone who actually has met another human being.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
I used to work for a company that paid me to catch people stealing, both the employees and customers (Asset Protection) and it was quite a mixed bag really. People have a lot of potential reasons to steal, be it the thrill of it all, because it just seemed easy to do so and they figured they could get away with it, because they didn't (or did!) have the money and wanted something right then, because they're crazy, are cleptomaniacs, have a drug addiction and need to hawk stuff to continue it, and so on. Even if poverty was eliminated Star Trek style, people would still be stealing stuff. Especially kids because it's not like they can just buy stuff on a whim without their parent's money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
How does age work in property crime statistics? I assume young people rob more but am not sure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
I think there are two reasons: 1) The opportunity costs of stealing could actually make sense if you have no appreciable skill or the resources to gain appreciable skills. You'll never have whatever it is you're stealing so might as well take the risk as your losses are minimal. Not to mention what growing up in poverty does to a persons impulse control. I once heard an argument regarding why it could be logical to play the lottery if you're very poor which runs along similar lines, if one will never reach beyond subsistence with ones current skill it becomes for lack of a better term, almost a hosed up form of venture investment. 2) Theft is a lot like drunk driving, you never get caught the first time you do it. Its nice having nice things (especially combine with point above) and it becomes a habit which grows over time--along with altering your perception of value in items. This is going to sound funny but there was a period of 6-8 months in my early 20s where I would steal small items (expensive cheeses primarily) for no observable reason. I had the money to afford them, but stealing them changed their perceived value and made them taste better. I stopped because I felt like it was a terrible habit and counter to my general moral code, not because I was worried about getting caught. I'm resource rich and financially sound and still I did it. I didn't get off at all on the thrill of stealing, I just wanted good cheese and didn't want to have to pay so drat much for it. If I was poor it would only have grown to other items. I'd also add it was stated above that whoever said its high risk breaking into someone's house is deluding themselves. It would take all of 2 days for you to figure out a schedule of a house and roll up to clean them out with very low chance of getting caught.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:There was no crime increase during the recent recession. Oh my god I just understood your gimmick. You're Bill Kristol. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 12:15
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:I know this is going to get pilloried as blaming ALL poor people for being poor or calling ALL poor people criminals. I'm certainly not saying that. But it explains SOME portion of social reality, and it has more to back it up than the idea that there is no criminal personality and people just decide to become shoplifters because of economic conditions, which flies in the face of all statistics on crime and the experiences of anyone who actually has met another human being. OK. Some people are lazy. There, I'll even give you that without disputing because I'm generous like that. Now what? Unless you think that "some" means most (in which case you really are blaming poor people for being poor) why is it that instead of addressing the biggest cause of the problem you feel the need to constantly inject "hey guys don't forget 'some' poors are just lazy". What is the point? Looking at the world around you does it look like poor people are getting a deluge of welfare on them and not enough people calling them lazy?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
There is a group of people who are unable to function because they were abused or neglected as children, who are more likely than the average to be criminals and more likely than the average to have difficulties maintaining stable employment. Thus, there is some correlation between poverty and criminality. That's all I'm saying. That anyone could disagree (beyond the usual "the only explanation for anything bad is CRAPITALI$M" ideologues) is surprising.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 13:18
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:There is a group of people who are unable to function because they were abused or neglected as children, who are more likely than the average to be criminals and more likely than the average to have difficulties maintaining stable employment. Thus, there is some correlation between poverty and criminality. That's all I'm saying. That anyone could disagree (beyond the usual "the only explanation for anything bad is CRAPITALI$M" ideologues) is surprising. meat sweats posted:There was no crime increase during the recent recession.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 05:55 |
|
|
I remember reading in a criminal justice book that everyone commits petty crimes at some point in their lives but most of us either don't get caught or face little to no punishment when we are caught. I remember once I was at school and this woman (who probably didn't have much money) was talking about how her kid was caught stealing CDs at Walmart. I couldn't help but laugh and think, "Gee if this kid had a computer he could have just pirated all of that/more and never faced any charges".
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 13:29
|
|