Home
About Everything you Need
Mission Statement
Policies Making it Tick
Equal Opportunities
i-Links Weblinks
General
F.A.Q's Questions
Sitemap When You're Lost
Contact Get in Touch
Mental Health Inform and Debate
Substance Misuse Educational Material
Support Ideas
Viewpoint Blog
Social Theory Explanations
Personal Journeys Your Experiences
Wordspace Forum
Explanations of crime and deviance offer many motives. One widely accepted motivation is poverty. Poverty is usually measured using an absolute or relative approach. Absolute poverty is defined as the extreme deprivation of basic human needs, such as food, water and clothing. In 1899 Seebohm Rowntree conducted research into the extent of absolute poverty within Britain. From this he created a method of measuring poverty by deciding on and totalling the minimum costs of food, clothing and housing and the average rent paid by the working class, then using this total to define a poverty line, claiming that anyone that fell below this line was impoverished. Through this, Rowntree found that thirty three percent of the population were in ‘absolute’ poverty at this time.
By the 1950s, Rowntree claimed that poverty was no longer a problem due to the success of the welfare state. Subsequently, Pete Townsend conducted his own studies and highlighted the true extent of poverty, basing this on a ‘relative’ approach. Townsend claimed that a society defines what people need, thus relative poverty in definition is not based so much on necessities, but on exclusion from average social systems through a lack of income.
Whilst research continues on the extent of poverty, an official government poverty line does not exist. Although, approaches using ‘relative’ thresholds such as, drawing a line of poverty with households earning below sixty percent of the average income in a year, or provision of income support; defining a minimum level of income believed to be a reasonable amount to live on could be considered government definitions of a threshold.
Through welfare provision in 1945, the government endeavoured to tackle social exclusion and other implications of poverty, such as poor education, disease, unemployment, inadequate housing and lack of money. Along with providing a benefits system to the unemployed or impoverished, the provision of low rent social housing, free education and free health services tackled some of these implications. However, Marxist and New Right approaches dispute benefit effectiveness. The New Right claim benefits encourage single parent families and Marxists claim benefits are an informal way of controlling society, believing that poverty will only be eliminated when capitalism is replaced.
Poverty is usually determined by three factors; access to work, extra costs and a failure in policy. Divisions such as social class, gender, ethnicity, disability and old age along with the 1945 welfare failure in identifying issues, such as racism, has left these groups enormously vulnerable to poverty. Further to these factors, a poverty trap can occur as benefits like welfare to work (New Deal), income support and housing benefit, encourage people to remain unemployed, as on obtaining employment they may be no better off. To tackle this, further legislation has been introduced including tax credits and a minimum wage.
The following slides contain further information supporting this article:
Ethnic minority groups such as Afro-Caribbean or Asians are more likely to experience poverty than any other group. A contemporary illustration shows that more than half of Black Africans live in low-income households. In the 1950s, migration of Afro-Caribbean’s was encouraged to alleviate labour shortages. Wages were poorly paid and discrimination in housing forced migrants into already deprived less popular inner city areas. Then, in the 1970s, a recession made these jobs redundant; subsequently a large percentage of Black people became unemployed, compounding deprivation and increasing crime levels.
The media covered this and over exaggerated the issues, provoking a public outburst (a moral panic). This was seen with the coverage of ‘muggings’ in the late 1970s. Although no legal definition existed, the media stereotyped Afro-Caribbean youths as the perpetrators, invoking public fear, which resulted in an outcry for police intervention.
In the 1980s, tensions resulting from perceived police harassment led to rioting, mainly in areas where large percentages of people from ethnic minorities resided, such as Brixton. Following the riots, police statistics provided for the Scarman Enquiry (1981) suggested that Black youths committed above average street crime. It was suggested that high arrest rates were due to prejudice and a heavy police presence in these areas. However, victimisation studies such as the British Crime Survey, suggest that Asian groups such as Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Indian people, are more likely to be victims of crime.
Official Statistics provided by police detail offences and action taken. These suggest that robberies, burglaries and car thefts are more likely to be committed by Afro-Caribbean’s than Asians or Whites. These statistics demonstrate that Afro-Caribbean groups are also more likely to be forwarded to the Crown Prosecution Service (whose role is to decide whether a case would secure a conviction in court and also if it is in the public interest to prosecute) and receive harsher sentences than Asian or White groups.
This was examined in the Macpherson Report (1999) that followed the racially motivated murder of Stephen Lawrence. The report identified unfairness in the criminal justice system and found that poor relations between ethnic minorities and police resulted from an over-use of their stop and search powers.
Statistics are often inaccurate, as not all crime is reported, for reasons such as fear or embarrassment. Also, white-collar crimes such as embezzlement are often unreported due to public confidence issues and are usually committed by the middle or upper class. Therefore, self-report studies exist to provide statistics on non-reported crimes using confidential questionnaires or interviews. Information provided by this and other sources is then used to compare types of crimes, victims, conviction rates and divisions such as ethnicity.
These statistics demonstrate that certain groups are more likely to be involved in crime. For example, working class and young males are considered more likely to offend. Additionally, certain regions statistically have higher crime rates. The 1920s Chicago School concentric zone theory claimed all cities have zones starting with a business district, then an inner city area (where crime, unemployment and deprivation is high), followed by working, middle then upper class zones respectively.
Sociologists argue that crime results from marginalisation not factors, such as ethnicity. The Left Realists believe crime is based on three elements. As a consequence of poor education and unemployment (marginalisation) along with a lack of lawful means (relative deprivation) crime often results. Finally a subculture develops, which is a cultural group with its own set of accepted values, separate to societies. Albert Cohn (1955) examines this in his theory of social frustration, explaining delinquency. He believed that when a group, such as Black youths fail to achieve, they reject society’s norms and define their own subculture.
This rejection of norms is examined by Robert Merton’s theory of the ‘anomie’. Developed from Emile Durkheim’s belief that when high levels of crime occur, something has gone wrong, Merton (a functionalist) claimed that ‘anomie’ or normlessness occurs when people fail to achieve. He claimed societies have success goals and depending on social divisions, would depend on the method used to achieve. Merton argued people would either, conform, innovate, retreat, rebel or lose ambition (ritualism). For example, a working class person innovates, rejecting societies norms and seeks achievement through other means, such as crime.
However, Marxists believe that as a result of capitalism and an individual desire to accumulate wealth and material possessions, crime is inevitable. William Chambliss (1971) argued that individuals would use any means that their social class would allow.
The Right Realists claim crime results from a society lacking in morals, such as single parents. However, Symbolic Interactionists look at crime and also deviance as a result of being labelled. Howard Becker (1963) claimed an act is only deviant if people define it as such. Becker found, if a group is labelled deviant then they would be perceived as such, whether they actually are or not. Evidence of this can be seen with media labelling, in which groups, such as teenagers are demonised. Consequently, a self-fulfilling prophecy can occur in which expected behaviour, such as crime, is exhibited.
In conclusion, poverty is significant in contributing to crime; it is therefore useful to look at regimes or welfare systems that other countries have implemented. These systems are divided into three categories; Liberal, such as in America where rules on benefits are strict and are provided at minimal levels; Conservative, such as in Germany where the church greatly influences policy and an emphasis in maintaining values such as the family is important; And Social Democratic, such as in Scandinavia with high standards of state assistance. Taxation is high but benefits are paid at levels proportionate to the person’s ‘normal’ earnings. In this regime there is a lower crime rate than any others. Therefore, to tackle some of the issues discussed, a Social Democratic system may offer a resolution to the socio-economic aspects of crime and deviance.
