Old Article: Poverty, not the 'Teen Brain', Responsible for most Youth Crime

[Mihalik]

Gonna stop you there, simply because it's what you say versus the mountain of actual sociological evidence as to poverty being the fundamental root of crime. You're welcome to provide evidence of the contrary.

I've said this once before in some other thread.

https://proverb.me/en/quotes/authors...y-mother-crime

Poverty is the mother of crime.

Marcus Aurelius.

A 2nd century Roman emperor managed to figure this out. Yet, we're still here debating this, despite the overwhelming empirical evidence.

[Krakan]

I assume outside of edge cases such as for the thrill of it most crime is a result of poverty...

I find it weird it would need an article.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Well that was easy. It's even given as the main google answer. Top causes of crime:

Poverty.
Peer Pressure / Culture
Drugs.
Politics.
Religion / Culture
Family Conditions
Unemployment (lack of purpose, separate from poverty).


Like it does not require a huge intellect to understand that something as complex as crime can not be reduced to being purely a matter of money. The human psychology is much more complex than just basing it's decisions and values on 'to have' or 'have not' materialism.

Poverty might be a big chunk, but definitely not all or a majority of it.

- - - Updated - - -

Did we suddenly forget that hate crimes exist too by the way?

I mean most of the things you listed come back to poverty.

With less poverty driven crime there are less peers to pressure others into similar crime.

With less poverty there are less people selling drugs for income and less people taking drugs to get away from the problems poverty brings.

With less poverty many family conditions improve with less stress on family members working longer and harder to make ends meet.

Less poverty leads to more deposable income letting people pro-sue hobby’s and other this that can give them purpose as well as more people able to open there own businesses reef centres and other problems to give opportunity’s to others lacking purpose.

Hell even things like hate crimes would likely drop as people would likely have better education and less people to point there hate towards as things like the racial spread on crime rates are poverty driven and would become much closer to equal.

[Elegiac]

Well that was easy. It's even given as the main google answer.

A google list separates the ultimate from the proximate causes of crime therefore poverty isn't the root of crime, somehow. /s That's not evidence, lol.

Like it does not require a huge intellect to understand that something as complex as crime can not be reduced to being purely a matter of money.

That's nice dear but it still kind of ignores the fact that it's pretty fucking hard to address the myriad of other issues when people aren't socioeconomically secure.

Poverty might be a big chunk, but definitely not all or a majority of it.

And once again, even if it were not a majority of the cause (it is, you still haven't provided evidence beyond misinterpreting search engine results) addressing other causes is difficult if not impossible if people do not have access to the support systems they need to address them - in a capitalist system, the primary barrier to accessing those systems is financial.

Did we suddenly forget that hate crimes exist too by the way?

Nope, but we also haven't forgotten that they represent a relatively small proportion of the number of crimes committed. I also haven't forgotten you were one of the chief people banging the "Rust Belt voters aren't racist they just have economic anxiety" drum during the Trump era so this is a very strange argument coming from you, lol.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I feel like this is only true up to a point. A point much more limited than people imagine.

A very simple scenario that I imagine is asking inmates in a prison what they are in for, and it is very easy to imagine a thousand different things that have or had absolutely nothing to do with poverty:
Spousal abuse, (gang)rape, addiction, rage, hate crimes (ideology / religion), etc.

For my own anecdotal example, when I was a young kid around the age of 10-12 my family was already quite wealthy, but I myself was a problem child: violent, vandalism and theft - up to this day it is still not clear to me why I engaged in such activities, despite having everything a kid wanted or needed.
Another example was me just shoplifting because it just was what all my friends were doing for a brief period of time, for me that is a purely peer pressure thing. It wasn't about the money, we had money, it was about discovery and exploring boundaries, about bravery and a form of machoism.

I’m just gonna go out on a limb and say asking inmate what there in for with no further inquiry when they likely don’t have the slightest clue about criminology or the greater systematic reasons that can effect them and there life’s and lead them to commit crime isn’t a very useful way to determine any thing.

[Coolthulhu]

Sociopaths, psychopaths exist. Even in that case, most diagnosed sociopaths and psychopaths never actually get on the wrong side of the law, as they can be socialized in the right conditions to be functioning members of society, or often if diagnosed early their condition can be managed via therapy,

Uhm, no. Those are layman's terms misused to explain an enormously complex situation, and people on the vast ASPD spectrum do in fact have more of a chance to end up on the wrong side of the law. Treatment is also extremely challenging and the outcome negative more often than not. Your view of the issue is made of commonplaces, psychopathy and sociopathy are merely different cultural labels applied to the same spectrum loosely referred to as ASPD, which takes a variety of forms and whose diagnostics criteria vary and have been a matter of evolving debate for decades, especially when it comes to "psychopaths". There's also very little correlation between the incidence of ASPD/DPD and socioeconomic status - as opposed genetic and physiological factors.

[XDurionX]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Lindgren



one of the worst serial rapists in sweden...

family father, owns a house... you going to tell me that he was raping because he's poor?

then another man...

https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a...-mot-tolv-barn



i guess he's poor and needs economic support...

And you really thinks one case proves the general causality wrong?

[Mihalik]

Uhm, no. Those are layman's terms misused to explain an enormously complex situation, and people on the vast ASPD spectrum do in fact have more of a chance to end up on the wrong side of the law. Treatment is also extremely challenging and the outcome negative more often than not. Your view of the issue is made of commonplaces, psychopathy and sociopathy are merely different cultural labels applied to the same spectrum loosely referred to as ASPD, which takes a variety of forms and whose diagnostics criteria vary and have been a matter of evolving debate for decades, especially when it comes to "psychopaths". There's also very little correlation between the incidence of ASPD/DPD and socioeconomic status - as opposed genetic and physiological factors.

Yes, yes, yes. Nitpick nitpick nitpick.

Who the fuck cares?

Something under 2% of the population falls into the ASPD category. Most of them never commit a crime. Even if the prevalence of crime is higher among them.

That doesn't change the fact that crime is still mostly a socioeconomic issue, and even when it isn't, socioeconomic conditions have a major influence on outcomes.

Now go split some other hairs.

This conversation if fucking exhausting.

[Coolthulhu]

Yes, yes, yes. Nitpick nitpick nitpick.

Who the fuck cares?

Something under 2% of the population falls into the ASPD category. Most of them never commit a crime. Even if the prevalence of crime is higher among them.

That doesn't change the fact that crime is still mostly a socioeconomic issue, and even when it isn't, socioeconomic conditions have a major influence on outcomes.

Now go split some other hairs.

This conversation if fucking exhausting.

A little touchy, are we? I've never claimed that socioeconomic status doesn't play a big role in the overall population. I very specifically referred to those you so simplistically referred to as sociopaths and psychopaths.

[Mihalik]

A little touchy, are we? I've never claimed that socioeconomic status doesn't play a big role in the overall population. I very specifically referred to those you so simplistically referred to as sociopaths and psychopaths.

Your comment was basically pointless.

I was using them as an example for outliers, and how you can't completely truly ever eliminate crime, but you can reduce it massively in the right socioeconomic conditions, even when dealing with the outliers.

The issue with these stupid fucking nitpicks is that they blow insignificant things out of proportion and derail the real conversation we should be having. Namely, crime is a socioeconomic problem.

[Coolthulhu]

Your comment was basically pointless.

I was using them as an example for outliers, and how you can't completely truly ever eliminate crime, but you can reduce it massively in the right socioeconomic conditions, even when dealing with the outliers.

The issue with these stupid fucking nitpicks is that they blow insignificant things out of proportion and derail the real conversation we should be having. Namely, crime is a socioeconomic problem.

It was far from pointless, given how you made statements that are simply not true, such as "psychopaths and sociopaths being able to live functionally in society if diagnosed early". That was pure nonsense, and the topic is socio-economic in nature. Plus you were the one who brought stuff you now shrug off as "insignificant" into the discussion. So if you have such a low tolerance for being corrected, maybe don't bring stuff you know nothing about in the discussion in the first place, and/or don't blame those who correct you of "derailing" a topic just because you've been called out.

[Elegiac]

A little touchy, are we? I've never claimed that socioeconomic status doesn't play a big role in the overall population. I very specifically referred to those you so simplistically referred to as sociopaths and psychopaths.

Again: No one cares because this is tangential to the subject. His meaning was pretty clear so nitpicking is pointless.

Twitter is that way.

[Zaktar]

Your comment was basically pointless.

I was using them as an example for outliers, and how you can't completely truly ever eliminate crime, but you can reduce it massively in the right socioeconomic conditions, even when dealing with the outliers.

The issue with these stupid fucking nitpicks is that they blow insignificant things out of proportion and derail the real conversation we should be having. Namely, crime is a socioeconomic problem.

You used what are basically slurs for people with ASPD and are now upset that you got called on it. I appreciate that it's tangential to the conversation, but also you should stop using outdated terms which are used to discriminate against people who are mentally ill.

[Coolthulhu]

Again: No one cares because this is tangential to the subject. His meaning was pretty clear so nitpicking is pointless.

Twitter is that way.

Again:

It was far from pointless, given how you made statements that are simply not true, such as "psychopaths and sociopaths being able to live functionally in society if diagnosed early". That was pure nonsense, and the topic is socio-economic in nature. Plus you were the one who brought stuff you now shrug off as "insignificant" into the discussion. So if you have such a low tolerance for being corrected, maybe don't bring stuff you know nothing about in the discussion in the first place, and/or don't blame those who correct you of "derailing" a topic just because you've been called out.

Meaning: tangential doesn't mean irrelevant, especially when comorbidity with poverty and mental illnesses are implied, and (again) he brought it up in the first place.
I'm amused (in a sad way) by people who yell "nitpicking!" when they're called out, and even more amused by people who defend them for personal or ideological purposes, or just for the sake of flaming. What's even more amusing is the Twitter... how should I even call it? Childish retort? Especially since I don't even have a Twitter account, so yeah, feel free to bring your tentatively inflammatory statements elsewhere - and if you're intent in doing so, perhaps refine them a little bit.

[Forogil]

The underlying article doesn't make as strong a case as this pop-sci summary, but both commit the fallacy of treating poverty as an external factor.

Previous studies have shown that genetics and upbringing both play a part in criminal behavior; and also in economic success.
However, it's not just a matter of adding up the effects - it's as this study show (but fail to realize) more a case of some persons being more prone to criminal behaviour - especially under stressful circumstances.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

The underlying article doesn't make as strong a case as this pop-sci summary, but both commit the fallacy of treating poverty as an external factor.

Previous studies have shown that genetics and upbringing both play a part in criminal behavior; and also in economic success.
However, it's not just a matter of adding up the effects - it's as this study show (but fail to realize) more a case of some persons being more prone to criminal behaviour - especially under stressful circumstances.

So got any links to these study's that say "there criminal because there black"?

[Forogil]

So got any links to these study's that say "there criminal because there black"?

The studies are, for several reasons, mostly within races - both to avoid the racial minefield, and for practical reasons (see below) - and also because there might differences in sentencing, detection, and socio-economic factors, etc between different races in countries such as the US making it hard to single out that part.

The practical reason is that many of the studies are twin studies - comparing identical and non-identical twins and finding that identical twins are more likely to both be criminal (or both be non-criminal) than non-identical twins. (There's a separate issue whether twins are more prone to crime in general.)

Obviously they skip the most well-established genetic aspect of crime and only focus on non-identical twins of the same sex.

The twins are, obviously, of the same race; https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/...014-barnes.pdf https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...A5EBD5D2EBA117

[Lorgar Aurelian]

The studies are, for several reasons, mostly within races - both to avoid the racial minefield, and for practical reasons (see below) - and also because there might differences in sentencing, detection, and socio-economic factors, etc between different races in countries such as the US making it hard to single out that part.

The practical reason is that many of the studies are twin studies - comparing identical and non-identical twins and finding that identical twins are more likely to both be criminal (or both be non-criminal) than non-identical twins. (There's a separate issue whether twins are more prone to crime in general.)

Obviously they skip the most well-established genetic aspect of crime and only focus on non-identical twins of the same sex.

The twins are, obviously, of the same race; https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/...014-barnes.pdf https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...A5EBD5D2EBA117

Most identical twins don’t share the exact same genetics which your links don’t seem to comment on which kinda makes it seem like a big case of correlation not equaling causation.

But ignoring that the none identical twins having different results would make it likely that these factors only point toward identical twins and not society at large.

[Forogil]

Most identical twins don’t share the exact same genetics which your links don’t seem to comment on which kinda makes it seem like a big case of correlation not equaling causation.

They are a lot more related than non-identical twins, it doesn't matter if there is one or two mutations somewhere.

But ignoring that the none identical twins having different results would make it likely that these factors only point toward identical twins and not society at large.

There are also other studies, and the point was that any study that treats socio-economic factors only as a causative factor and not as a correlation with other underlying factors is flawed, and even with that flaw the study underlying this thread still doesn't show what the pop-sci summary in the article cited by OP claims.