There appears to be a linear relationship between poverty and crime. However, this is not entirely straightforward as a school of thought believe it is the instinct of man that drives criminal activities rather than being poor. I do not think arguments will be enough to support the latter view as I will ventilate below.
Children with some forms of misconduct often grow to adults with criminal tendencies. Despite the popularity of this view among some intellectuals, there is no scientifically-proven evidence to date. Again, this body of opinion argues that major offences are not sudden events but would have been preceded by past delinquencies. For example, a serial killer recently apprehended in India said that he loved killing birds as a child and this probably made him see nothing important in human lives. I think this is just a one-off and should not be generalised.
On the contrary, many criminals often attribute their activities to economically deprived backgrounds. Besides, the country with the highest crime rate in the world is also the poorest, further adding weight to the link between criminal activities and being poor. Though the other side of the debate posited that nefarious activities are unlikely if one does not exhibit a natural tendency to do so, this does not sound valid because poverty has pushed many with humble beginnings into criminal activities. None of the notorious criminals that faced the firing squad in Swaziland in 2017 was from an affluent background.
To conclude, it does not seem legitimate enough to ascribe crime to the character of a person simply because of some traits from childhood or taking pleasure in wicked activities. I think the primary reason for crime is being poor because man must survive and if there is no legal provision for survival, human nature notwithstanding, man will likely resort to criminal ways out.
There appears to be a linear relationship between poverty and
crime
.
However
, this is not
entirely
straightforward as a school of
thought
believe it is the instinct of
man
that drives
criminal
activities
rather
than being poor. I do not
think
arguments will be
enough
to support the latter view as I will ventilate below.
Children with
some
forms of misconduct
often
grow to adults with
criminal
tendencies. Despite the popularity of this view among
some
intellectuals, there is no
scientifically
-proven evidence to date. Again, this body of opinion argues that major
offences
are not sudden
events
but
would have
been preceded
by past delinquencies.
For example
, a serial killer recently apprehended in India said that he
loved
killing birds as a child and this
probably
made him
see
nothing
important
in human
lives
. I
think
this is
just
a one-off and should not be
generalised
.
On the contrary
,
many
criminals
often
attribute their
activities
to
economically
deprived backgrounds.
Besides
, the country with the highest
crime
rate in the world is
also
the poorest,
further
adding weight to the link between
criminal
activities
and being poor. Though the other side of the debate posited that nefarious
activities
are unlikely if one does not exhibit a natural tendency to do
so
, this does not sound valid
because
poverty has pushed
many
with humble beginnings into
criminal
activities
. None of the notorious
criminals
that faced the firing squad in Swaziland in 2017 was from an affluent background.
To conclude
, it does not seem legitimate
enough
to ascribe
crime
to the character of a person
simply
because
of
some
traits from childhood or taking pleasure in wicked
activities
. I
think
the primary reason for
crime
is being poor
because
man
must
survive and if there is no legal provision for survival, human nature notwithstanding,
man
will likely resort to
criminal
ways out.