This House believes social deprivation causes crime.

Since the advent of modern social science, sociologists and criminologists have been preoccupied with finding the answer to what is the root cause of criminal (or deviant) behaviour and, therefore, what are the best ways to prevent it. Many theories have been put forward on the subject. Some of them have since been completely discredited — like Lombroso’s theory that you can determine a person’s propensity toward criminal behaviour by measuring certain physiological traits such as head size. But much of the focus and research into the causes of crime has centred around the impact of social deprivation or poverty on those who commit it. Poverty is a huge problem worldwide, the US census in 2010 recorded that 15.1% of people in the US live in poverty, and for those aged under 18’s the rate was even higher at 22%.[1] While the numbers in absolute poverty have been dropping there were still 1.4billion people on less than $1.25 per day as of 2005.[2] Oxfam records that 1 in 5 in the UK live below the poverty line, and this is mostly children, pensioners or disabled people.[3] The interest in poverty in relation to crime stems mainly from the factual reality that there is a significant, proven correlation between the two. However, in this debate the proposition needs to show there is more than just a correlation, but that a major cause of crime lies in social deprivation. Also, ‘crime’ needs to be defined carefully, as it is a term which covers a very wide variety of activities and behaviours which are very difficult to address together (for example, burglary, incitement to racial hatred, insider trading, paedophilic abuse, driving over the speed limit and murder).

[1] National Poverty Center, ‘Poverty in the United States Frequently Asked Questions’, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy The University of Michigan, 2012.

[2] Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Rethinking Poverty Report on the World Social Situation 2010, United Nations, ST/ESA/324, 2009, p.13.

[3] Oxfam, ‘Poverty in the UK’

Discuss this

Points For	Points Against
People who are destitute are more likely to turn to crime in order to satisfy basic living necessities.	Some of the biggest crimes that affect society the most are committed by huge multinational companies or wealthy individuals.
We acquire our knowledge of what is right and wrong through education.	In an age of consumerism, the primary cause of crime is a greed or desperation to ‘fit in’, or ‘have it all’.
People feel crime is the only way to get their frustrations heard.	The statistics about poverty and crime show correlation, not causation.

Remember to choose a winning argument!

People who are destitute are more likely to turn to crime in order to satisfy basic living necessities.

Point

In some impoverished families there is simply no possibility of work and in many countries where there is no welfare benefits this means that the family cannot afford food, shelter or healthcare. Even in some places where there are benefits, this is often not enough to cover the family’s way (for example healthcare is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US)[1] and thus some members of the family may be driven to desperate measures in order to be able to afford provisions. If no other options are open to them this desperation can result in measures such as theft, drug dealing or blackmail (See appendix). Furthermore often extreme poverty is linked to substance abuse, often as a respite from these terrible conditions. This in turn breeds more crime as people have to fund their addictions. However in this case it seems clear that it is the desperation of poverty that causes these people to commit crimes. Many people believe racism, and therefore crimes such as incitement to racial hatred or ‘hate crimes’, are more likely to occur in areas of social deprivation. The theory suggests that a mix of poverty, unemployment and segregation causes’ high tension can cause a ‘scapegoat’ culture on either, and indeed both, sides.

[1] Tamkins, Theresa, ‘Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies’, CNN Health, 5 June 2009, http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/health/bankruptcy.medical.bills_1_med...

Counterpoint

Some people counter this argument by claiming it is not that people who are in extreme poverty that are more likely to take drugs, but those who take drugs are more likely to be in extreme poverty, as drugs are expensive and many drug users are unstable and therefore unable to keep a job. This could be taken to suggest that poverty is not a cause of crime in itself, but might merely be associated with other factors which cause it. Therefore to tackle the crime of drug use, we do not need to tackle social deprivation, but the drug use itself.

Furthermore the argument that poverty increases the likelihood of racism or racist crime can be refuted if we acknowledge one of the most famous cases of racist crime, apartheid in South Africa. This event is now considered a crime against humanity, "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime".[1] However, it was also created and maintained by politicians and many of the upper class in a stable and well-off society, thus this hate crime cannot be attributed to social deprivation. Even racist actions that occurred in socially deprived areas at this time or later must be looked at in a wider context and it seems clear that social deprivation alone cannot be blamed.

[1] United Nations General Assembly, ‘International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid’, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 30 November 1973, http://web.archive.org/web/20061001200717/http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu...

Appendix

Is it acceptable to commit a crime in order to feed your family? : This is often explained through an old ethical question; is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving family? In many cases this act of theft is a morally wrong crime, which damages the owner of the breads right to own this piece of bread. However when we consider what is more important, saving a family from starvation or ownership of bread, we may begin to think that it is not unethical for this person to steal bread.

We acquire our knowledge of what is right and wrong through education.

Point

We are not born with an innate sense of right and wrong, a prior knowledge of what is legal and illegal. We acquire it through education, both at home and at school. The internalization of these social norms is a crucial part of becoming a law-abiding citizen and acquiring the respect toward the law our society demands. Children from poor backgrounds are more likely to be raised in environments where such distinctions are blurred, where they are exposed to negative role models within their family or community. They may also experience very erratic or low-quality schooling, This may be because the schools have inadequate levels of funding or supplies, the classes are more likely to have disruptive children or that better teachers are more sought after and thus go to other schools. As a result, they might become desensitized to crime, or violence as a result of being exposed to it on a regular basis. They might then start to view crime not as against social order but as a part of it and that will make them more likely to break the law themselves.

Counterpoint

While it seems defendable that we learn moral values at a young age, the proposition argument does not look with the factual evidence about the individuals who are most likely to get involved in criminal activity. Criminologists came up with the ‘age-crime curve’.[1] This reveals that the profile of the average criminal is a male between the ages of 15 and 25. After the age of 25, the majority of criminals desist. Presuming that this pressure of social deprivation affects everyone in society in the same way, more steps need to be taken in order to explain why predominantly males between the ages of 15 and 25 seem to respond to it in this manner. This further goes to suggest that perhaps social deprivation is not a primary cause, but that factors such as age and gender play as much of a part in the likelihood of criminal activity.

[1] Bottoms, Professor Sir Antony E., ‘Crime prevention for youth at risk: some theoretical concerns’, Resource Material Series, No.68, 129th International Senior Seminar Visiting Experts’ Papers, pp.21-34.

Appendix

Broken Windows Theory: The broken windows theory was first introduced by social scientists James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling, in an article titled "Broken Windows" and which appeared in the March 1982 edition of The Atlantic Monthly. A major factor in determining individual behavior is social norms, internalized rules about the appropriate way to act in a certain situation. Humans constantly monitor other people and their environment in order to determine what the correct norms for the given situation are. They also monitor others to make sure that the others act in an acceptable way. In other words, people do as others do and the group makes sure that the rules are followed. But when there are no people around, as is often the case in an anonymous urban environment, the monitoring of or by others does not work. In such an environment, criminals are much more likely to get away with robberies, thefts and vandalism. When there are no or few people around, individuals are forced to look for other clues—called signals—as to what the social norms allow them to do and how great the risk of getting caught is. An ordered and clean environment sends the signal that this is a place which is monitored, people here conform to the common norms of non-criminal behavior. A disordered environment which is littered, vandalized and not maintained sends the opposite signal: this is a place where people do as they please and where they get away with that, without being detected. As people tend to act the way they think others act, they are more likely to act "disorderly" in the disordered environment. A successful strategy for preventing vandalism, say the book's authors, is to fix the problems when they are small. Repair the broken windows within a short time, say, a day or a week, and the tendency is that vandals are much less likely to break more windows or do further damage. Clean up the sidewalk every day, and the tendency is for litter not to accumulate (or for the rate of littering to be much less). Problems do not escalate and thus respectable residents do not flee a neighborhood. The theory thus makes two major claims: that further petty crime and low-level anti-social behavior will be deterred, and that major crime will, as a result, be prevented. (Read Full article in PDF: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/_atlantic_monthly-broken_windows.pdf, Last Accessed 12/08/2011, or criticisms in: Lott, John R. and David B. Mustard, 'Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns', The Journal of Legal Studies, 26 (1997).

People feel crime is the only way to get their frustrations heard.

Point

Some people, particularly those from deprived social or economic backgrounds may feel that their government is not helping them or listing to/care about their problems. When this happens to a large group of people, they may feel crime is the only way they can have their frustrations heard. One example of this would be the Brixton riots in 1981 (See Appendix).[1] In some states where government criticism is itself against the law, breaking the law is in fact the only way to have your feeling heard. However, this is of particular importance to those from socially deprived back grounds for three reasons, firstly they are often the ones most ignored by their government and secondly they are the ones who would benefit most if society were to change. Finally, for some people from poor social or economic backgrounds, crime is the only outlet they have to vent their anger or frustration as all other options have been blocked for them.

[1] BBC News, ‘Brixton riots: Archive’, 10 April 2011.

Counterpoint

The opposition to this argument is that nothing can or should be gained through crime. There are many ways of making voices heard without resulting to criminal activity. None-violent measures such as bus boycotts, freedom rides, sit-ins and mass demonstrations were used during the African American Civil Rights Movement. This movement succeeded in bringing about legislative change, and making separate seats, drinking fountains, and schools for African Americans illegal. Another example is the 2003 Women of Libya mass Action for Peace,[1] or the more current (2011) uprisings in Syria, Egypt and Tunisia. To use an example of the Tunisian uprisings, the people spoke out against huge unemployment and government corruption. Thus though many of the protesters were from poor socioeconomic backgrounds, criminal acts were not taken and yet they still achieved the freedom that followed from the 24-year-ruling president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali fleeing the country a month later.[2] Therefore that people feel crime is the only outlet they have cannot be a reason to support the idea that social deprivation is the primary cause of criminal activity.

[1] Ekiyor, Thelma Aremiebi, and Gbowee, Leymah Roberta, ‘Woman’s Peace Activism in West Africa The WIPNET Experience, People Building Peace.

[2] Alexander, Christopher, ‘Tunisia’s protest wave: where it comes from and what it means’, The Middle East Channel ForeignPolicy.com, 3 January 2011.

Appendix

History of the Brixton Riots: Brixton in South London was an area with serious social and economic problems. The whole United Kingdom was affected by a recession in 1981, but the local African-Caribbean community was suffering particularly high unemployment, poor housing, and a higher than average crime rate. On the 10^th April the police spotted and chased a black youth who had been stabbed. Allegedly it was believed by the local community that the stabbed youth died as a result of police brutality, or that the police had put no effort into getting him an ambulance fuelling tensions throughout the day as crowds slowly gathered. This growing crowed further resulted in a growing police presence, and soon the two sides clashed. Although a bloody and violent set of riots that involved many injuries and even death, the action taken by people on this day lead to real change in police, with a recognition that it was ‘institutionally racist’ (BBC, April 2004), the creation of a Police Complaints Authority and Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984). This lead to a restriction on police powers and helped defend the most vulnerable from police discrimination and brutality. For more information see the BBC news UK Brixton Riot: Archive page at [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13012055]

Counterargument

History of the Apartheid: South Africa was colonized by the English and Dutch in the seventeenth century. English domination of the Dutch descendents (known as Boers or Afrikaners) resulted in the Dutch establishing the new colonies of Orange Free State and Transvaal. The discovery of diamonds in these lands around 1900 resulted in an English invasion which sparked the Boer War. Following independence from England, an uneasy power-sharing between the two groups held sway until the 1940's, when the Afrikaner National Party was able to gain a strong majority. Strategists in the National Party invented apartheid as a means to cement their control over the economic and social system. With the enactment of apartheid laws in 1948, racial discrimination was institutionalized. Race laws touched every aspect of social life, including a prohibition of marriage between non-whites and whites, and the sanctioning of ``white-only'' jobs. In 1950, the Population Registration Act required that all South Africans be racially classified into one of three categories: white, black (African), or coloured (of mixed decent). The coloured category included major subgroups of Indians and Asians. Classification into these categories was based on appearance, social acceptance, and descent. For example, a white person was defined as ``in appearance obviously a white person or generally accepted as a white person.'' A person could not be considered white if one of his or her parents were non-white. The determination that a person was ``obviously white'' would take into account ``his habits, education, and speech and deportment and demeanour.'' A black person would be of or accepted as a member of an African tribe or race, and a coloured person is one that is not black or white. The Department of Home Affairs (a government bureau) was responsible for the classification of the citizenry. Non-compliance with the race laws were dealt with harshly. All blacks were required to carry ``pass books'' containing fingerprints, photo and information on access to non-black areas. For more information on the Apartheid, it’s history, resistance and finally its downfall visit http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~cale/cs201/apartheid.hist.html [last accessed 11/08/2011]

Tunisian Uprisings: The Tunisian revolution^[9]^[10] is an intensive campaign of civil resistance, including a series of street demonstrations taking place in Tunisia. The events began in December 2010 and street demonstrations and other unrest have continued to the present day (08/2011). The demonstrations were precipitated by high unemployment, food inflation, corruption a lack of freedom of speech and other political freedoms and poor living conditions. The protests constituted the most dramatic wave of social and political unrest in Tunisia in three decades and have resulted in scores of deaths and injuries, most of which were the result of action by police and security forces against demonstrators. The protests were sparked by the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi on 17 December 2010 and led to the ousting of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali 28 days later on 14 January 2011, when he officially resigned after fleeing to Saudi Arabia, ending 23 years in power. The protests inspired similar actions throughout the Arab world; the Egyptian revolution began after the events in Tunisia and also led to the ousting of Egypt's longtime president Hosni Mubarak; furthermore, uprisings in Bahrain, Syria and Yemen and major protests have also taken place in Algeria, Jordan, Morocco, Israel's borders, Iraq, Mauritaniaand also Libya - where a full-scale revolution has broken out - as well as elsewhere in the wider North Africa and Middle East. Protests flared up again on 19 February and 20 February, with 40,000 protesters demanding a new interim government completely free of any people associated with the old regime. Protesters also demanded a parliamentary system of government instead of the current presidential one. As a date was announced for an election in mid-July 2011, more than 100,000 protesters continued to demand the removal of Ghannouchi as interim prime minister. After an even larger rally on 27 February 2011, Ghannouchi resigned, saying: "After having taken more than one week of thinking, I became convinced, and my family shared my conviction, and decided to resign. It is not fleeing my responsibilities; I have been shouldering my responsibilities since 14 January [when Mr. Ben Ali fled]," and "I am not ready to be the person who takes decisions that would end up causing casualties. This resignation will serve Tunisia, and the revolution and the future of Tunisia." He was replaced by Beji Caid el Sebsi. The following day two more ministers resigned (industry minister Afif Chelbi and international co-operation minister Mohamed Nouri Jouini) amid continuing protests for the entire interim government to resign, with the UGTT calling for an elected constituent assembly to write a new constitution. The Renaissance Party was legalized on 1 March 2011. On 3 March 2011, the president announced that elections to a Constituent Assembly would be held on 24 July 2011; this fulfilled a central demand of protesters. On 7 March 2011, the interim government announced that the secret police would be dissolved, which were one of the hallmarks of Ben Ali's rule.This is a very brief overview with information from Wikileaks. For a fuller account of the uprising visit: http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com. Or for a more specific analysis: http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/02/tunisia_s_protest_wave_where_it_comes_from_and_what_it_means_for_ben_ali [Last Accessed 11/08/2011]

Some of the biggest crimes that affect society the most are committed by huge multinational companies or wealthy individuals.

Point

Tax evasion is costing the developing world around $160 billion a year[1] to those who most need it (incidentally this is more than the entire global aid budget). These are huge, global crimes that have effects of billions of people. It does not take a stretch of the imagination to illustrate how some of the tax evaders can cause poverty, illness and even death to others; as the money they do not pay in tax can therefore not be used for road safety, pensions, healthcare, world aid or many other institutions (that the tax evaders are still able to make use of). This illustrates how the crime of tax evasion can have serious consequences. In the US the most common tax evader is a male, under 50 and of the highest earning bracket. Globally the most common tax evaders are large multi-national companies. This illustrates that these large scale crimes are not being committed by those from deprived backgrounds, but rather from the greed of the wealthy to have more wealth.

[1] Christian Aid, ‘Christian Aid urges G20 to crach down on tax dodging pinstripe ‘pirates’, 3 September 2009.

Counterpoint

While the figures demonstrated in this argument clearly illustrate that these large scale crimes are more often committed by those who are not suffering from social deprivation, tax evasion constitutes a small percentage of the world wide crime rate, and thus should not be taken to prove that social deprivation is not the primary source of crime.

Appendix

Effects of Tax Dodging: Multinational companies are really good at finding new ways to make money – that's what they are there for. But some go to unethical, even illegal, lengths. By reporting just a fraction of the profits they make in poorer countries, and hiding the true amounts offshore, these unscrupulous businesses reduce their tax bills – and cost the developing world billions. Christian Aid estimates that this evasion costs the developing world at least US$160bn in lost revenue annually. The culprits are companies using false accounting to reduce their tax liability. If that money was allocated according to current spending patterns, the lives of 350,000 children under the age of five, 250,000 of them infants, could be saved every year. The sum is almost one and a half times the amount given as aid to the developing world every year. If the amount that is also lost through legal tax avoidance dodges were added, it would be many times greater. Tax dodging is made possible through the secrecy offered by more than 70 tax havens, and the role of facilitators, including the big accountancy firms, who promote their use. ‘We predict that illegal, trade-related tax evasion alone will be responsible for the deaths of some 5.6m children under the age of five between 2000 and 2015,’ says director of Christian Aid Dr Daleep Mukarji. ‘That’s almost 1,000 a day.’ These children, along with millions of other people, are victims of a financial system in which poor countries are routinely denied the tax that is rightly theirs by transnational corporations and other businesses using methods both licit and illicit to lower their tax liability. This revenue would enable governments of developing countries to work their own way out of poverty rather than just relying on aid and debt relief. ‘The abuse is so widespread and damaging that it is tantamount to a new slavery,’ said Dr Mukarji. ‘The rich are getting richer on the backs of some of the most impoverished and vulnerable communities in the world.’ Read the full report at: http://www.christianaid.org.uk/images/deathandtaxes.pdf [Last Accessed 11/08/2011]

In an age of consumerism, the primary cause of crime is a greed or desperation to ‘fit in’, or ‘have it all’.

Point

We live in a culture where success and personal achievement is measured on a material scale - what you own, how much you make, what car you drive, what clothes you wear. This means that it is the way society is structured to make us crave material objects which is the primary cause of crime. As society values wealth and material goods over everything else people might turn to crime in order to acquire these much-vaunted markers of personal achievement, to which they feel entitled. Seeing no other avenue for personal and financial success, they might easily choose to get involved in illegal but somewhat profitable activities — like drug dealing, theft or burglary, running prostitution rings, racketeering, etc. However if society was to value traits such as honesty, hard work or loyalty over personal holdings then perhaps the levels of crime would not be so high.

Counterpoint

This opposition argument two is not as clear cut as it seems. While it is true that society encourages us to value material goods, and that this encourages crime, it is also clear that this effects those from socially deprived areas much more than those from stable or wealthy backgrounds. In many socially deprived societies, the lack of education and resources invested in the younger generation mean that the poverty cycle continues to define how well these young people will do as adults. The family they are born into is still the biggest predictor of a person’s life trajectory. If social mobility is not a truly viable option for young people from impoverished backgrounds to succeed, they may see crime as the only way to reach the material goods that so commonly are associated with personal achievement. One current example of this is the riots that occurred in major cities throughout the UK in 2011. Perhaps one of the most notable acts of the riots was the looting, particularly as the majority of looting was from high street stores not for necessities or for high end goods, but rather for average things the looters wanted. Zoe Williams explains the riots as such ‘this is what happens when people don't have anything, when they have their noses constantly rubbed in stuff they can't afford, and they have no reason ever to believe that they will be able to afford it’.[1] Therefore in this case criminality is caused by consumerism as the opposition argument two suggests, but this is compounded by the cyclical nature of social deprivation that looks unlikely to be solved.

[1] Williams, Zoe, ‘The UK riots: the psychology of looting’, guardian.co.uk, 9 August 2011.

Appendix

Counterargument:

Camila Batmanghelidjh on why criminals will attack their own community: This quote relates directly to the UK riots (specifically London) mentioned in counterargument two, however the ideas she discusses may have direct relevance elsewhere. ‘An absence of morality can easily be found in the rioters and looters. How, we ask, could they attack their own community with such disregard? But the young people would reply "easily", because they feel they don't actually belong to the community. Community, they would say, has nothing to offer them. Instead, for years they have experienced themselves cut adrift from civil society's legitimate structures. Society relies on collaborative behavior; individuals are held accountable because belonging brings personal benefit. Fear or shame of being alienated keeps most of us pro-social. Working at street level in London, over a number of years, many of us have been concerned about large groups of young adults creating their own parallel antisocial communities with different rules. The individual is responsible for their own survival because the established community is perceived to provide nothing. Acquisition of goods through violence is justified in neighborhoods where the notion of dog eat dog pervades and the top dog survives the best. The drug economy facilitates a parallel subculture with the drug dealer producing more fiscally efficient solutions than the social care agencies who are too under-resourced to compete. The insidious flourishing of anti-establishment attitudes is paradoxically helped by the establishment. It grows when a child is dragged by their mother to social services screaming for help and security guards remove both; or in the shiny academies which, quietly, rid themselves of the most disturbed kids. Walk into the mental hospitals and there is nothing for the patients to do except peel the wallpaper. Go to the youth centre and you will find the staff have locked themselves up in the office because disturbed young men are dominating the space with their violent dogs. Walk on the estate stairwells with your baby in a buggy maneuvering past the condoms, the needles, into the lift where the best outcome is that you will survive the urine stench and the worst is that you will be raped. The border police arrive at the neighbor’s door to grab an "over-stayer" and his kids are screaming. British children with no legal papers have mothers surviving through prostitution and still there's not enough food on the table. It's not one occasional attack on dignity, it's a repeated humiliation, being continuously dispossessed in a society rich with possession. Young, intelligent citizens of the ghetto seek an explanation for why they are at the receiving end of bleak Britain, condemned to a darkness where their humanity is not even valued enough to be helped. Savagery is a possibility within us all. Some of us have been lucky enough not to have to call upon it for survival; others, exhausted from failure, can justify resorting to it. Our leaders still speak about how protecting the community is vital. The trouble is, the deal has gone sour. The community has selected who is worthy of help and who is not. In this false moral economy where the poor are described as dysfunctional, the community fails. One dimension of this failure is being acted out in the riots; the lawlessness is, suddenly, there for all to see. Less visible is the perverse insidious violence delivered through legitimate societal structures.’ [Last Accessed 11/08/2011. Full article available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/camila-batmanghelidjh-caring-costs-ndash-but-so-do-riots-2333991.html]

The statistics about poverty and crime show correlation, not causation.

Point

While it is true that crime is correlated with people coming from poorer socio-economic backgrounds this does not in itself prove that poverty itself is the cause of crime. A lack of education or bad parenting might be equally, if not more convincing explanations for both phenomena. The causation may even be reversed, with those who indulge in violent behaviour and who seek illegal short-cuts to success rather than being prepared to hold down a steady job being more likely to end up poor. For example, recent studies have found that street-level drug dealers make less than the minimum wage.[1] So poverty is not a cause of crime in itself, but might merely be associated with other factors which cause it. In order to tackle crime, therefore, we don’t need to eradicate poverty, but improve people’s internalization of social norms through law enforcement and education.

[1] Levitt, Steven D. and Sudhir Alladi Venkatesh, ‘An Economic Analysis of a Drug-Selling Gang's Finances’, The National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 6592, (1998).

Counterpoint

This is ridiculous. Why is the drug dealer a drug dealer? Because he is poor and has few other prospects. He is not poor just because he is a criminal as something had to get him in to crime in the first place. In many cases that initial motivating factor was poverty or a lack of prospects. If it was true that the causation was reversed then there would be much more social mobility because those who started poor and deprived but wanted to work and were fundamentally honest would be socially mobile.

Voting Results

Bibliography

Alexander, Christopher, ‘Tunisia’s protest wave: where it comes from and what it means’, The Middle East Channel ForeignPolicy.com, 3 January 2011, http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/02/tunisia_s_protest_wave_where_it_comes_from_and_what_it_means_for_ben_ali

BBC News, ‘Brixton riots: Archive’, 10 April 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13012055

BBC News, ‘Q&A: The Scarman Report’, 27 April 2004, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/3631579.stm

Bottoms, Professor Sir Antony E., ‘Crime prevention for youth at risk: some theoretical concerns’, Resource Material Series, No.68, 129^th International Senior Seminar Visiting Experts’ Papers, pp.21-34. http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No68/No68_06VE_Bottoms2.pdf

Christian Aid, ‘Christian Aid urges G20 to crach down on tax dodging pinstripe ‘pirates’, 3 September 2009, http://www.christianaid.org.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/September2009/christian-aid-urges-g20-to-crack-down-on-tax-dodging-pinstripe-pirates.aspx

Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Rethinking Poverty Report on the World Social Situation 2010, United Nations, ST/ESA/324, 2009, http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/docs/2010/fullreport.pdf

Duffy, Bobby. ‘Satisfaction and Expectations: Attitudes to public services in deprived areas’, CASEpaper45, (2000), http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/6441/1/Satisfaction_and_Expectations_Attitudes_to_public_services_in_deprived_areas.pdf

Ekiyor, Thelma Aremiebi, and Gbowee, Leymah Roberta, ‘Woman’s Peace Activism in West Africa The WIPNET Experience, People Building Peace, http://www.peoplebuildingpeace.org/thestories/article.php?typ=theme&id=80&pid=18

Levitt, Steven D. and Sudhir Alladi Venkatesh, ‘An Economic Analysis of a Drug-Selling Gang's Finances’, The National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 6592, (1998). http://www.nber.org/papers/w6592.pdf

Oxfam, ‘Poverty in the UK’, http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/our-work/poverty-in-the-uk

Palmer, Guy, The Poverty Site, http://www.poverty.org.uk/

Tamkins, Theresa, ‘Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies’, CNN Health, 5 June 2009, http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/health/bankruptcy.medical.bills_1_medical-bills-bankruptcies-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH

United Nations Development Project, ‘Human Development Report 2011 Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All’, 2011, http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/

United Nations General Assembly, ‘International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid’, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 30 November 1973, http://web.archive.org/web/20061001200717/http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/11.htm

Williams, Zoe, ‘The UK riots: the psychology of looting’, guardian.co.uk, 9 August 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-psychology-of-looting

This House believes social deprivation causes crime.

This House believes social deprivation causes crime.

People who are destitute are more likely to turn to crime in order to satisfy basic living necessities.

Point

Counterpoint

Appendix

We acquire our knowledge of what is right and wrong through education.

Point

Counterpoint

Appendix

People feel crime is the only way to get their frustrations heard.

Point

Counterpoint

Appendix

Some of the biggest crimes that affect society the most are committed by huge multinational companies or wealthy individuals.

Point

Counterpoint

Appendix

In an age of consumerism, the primary cause of crime is a greed or desperation to ‘fit in’, or ‘have it all’.

Point

Counterpoint

Appendix

The statistics about poverty and crime show correlation, not causation.

Point

Counterpoint

Voting Results

Bibliography

Further Reading

Curate this debate

Editor

Author

Discussions

Related Tags:

Debates

This House believes social deprivation causes crime.

This House believes social deprivation causes crime.

People who are destitute are more likely to turn to crime in order to satisfy basic living necessities.

Point

Counterpoint

Appendix

We acquire our knowledge of what is right and wrong through education.

Point

Counterpoint

Appendix

People feel crime is the only way to get their frustrations heard.

Point

Counterpoint

Appendix

Some of the biggest crimes that affect society the most are committed by huge multinational companies or wealthy individuals.

Point

Counterpoint

Appendix

In an age of consumerism, the primary cause of crime is a greed or desperation to ‘fit in’, or ‘have it all’.

Point

Counterpoint

Appendix

The statistics about poverty and crime show correlation, not causation.

Point

Counterpoint

Voting Results

Bibliography

Further Reading

Curate this debate

Editor

Author

Related Debates

Discussions

Related Tags: