According to statistics taken from the Households Below Average Income publication, 21% of the UK population are in relative low income after housing costs. And as we know from information in the media, a high proportion of the prison population come from these poor areas. This information leads to the question; does poverty have an impact on crime? This essay aims to explain the relationship between class and crime by exploring the prevalence of criminal activity in poorer communities, as well as looking into any particular characteristics that may make a person more likely to commit crime, such as their education and socio-economic status. According to the Poverty Site (2011), “Young households and the unemployed are both more than twice as likely to be the victims of violence as the average person.” This essay aims to discover why this is the case, sociological theories such as Merton’s Strain Theory and Cohen’s Status Frustration Theory will be looked into in some depth in order to make a connection between poverty and crime. As explained by Macdonald and Marsh (2005), “crimes and drug cultures of young men in particular feature high on the list of social pathologies said to be emblematic of life in poor neighbourhoods.” The main focus of this discussion will be whether or not poverty does in fact have a direct link to crime and if so, what the reasons behind this are.
In order to determine the relationship between poverty and crime, it is essential to understand the characteristics possessed by those in such deprivation and the possible ‘risk factors’ that may make them more likely to break the law. In children and teenagers, there are particular risk factors that may mean they are more likely to be involved in crime in later life, for example, being disengaged from education and lack of family support.
A life of crime can often be a result of early childhood experiences such as their type of upbringing, for example, being put into care can have long term, damaging effects on a person. The Adolescent and Children’s Trust revealed that in 2010, 49% of teenagers in care failed to get five or more GCSEs and “only 7% make it to university compared to 40% of their peers.” (Norton. S, 2011). Although there is no firm evidence of a direct link between low levels of achievement in education and a person’s involvement in crime, there are some explanations as to why a young person may find themselves involved in criminal activity.
Children achieving less in education may disengage from school completely, either through truanting or bad behaviour leading to exclusion. This time at home rather than at school may be spent partaking in criminal activity such as drug abuse or vandalism; these young people may find themselves involved with gangs and possibly tackling their boredom on the streets. According to the Prison Reform Trust, children in care currently make up 52% of those in secure training centres and 38% in young offender’s institutions.
The lack of education can make it increasingly difficult for a person to find a well-paying job, or any job at all – employers are more likely to hire the candidate with a first class honours degree than the one with no GCSE’s. The Labour Force Survey (November, 2016) published that unemployment rates in the UK were at 4.8%, and interestingly, the Crime Survey ending in March 2016 revealed that areas with the highest unemployment rates are more likely to be the victims of property crime than anywhere else. There are a few possible explanations as to why unemployed people may commit more crime; the first being boredom. An individual who is out of work may commit petty crime as a form of stimulation; with unemployment currently being most prevalent in young adults, the issue of boredom may have the most effect on them. Boredom could lead to becoming involved in a gang and spending their time on the streets, opening them up to all sorts of opportunities to break the law such as vandalism.
Secondly, an unemployed person may commit crime involving drugs; again, perhaps due to boredom or possibly because of their mental state. A person struggling to find a job may begin to feel depressed and stressed as they lose their sense of purpose in society. As humans we are socialised to want to get a good education, to find a high paying job and become wealthy; if a person is unable to reach these goals it is likely to have a negative effect on their mental health. This can lead to the misuse of drugs in order to help them cope with their feelings.
Finally, it is possible that an individual may commit crime in order to achieve something that they may not have the resources to due to their unemployment. As previously mentioned, we as humans have been taught to aim for particular societal goals such as wealth, but if some individuals do not have access to the means to reach these goals it may not always be possible to achieve them legitimately. Robert Merton explains this in his Strain Theory, “The classic strain theories of Merton (1968) and Cloward and Ohlin (1960) outlined that crime occurs as a result of the failure to reach monetary goals through legitimate avenues.” (Baron, 2006). Merton explored the idea that there seemed to be a detachment between the widely agreed idealistic societal goals and the legitimate means in which they could reach these goals. Essentially, people are encouraged through socialisation to aim for particular things in life such as becoming wealthy; to a lot of people these goals were not necessarily available solely through hard work and determination. With such a high value put on success and limited means to gaining it, many would turn to illegitimate opportunities in order to reach those desired goals. Society tells us that in order to become happy, you should be wealthy and to become wealthy, you need a good, high paying profession. Those who are unemployed still wish to achieve these goals, however they do not have the means to reach them. For this reason, they turn to crime; for example, theft; individuals may steal in order to make money for themselves and achieve a higher status of wealth. Merton’s strain theory essentially explains that the lower a person is in the social class system, the more difficult it is for them to escape and move up; social class is getting in the way of them achieving their goals.
While some people accept and are comfortable with their social position, some are not; Albert Cohen, an American criminologist, used his Sub-cultural and Status Frustration Theory to explain crime. Much like Merton’s theory, Cohen stated that the poor and those who lacked in academic achievements and high paying professions pursued status through illegitimate means. He argued that individuals became frustrated with their position in the social stratification and therefore turned to crime in order to create a higher status for themselves. In his book ‘Delinquent Boys’, Cohen focusses on young males, gang culture and environmental influences of their behaviour. He argues that subcultures emerge in schools as a form of rebellion, some children struggle to attain the goals set by education that say you should be smart and behave well. The child that is perhaps seen as less smart may act out and create their own status as the ‘naughty’ one, they reject the goals and flip the rules so to create a high status for themselves – rather than the clever child becoming the leader, the attention is focussed on the rebellious one. As explained by The Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice, “In school, for example, they gain status and respect by meeting the expectations of peers not teachers, engaging in delinquent activities such as smoking, truanting, and acting up in class.” These behaviours can then lead onto an involvement in criminal activity in later life, such as vandalism. This is essentially a victimless crime and will not favour them financially, however this type of crime would be committed in order to gain status from their peers.
Both of these theories make for a better understanding as to why those in poverty may be likely to commit crime, however, both Merton and Cohen shed little light on the upper class and elite. Their main focus is on lower and working classes, this makes it difficult to understand from the view of the rich and their relationship with crime.
Although the main focus is how poverty impacts crime, it is important to also explore the opposite end of the spectrum, the upper class and their involvement in criminal activity. Crime is something that cannot be pin pointed to just one social class. “Different social classes indulge in different forms of deviant behaviour (working class crime, for example, tends to be highly visible, whilst the middle and upper classes tend to commit crimes that are both less visible and more easily covered-up).” (Livesey, 2006) As Livesey explains, crime is prevalent in all social classes only the type varies. While those in poverty are more likely to commit violent or property crimes, the upper classes may be more likely to be involved in white collar crime. Elite offenders create great problems for the economy of the country as well as affect the health and well-being of many people, these are often business and financial crimes. As explained by Treadwell (2013) “In his work White Collar Crime Sutherland suggested that many of the crimes involving business people were not dealt with by criminal law but by regulatory and civil law, despite the fact that they cause harm to society.” Corporate crime is much less likely to be detected and therefore reported, unlike crime committed by those in poor areas, which is much more likely to be investigated as the perpetrators are possibly seen as more accessible. White collar crime is seldom recognised and tends to be less understood by those who are not involved. This may be an explanation as to why more focus is put on those in poverty and their relation to crime. As the title of Jeffrey H. Reiman’s book suitably states, “the rich get richer, the poor get prison.” (2012)
It is important to understand that the media is likely to play a big role in our perception of lower classes and their involvement in crime, with many television programmes such as Channel 5’s ‘Benefits Britain: Life on the Dole’ which tends to show those on benefits in a bad light. Programmes such as this put a spotlight on particular stereotypical characters in which we associate with living in poverty. For some people in poverty, it may seem reasonable to choose a life of crime as a means to an end; equally it may seem reasonable for the rich to commit crime in order to gain financial goals or create power over others. To say that those in poverty have more of an impact on crime than the rich, would be incorrect. All social classes make an impact on crime in different ways, all depending on their particular situations. It is important to understand the class divisions when answering this question as the type of crimes committed are relative to the social class. Taking all evidence and research into consideration, it would be reasonable to suggest that poverty, of course, does have a significant impact on crime. However, it is important to clarify that those in poverty have no more of an impact on crime than any other social class.