RoR: Forum

Forum : Article Discussions : Crime and Poverty, Part II

Tuesday
September 2, 2008

Crime and Poverty, Part II by William Scott Dwyer

Welfare state liberals have been claiming for decades that poverty causes crime. It is an assertion that very few people ever question. But is it true? The current article views the relationship between poverty and crime in a wholly different light, and arrives at some startling and unconventional conclusions. The second part of the article looks at the real causes of crime. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (13 messages)

Post 0

Tuesday, September 2 - 8:46am

Link

Edit

Excellent article. Well researched examples.

Sam

Post 1

Tuesday, September 2 - 9:04am

Link

Edit

What happened to Part I?

- Bill

Post 2

Tuesday, September 2 - 9:53am

Link

Edit

"Martin Luther King envisioned a day when blacks would be judged by the content of their character instead of by the color of their skin. But his vision is no longer popular among blacks, many of whom would prefer to be judged by the color of their skin instead of by the content of their character. The only difference between them and the white racist is that instead of using skin color as a stigma, they use it as an alibi. They want to be absolved of any responsibility for their character."

Beautifully written, Bill. It is character that must be judged and it is a subculture's beliefs, transmitted from generation to generation, that are the source material individuals use when forming their character. And some of those subcultures are toxic.

- As a side note, when they talk about single parent homes, they make the same mistake as when they talk about race or socio-economic level - it is not the single-parenting that is the cause of irresponsibility. Single parent homes may be the best statistical indicator of crime but it is itself often caused by the same problem - a toxic set of beliefs about how humans should live. (And few house-holds are without a male partner to the single mother. The real difference is in the beliefs being taught and the live-in boy friend's degree of emotional involvement with the kids).

- A collection of toxic beliefs that make up a sub-culture combines with dysfunctional parenting styles (which result in a high portion of neurotic children), which combines with the dysfunctional government structures (juvenile justice system, childrens' protective agencies, welfare departments, foster care systems) and the broken educational system to reinforce and implement the key toxic beliefs that revolve around a lack of personal responsibility, a failure to value education and productive achievement and an irrational sense of entitlement used to 'justify' use of force and theft.

What is needed is a re-working of cultural anthropology from an Objectivist viewpoint to give us the exact opposite of cultural relativism - to analyze the connection between a subcultures beliefs, its environment, and the outcomes for those who accept its beliefs. But this can only happen when science recognizes moral values, consciousness, and volition as valid phenomena.

I look forward to reading part 1 :-)

Post 3

Tuesday, September 2 - 10:41am

Link

Edit

Yes, it's very good. Could be better with some sourcing.

Post 4

Tuesday, September 2 - 11:14am

Link

Edit

Oooops! Part 1 is now up too.

Post 5

Tuesday, September 2 - 12:30pm

Link

Edit

Just don't forget - a racist is a tribalist who see the tribe in terms of one's skin color... it makes no difference if is one's own tribe or the other's, if it is in terms of skin color, then that one is a racist - period.

Post 6

Tuesday, September 2 - 4:48pm

Link

Edit

Sam and Steve, thanks for the complements. Steve, good comments as well.

Peter wrote, "Yes, it's very good. Could be better with some sourcing."

Thanks, Peter. I have the sources, and regret not including them. I pasted the articles, which I had written previously with all the footnotes, into the posting window, but the footnotes didn't show up, probably because they were were part of the endnotes from the original document. There were so many, I was too lazy to go back and manually enter them. But I really should have. Now, there's no way to include them without reposting the entire article.

However, I am willing to do it for anyone who wants them. Just email me at bildwyer@comcast.net, and I'll gladly forward them as part of the articles.

- Bill

Post 7

Tuesday, September 2 - 5:30pm

Link

Edit

Unfortunately, the willingness to excuse black criminals as victims can only encourage black crime, thereby making victims out of other, innocent blacks. A tragically ironic example is that of legendary black activist Rosa Parks who, at the age of 81, was beaten and robbed in her own home by a black neighbor --

Bill, I remember when this happened. The culprit was a teenage boy, and quickly caught by police.
When he was questioned by authorities, the young thug admitted he had no idea who Rosa Parks was!

I didn't even know that was possible!

Very well written, Bill. I sanctioned both parts.

Post 8

Tuesday, September 2 - 8:36pm

Link

Edit

It must always be remembered that statistics do not tell the whole story. They provide the bones upon which to hang a theory, but this does not ensure that those theories will correctly represent the truth.

That crime statistics seem to show that there is more crime in periods of greater prosperity, I am not surprised. Although I can see and suggest a number of reasons other than what Bill has presented, that I feel are at least as valid. I think a fuller, clearer view can be obtained by looking at additional factors - and certainly I doubt I can name them all here.

Two thoughts come to mind. During periods of elevated prosperity, when both the richer and the poorer both fare better, most people perceive or recognize there is greater wealth, but - as in any free society - there are still always those who have not seen he benefit. As result, those who feel they have been left out, can be easily convinced they are not getting their "share", and become more inclined to commit a crime to obtain what they have not earned. In simple terms, in better times there is more a likelihood of jealousy, and jealousy will spur criminal actions.

Second, some of the crime stats cited are subject themselves to inaccuracies. While there is a higher percentage of blacks convicted of crimes, there is still reason to believe that blacks may be more aggressively prosecuted than non-blacks. Note I am only talking about convictions here, and that Bill's stat may be unreliable for basing an absolute conclusion. As near as I am aware, there are more black crimes, as well as a higher percentage of black on black crimes.

As to the reason for a higher crime rate among blacks, I'd agree that the welfare programs of the sixties did do much damage, destroying the structure of black families, and (most importantly) promoting failure as an option. Substituting welfare checks for paychecks led families into poverty, and poverty led welfare children away from getting an education. Successive and ever younger generations of uneducated parents, perpetuated ignorance and despair. The ones that managed to rise to success from that dismal background quite deserve our respect.

Racially motivated injustices of the past were despicable. The only purpose they can and ought to serve is as a bad example, a demonstration of a value system that will always result in injustice and failure. It is or should be clear to ALL individuals that there is no justice in freeing the guilty, and no justice in perpetuating racially motivated judgements. Such attitudes provide no resolution for older injustices, they only perpetuate an attitude of injustice and racial bigotry that can consume everyone.

jt

Post 9

Tuesday, September 2 - 9:23pm

Link

Edit

Jay,

In the first few paragraphs of your reply, you offered envy as a cause of crime - as opposed to a lack of real values and character. That really falls short of an explanation of violent crime for me.

You questioned Bill's statistics but when you suggest that the existence of institutional racism in the prosecution of blacks could provide an explanation for enormous discrepancy in numbers you offer nothing but an assertion, and I find that falls far short of convincing.

I've mentioned in my post that the welfare programs had an effect, and Bill spoke to the underlying beliefs encouraged by the welfare programs having an effect, so we both looked at the values (and the character of the individuals) and the beliefs in their subculture - but NOT the welfare system itself. After all, why, given the existence of the welfare system didn't other black families in the same communities have the same statistics: Caribbean and Ethiopian for example (see the article)? Again, I'm not sure why you didn't address those points.

I would prefer to see your argument that the primary cause of violence is poverty, or envy, or the welfare system, or white racism, or x, and NOT the values, beliefs and lack of character encouraged by a some subcultures. It would be more straight forward and easier to discuss then what seems to be a very weak poke at the article's statistics.

Bill's argument is that bad philosophy is the cause of poverty and crime and that good philosophy is the cure - and that appears to be what you are arguing against.

Post 10

Wednesday, September 3 - 8:45am

Link

Edit

One of the biggest problems I see in the current attempts to explain crime is that the blame is nearly always placed on factors other than the criminals or the criminals' values. It's the welfare system or poverty or racism or discrimination, but never the criminals or their vicious, inhumane, anti-life values and attitudes. No, that's "blaming the victim." The criminals themselves are depicted as poor, benighted, helpless victims who had no choice but to rob, rape, assault and murder. Don't blame them; blame society or their environment, which is to say other people. Other people are responsible for the crimes that THEY commit, which is to say that the people who DIDN'T commit the crimes are to blame, not the people who DID commit them.

This response to crime is a complete inversion of morality. The good people are blamed and denounced; the bad people are pitied and excused. It is this very attitude that is itself a principal cause of crime. The offenders are being given a moral free ride and are not being held morally responsible for their actions. They are told that it's not their fault, that it's the fault of all those rich people out there who possess what is rightfully theirs and who are responsible for what they don't have. This is disgusting nonsense, yet it is the standard sociological view that modern intellectuals and their liberal allies never tire of intoning and repeating. It's about time someone stepped up and blamed the real culprits.

- Bill

Post 11

Saturday, September 6 - 5:30am

Link

Edit

Steve,

urQIn the first few paragraphs of your reply, you offered envy as a cause of crime - as opposed to a lack of real values and character. That really falls short of an explanation of violent crime for me.

I was only referring to crime in general, and envy is only a small part of the make-up of most (not-all) crimes.

I was not arguing against Bill's post, so much as suggesting that some of the statistics be taken with a grain of salt. I know you are aware that stats can be used various ways to support unwarranted conclusions. Even when I agree with a conclusion, I feel more comfortable when the stats used are clearly indicative of that conclusion, rather than loosely suggestive.

jt

Post 12

Saturday, September 6 - 9:37am

Link

Edit

These articles nicely decouple the cause, poverty, from the effect, crime through statistical analysis, and thus at the experimental/observational level. Theoretically, they may also be decoupled by realizing that crime and poverty are not cause and effect, by actually two effects, the cause of which is the lack of life-valuing, rational moral character, which causes poverty by crippling the capacity for productive action, and crime, by leaving predatory behavior as the only remaining means for survival.