While there is little doubt that economic deprivation urges some individuals towards a life of crime, poverty itself can hardly be the sole cause of crime. While poverty may have causative effects on manifesting criminal behavior in the needy, there are plenty of criminals who come from well-off backgrounds. Many liberals would have you believe that teenagers often prefer to sell crack for $100 an hour as opposed to taking a menial job that pays minimum wage. Using this same kind of logic, one would think most middle-class workers would find it more lucrative to rob banks than to work 9-5. The conservative right, on the other hand, often believes people commit crime because they are criminals regardless of a poverty-ridden or wealthy existence. Someone in between lies the true effects of poverty on crime.
Many sociologists believe that criminal behavior is manifested in those who suffer from the effects of poverty, including a lack of education, adequate housing, and decent employment opportunities. The War on Poverty that began during the 1960s was designed to reduce crime because it was believed that poverty produces crime. If poverty is eliminated, the theory goes, so will be crime. However, new theorists who have examined America’s War on Poverty believe it is a failed experiment. They argue that poverty does not cause crime, but crime increases poverty. These theorists contend that high levels of illegitimacy and fatherlessness, low levels of education, and a poverty of values are more direct causes of crime than poverty:
It is estimated the war on poverty has cost more than $5.4 trillion in 30 years.
Resources poured into the fight have grown more than fivefold in less than 30 years.
The federal government aims 77 major means-tested programs at the poor, and hundreds more exist at the state and local level.
Yet over the same 30-year period, the national crime rate has doubled.
Crime began to rise in ...