Police officer question or anyone with knowlege of what certain factors that cause crime that need to be......

Question

addressed? To clarify, I need several factors that cause crime in your opinion for a survey for a paper im writing. I will reward the best answer with 5 stars and 10 points! Thanks so much.

Can these factors be a deterence with the use of aggresive patrol, community policing, preventive patrol, and directed patrol?

Answer 1

Lack of education, family background ( either family history of crime, or abuse), lack of self respect, but really it's all about choice. You have a choice to commit the crime or not, and people just choose to commit the crime, Like for instance, you have the choice to get in the car with your friends to go rob a store, you choose to get in the car. The choice you just made, just cost you a whole lot of trouble, bad record ( permanently) bad reputation and most of all jail or prison time. It's all about choices you make with your conscience and yourself.

Answer 2

Several factors that cause crime to occur? or several factors that go into committing a crime.

Factors that cause a crime could be:
Debt, Poverty, Racial views, Mental disease, Opportunity, and mental status such as intoxication

To commit a crime one must show content to do so.

Answer 3

Well several;

Socioeconomic factors----Living conditions, lack of parental figure
Gang affiliation
Mental defect------- Kleptomania, other behavioral tendancies
Substance abuse

For the most part getting the proper help for these people could help and to make sure they don't fall back through the cracks. Everything I have read really shows no silver bullet so to speak in rehabilitation

Answer 4

I hope I understand your question correctly. In order for a crime to be commited, there is three qualifying factors:

1) Intent

2) Means

3) Opportunity

Answer 5

drugs ....they destroy entire communities...a lot of smart people out their but drug are keeping them down...a lot of kids are growing up with junkie for parents thus no parental supervison pretty much grow up as orphins...people are killing one another over drugs and at times end up killing innocent people in shoot outs.... drugs to me is the root of all evil....

Answer 6

Lack of education, poverty, lack of guidance, lack of self respect/respect

Answer 7

Poverty

Answer 8

The theories that attempt to explain or predict delinquency mention and examine many different societal factors or units within society that are applicable within the theories. Families, peers, schools, and socioeconomic status are all social factors that are examined in many of the causal theories.
Demographics and the relationships one has in society are also examined in some of the explanatory theories.
Families are important to consider when trying to explain juvenile delinquency. The family unit is crucial to a child's development and healthy upbringing. In addition, much of what a child learns is through their family or guardians. A criminal parent can teach their child adverse lessons about life when their child views or witnesses their parent's delinquent behavior.
Peers can also teach an adolescent or child criminal behavior just as the family member can. Family members and peers can also cause delinquent patterns of behavior by labeling their child as delinquent. This is somewhat of the "if the shoe fits, wear it" saying. If a child feels as though they are viewed as delinquent, then they will act as such and find a sense of self-esteem by doing so.
Even though the family and peers (as well as the school) can influence a juvenile to participate in crime, the decision still rests on their shoulders. Some theorists argue that participation in crime is a rational choice and that the rewards and consequences are carefully calculated out by the individual. The choice to commit a crime can by influenced by many factors, including the ones that I outlined here. However, if a juvenile has many ties or bonds to members in society, they are less likely to make the choice to commit a crime for fear of ridicule, embarrassment, or scorn from those they associate with.
The demographic characteristics of a person's living environment can also be a contributing factor to criminal patterns of behavior. Adverse living conditions and a crime-prone neighborhood can lead to criminal activity.
There are also various structural theories that can put juvenile delinquency in a context of better understanding.
The "Root Causes" of Crime
Robert James Bidinotto

Criminal Justice? The Legal System Versus Individual Responsibility, edited by Mr. Bidinotto and published by FEE.

Since 1960, per capita crime rates have more than tripled, while violent crime rates have nearly quintupled. By any measure, we live in a nation much less safe than that in which our parents grew up.

This simply cries out for an explanation. What in our modem society could possibly account for the sudden and explosive growth in force, fraud, and coercion?

Liberals typically posit socio-economic factors, such as poverty. Yet how can we attribute the rising tide of violence to rising poverty, when the periods of fastest crime growth have been during times of rapidly rising American wealth?

This popular "explanation" also fails on comparative grounds. Why is the richest nation on earth experiencing increases in predatory behavior that vastly exceed crime rates in much poorer nations? Why now, at a time of relative abundance and wealth, instead of during impoverished times past say, during our Great Depression? And why after decades of dumping trillions of dollars into programs to eradicate privation, hunger, illiteracy, insecurity, disease, homelessness-the alleged "root causes" of crime?

Liberal explanations for crime that blame psychological or biological factors also fall flat. Why, for example, would there have been an abrupt leap in mental illness or genetic defects starting in 1962, when crime rates began to take off?

However, I must also challenge a common conservative explanation for rising crime: blaming it on the welfare state.

Though a governmental "safety net" of sorts has existed since the New Deal, the modem American welfare state wasn't enacted into law until the Great Society, and didn't begin to make its impact felt until the end of the 1960s. Yet crime rates began to soar before that - in the early 1960s. How can we attribute rising crime to a welfare state which didn't then exist?

Second, criminal behavior patterns start in youth, peaking in the late teen years. Whatever caused crime to explode in the 1960s would have had to been planted in young people during their formative years: in the 1950s. Where was the 1950s welfare state?

Third, many nations have had welfare states far longer than America, yet have crime rates far lower than ours. Why?

Finally, U.S. crime rates have begun in recent years to level out, even decline a bit. Has there been any corresponding decline in welfare statism to "cause" this? Clearly not.

These liberal and conservative explanations for criminality share a common root: they blame factors outside the criminal himself. Liberals say "poverty made him do it." Conservatives say "welfare checks made him do it." Both share the false premise of economic determinism. It is more fruitful to ask not "What causes crime?" but "What causes us not to commit crimes?" Social scientists posit two reasons: what they refer to as "external and internal constraints on behavior."

External constraints are deterrents. We don't commit crimes for fear of negative consequences, or punishments. Internal constraints, by contrast, are what we used to call "conscience." Most people accept certain moral standards; and when we violate those standards, we feel guilty about it. Our guilt feelings inhibit us from committing crimes - even when we think we can get away with them.

My view - spelled out in Criminal Justice? - is that crime has increased because of a systematic erosion in recent decades of both external and internal constraints on behavior. Deterrence has been weakened, while conscience has been deadened.

Consider, first, the undermining of deterrence. For half a century, utilitarian prescriptions for crime control amounted to giving endless "second chances" to rejuvenate criminals, repeated probationary sentences to adult felons, and speedy releases to the relative few who landed behind bars.

In 1949 the U.S. Supreme Court declared that retribution was "no longer the dominant objective of the criminal law," but should be replaced by "reformation and rehabilitation." Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, in his influential 1970 book, Crime in America, declared that "Punishment as an end in itself is itself a crime in our times.... Rehabilitation must be the goal of modem corrections. Every other consideration should be subordinated to it."

And so it was. The odds of punishment for a given crime have fallen sharply over the past 30 years. Today, a person who commits a serious crime has a better than 98 percent chance of avoiding prison. And thanks to early parole and generous "good time" allowances, the typical inmate serves only a third of his court-imposed sentence.

The undermining of external constraints is only a part of the problem. More important is the erosion of internal constraints.

Most of us go about our daily business with a secure sense of routine. We walk past co-workers, sit with family members, wait in grocery store lines, seldom giving a thought to our personal safety. But imagine what it would be like to live in a world in which all these people suddenly, inexplicably, violently turned on you. In such a jungle, human life would become impossible. We would live like animals; our operative premise would no longer be "live and let live," but "kill or be killed."

We have not yet reached that stage, but the signs of social deterioration are unmistakable (see my March column, "Cultural Pollution"). More and more people act like speeding vehicles without steering wheels or brakes, leaving in their wake a growing trail of bloodshed and destruction.

A moral code is the source of "internal constraints on behavior." It is the rudder of any culture, which keeps it from crashing against the shoals of violence, and sinking into chaos. Yet modem intellectuals, wedded to relativism, have not only abandoned the helm of moral leadership: they assault anyone who dares to assume it. Their normative vandalism has been so complete that today, even to use words such as "morality," "conscience," or "virtue," invites mockery and the rolling of eyes.

These intellectuals have virtually obliterated all external and internal constraints. As utilitarians, they have undermined deterrence. As relativists, they have eliminated guilt. They have thus unleashed the sociopaths we see around us - savages who act with impunity, and without conscience.

We rightfully expect our justice system to impose external constraints on those lacking internal constraints. But we can never hire enough police, or build enough prisons, if our underlying moral crisis is not addressed. The real roots of criminality lie in the moral abdication occurring in our homes, communities, and institutions.

Restoring moral direction is not a job we dare delegate to politicians. Rather, if our culture is to survive, we ourselves must begin to uphold, fight for, and inculcate the values and standards upon which any civilization rests.

At the time of the original publication, Mr. Bidinotto, a Staff Writer for Reader's Digest, was a long-time contributor to The Freeman and lecturer at FEE seminars.

Reprinted with permission from The Freeman, a publication of the Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., June 1995, Vol. 45, No. 6.


also check this link
http://www.preventingcrime.net/library/Causes_of_Crime.pdf