Discussion

This House believes social deprivation causes crime.

This is a discussion on the Debatabase item titled: This House believes social deprivation causes crime. .Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!

I agree that people sometimes commit crimes because doing so is the only way they can bring attention to themselves, and get their frustrations heard. Because the government often ignores the minority, they feel that they should create an incident to get their opinions heard. Occupy Wall Street in Vancouver, for example, emphasizes this desire to call attention to a meaningful cause. Some might argue they are breaking public laws, but others might justifiably argue that acts of civil disobedience are the responsibility of every active citizen.  

I dont think this is really what this debate is getting at - the case you cite may have created 'deprivation' due to occupy setting up shanty towns but many of the people within them were not brought up deprived. Those who the debate is mainly about who are affected by social deprivation are not primarily coincerned with bringing attention to themselves but with getting by or making a bit more money on the side leading to extra crime through things like drugs trade.

I also dont think that 'frustration' is a sufficent reason to cause a crime. There are many ways for citizens in democratic countries to make themselves heard, they dont need to resort to crime to do so.

I think the debate may need a better definition of 'social deprivation', at the moment it seems to mostly consider 'social deprivation' as just being poverty - are the two the same?

I suspect that might have been sidestepped because as wikipedia puts it "The term "social deprivation" is slightly ambiguous and lacks a concrete definition." It goes on to say "With social deprivation one may have limited access to the social world due to factors such as low socioeconomic status or poor education. The socially deprived may experience "a deprivation of basic capabilities due to a lack of freedom, rather than merely low income." This lack of freedoms may include reduced opportunity, political voice, or dignity". 

Of course if you can find a good definition that fits for the debate then that would be great and we will add it.

Much of the focus and research into the causes of crime has centered around the impact of social deprivation or poverty . Many believe that the rapid increase in the number of crimes is due to the lack of people's economic stability which lead them to commit crimes. - Markus Lattner

This whole debate seems to dance around the question of 'choice' at no point does eitherside simply make the point that criminals make a choice no matter how hard up they may be whether or not to be involved in crime. A great many people in terrible circumstances make the right decision and avoid a life of crime. The closest the debate comes is a discussion on education and morals.

There needs to be a point shouting loud and clear INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY!

Alastair Stevens escribió:

There needs to be a point shouting loud and clear INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY!

I am not certain of the relevance to the debate as the question of the debate is why people dont feel or dont act on that sense of individual respoonsibility. Essentially the motion could be rephrased as 'social deprevation causes individuals to ignore their moral compass' or 'social deprivation reduces individuals sense of responsibility to society'. 

Individual responsibility is not the only thing the debate is about but it is one of the things the debate is trying to explain.

Throwing out here, on my end I do believe social deprivation may or may not directly cause crime but it can be a significant factor. Reasons such as a lack of education, more so in moral educaction from parents, can be viewed as sufficient cause since they do not have the same moral values as others and are more inclined for crime.

On the other side, with low income as the meaning, we can infer that it can be cited as a cause for crime in some cases but not necessarily the only one, desperation does cause one to cloud their moral compass afterall, especially if it involves more than just the individual at question, perhaps a starving child ?

But, still considering the fact not only the socially deprived are committing crime, I still can see that it is indeed a factor. Just my two cents though

Mohamad Haziq escribió:

On the other side, with low income as the meaning, we can infer that it can be cited as a cause for crime in some cases but not necessarily the only one, desperation does cause one to cloud their moral compass afterall, especially if it involves more than just the individual at question, perhaps a starving child ?

But in this case is the moral compass really clouded? on purely utilitarian grounds it would be right to steal to feed someone who is starving (unless it caused someone else to starve). Instead I think we need to consider 'social deprivation' to be more than poverty. Most of those in the west who are considered 'deprived' are not at a point where they are so poor they starve, and most people even when in absolute poverty are moral beings who do not commit crimes.

Instead poverty (of the reletive sort) should only be considered a part of deprivation which should include other factors like not being brought up in a loving family, lacking education, and lack of community (please suggest others...)

booji wrote:

Mohamad Haziq wrote:

On the other side, with low income as the meaning, we can infer that it can be cited as a cause for crime in some cases but not necessarily the only one, desperation does cause one to cloud their moral compass afterall, especially if it involves more than just the individual at question, perhaps a starving child ?

Instead poverty (of the reletive sort) should only be considered a part of deprivation which should include other factors like not being brought up in a loving family, lacking education, and lack of community (please suggest others...)

I do agree with this statement, which is why the first part of my post was dedicated to it not being defined by income but I only gave reasoning based on come. You do make sense when you say that on pure utilitarian grounds it would be right for us to steal to prevent starvation if it did not cause others to starve, but it would still however, be a crime in most places. You are right however when you said that poverty does not neccesirily lead to acts of crime, but I'd be hardpressed to say it was a factor that doesn't exist. Truthfully, your expansion of the definition of deprivation is a good idea, since one can be deprived socially not just in terms of money but also other things.

But regardless of definition, it does still stand that social deprivition is still a factor in crime, and most probably a big reason.

Syndicate content