Does poverty = crime?

[Livewire]

Since the advent of modern social science, sociologists and criminologists have been preoccupied with finding the answer to what is the root cause of criminal (or deviant) behavior and, therefore, what are the best ways to prevent it.

Many theories have been put forward on the subject. Some of them have since been completely discredited — like Lombroso's theory that you can determine a person's propensity toward criminal behavior by measuring certain physiological traits such as head size. But much of the focus and research into the causes of crime has centred around the impact of social deprivation or poverty on those who commit it.

Poverty is a huge problem worldwide, the US census in 2010 recorded that 15.1% of people in the US live in poverty, and for those aged under 18's the rate was even higher at 22%.[1] While the numbers in absolute poverty have been dropping there were still 1.4billion people on less than $1.25 per day as of 2005. Oxfam records that 1 in 5 in the UK live below the poverty line, and this is mostly children, pensioners or disabled people.

The interest in poverty in relation to crime stems mainly from the factual reality that there is a significant, proven correlation between the two. However, in this debate the proposition needs to show there is more than just a correlation, but that a major cause of crime lies in social deprivation.

Also, 'crime' needs to be defined carefully, as it is a term which covers a very wide variety of activities and behaviours which are very difficult to address together (for example, burglary, incitement to racial hatred, insider trading, paedophilic abuse, driving over the speed limit and murder).

Does being poor/being socially disadvantaged mean you're more predisposed to committing crime?

Discuss?!

 

[Esper]

I don't know if I believe that poverty causes crime, but I believe it exacerbates it to a pretty big degree. People living in poverty tend to have less education and therefore fewer opportunities to make a living and that means more stress about money and more desperation. To me, half the formula for crime comes from desperation. I think most people don't want to commit crimes and would rather play fair if they could.

I think ignorance and lack of empathy for others is what makes up the other half. There's an education element there of sorts, in that people without enough empathy for others might have been raised by misogynist/racist/homophobic/other prejudiced parents in societies which reinforce those ideas and not learned to treat people who are different with respect.

 

[NarutoActor]

well I see that more as a de jure truth rather than a de facto truth, meaning its more of a stimulus to crime not the cause.

If you read Plato's republic, then the reason for crime, is stupidity. If more people sought higher education, then less people would break the law; for they fully understand the ramifications.

As for the idea that they are to poor for education is a week argument, since there is public education grades k-12. For the argument that poorer neighborhoods have worse schools, is not a fact that bad schools were placed there, but that, that neighborhood made that school bad. In America we have abbot districts were the poorer neighborhoods get the most state funding.

 

[Baloth]

I don't think so. Greed and desire to improve one's station in life can be found in all economic classes. Insanely highly paid corporate executives commit crimes, and so do the lowest lowlifes on the streets. It's the person and their circumstances in life that affect whether or not they will resort to crime. A beggar might steal so that they can survive, but another might not, because they know it isn't right.

 

[Novykh]

As for the idea that they are to poor for education is a week argument, since there is public education grades k-12. For the argument that poorer neighborhoods have worse schools, is not a fact that bad schools were placed there, but that, that neighborhood made that school bad. In America we have abbot districts were the poorer neighborhoods get the most state funding.

We don't leave our children behind~ And besides... those Abbott districts are New Jersey specific, and to that regard they only apply to certain districts which makes it all too easy for them to let other fall by the wayside.

OT: Poverty is not the cause of crime, but it severely amplifies it. However, it is as much a sense of their inability to overcome this poverty as is set by the guidelines of their government and society abroad. They(the impoverished) need to make a living, much the same as anyone else. However out of what could have been bad choices, bad luck, or maybe even a mix of the two they fell out of good standing. They might be poor, but that is not what is getting them to commit a crime. What is doing that is how they have no foreseeable way out of the hole they've fallen into. That is: it's as much as the impoverished people' fault as it is the fault of those who dictate the the legislation: the rich and the powerful. There is one solid way to overcome the necessity for crime that society has fathered, and that is to band together; only when we put aside our differences and mutually work together for a better future will we come to notice that petty things such as crime cease to happen.

If you notice, however, most of the great crimes against humanity were not exactly committed by those afflicted by poverty. It was the wealthy Europeans that dominated the slave trade, doing whatever they could to keep their grip over the weaker peoples. They murdered, they pillaged, they raped and they laughed about it. These were crimes that were committed not out of need, but out of greed. The difference between the two types of crimes is something integral to understanding whether or not the poor commit crimes because they are poor, or if there is something more to it, that if you enable them to provide for their needs then you are thus disabling them commit a crime. Power-starved dictators are the ones who have gained notoriety throughout history, and one thing is common among them: they were in power and whether through having actual wealth or by the oppression of other peoples' they believed themselves to be entitled to certain luxuries not extended to the general public.

 

[Oryx]

If you notice, however, most of the great crimes against humanity were not exactly committed by those afflicted by poverty. It was the wealthy Europeans that dominated the slave trade, doing whatever they could to keep their grip over the weaker peoples. They murdered, they pillaged, they raped and they laughed about it. These were crimes that were committed not out of need, but out of greed. The difference between the two types of crimes is something integral to understanding whether or not the poor commit crimes because they are poor, or if there is something more to it, that if you enable them to provide for their needs then you are thus disabling them commit a crime. Power-starved dictators are the ones who have gained notoriety throughout history, and one thing is common among them: they were in power and whether through having actual wealth or by the oppression of other peoples' they believed themselves to be entitled to certain luxuries not extended to the general public.

This is a very valid point.

One thing we have to keep in mind is how we define 'crime' - do we define it as anything that breaks the law, or people that are convicted of a crime, violent crimes, etc.? There's a very strong bias towards poor people getting thrown in prison over rich people, and it's a big question as to whether it's that poor people commit more crimes or rich people have ways to cover things up and get their way out of being convicted.

 

[Esper]

There's a very strong bias towards poor people getting thrown in prison over rich people, and it's a big question as to whether it's that poor people commit more crimes or rich people have ways to cover things up and get their way out of being convicted.

This is very true and sometimes laws lean disproportionately on the poor, like how there were laws (still are laws?) in the US that make using crack cocaine a much more serious offense than powder cocaine, the important difference between the two forms in that crack is much cheaper and therefore more likely to the drug used by poorer people.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

I think that it's a significant contributing factor most of the time; not always. And being poor does not mean you will commit a crime, or that you're a bad person.

But, poverty does create an environment with a certain level of desperation and a number of broken people.

And, Novykh, that's true but not at all what I assumed this thread to be about XD

 

[Synaesthesia]

Eh I don't think poverty necessarily promotes crime. To say that someone poor is more likely to commit a crime is wrong. Presidents of multimillion dollar companies (e.g. Conrad Black) defraud their own companies solely for personal gain. Mr. Black defrauded his company, Hollinger Intl. for $60 million in 2005 when it was thriving.

Poor people and poor families are simply subject to crime and moral compromise unwillingly. Especially when you consider an entire community, or significant portion of a whole nation's population, not being given enough attention by those who can help: their government. The poor dwell amongst themselves. It's increasingly difficult for families to properly feed themselves and the idea of stealing simply becomes the idea of fending for yourself. "Prices are high, I can't pay them, but I'm not gonna die." But stealing isn't the only crime. I don't see murder and poverty having much of a correlation. Poor people do murder, but one does not dictate the other. However, to tone down from the extremities, I think people in poor communities are more subject to violence. I think feelings of angst, discontent, bitterness all linger heavily on a poor person's lifestyle. Domestic violence is probably an issue, and violence among gangs is also very present. With the help of alcohol, assault is probably a very common offense in the poor person's community. And that's something that can easily go unreported.

Substance abuse is probably also quite the issue in the poor man's world. Which I've always found ironic because you'd think their money would immediately go to food and survival, but I suppose that's the dangers of addiction. Alcohol, especially it being legal and having dedicated stores, is very widely consumed. Which can only help catalyse the violence in the community. Gangs, obviously, traffic drugs and sex, two very heavy offenses in the eyes of the law. I see that as a circlejerk in itself because drugs bring in money, and become much more accessible, which causes these people to get addicted to their drugs and have them dictate where the income from the drugs and prostitution goes. It's all a vicious cycle, it seems.

And the worst part I find is that, in today's world, education is the only way for these people to come out of such a cycle. As it stands, when you're born into a poor family, grow up poor, you're not likely to retire from a job earning six figures happily with a pension plan. But with a post-secondary education, you have a much higher chance of finding yourself a decent job (even if it doesn't generate 100K+/year), and you've most likely developed some work ethic in your time at school. A degree and the willingness to work? That's all you need! With a little time and consistency in your search, you'll be pulling yourself out from that rut we call poverty. Oh, but don't get ahead of yourself, you've got those student loans to pay off first! ;)

I see education as a right. And as a right, it should be free. No bogus fees. You don't want to learn? Fine, get out. Go do something else, earn your minimum wage if you're content with that. But anyone, anywhere, can and should learn the skills to do anything they want.

 

[Novykh]

This is very true and sometimes laws lean disproportionately on the poor, like how there were laws (still are laws?) in the US that make using crack cocaine a much more serious offense than powder cocaine, the important difference between the two forms in that crack is much cheaper and therefore more likely to the drug used by poorer people.

That is hardly a strike against the poor. Why do you thing a lot of drugs are illegal in the first place? They are dangerous! Crack cocaine happens to be of a lesser purity and quality than that of powdered cocaine. It's often cut with harsher tars and more lethal toxins; it's the sign of an amateur's trade: as they cannot afford the more expensive drug, or perhaps to curb the drug with another side-effect, one will get another product that is typically cheaper(or has the desired effects) and "cut" the drugs with something that is equally as hazardous if not more hazardous to your health and that is where-in the danger lies. As these adulteration occur more often in crack cocaine that means the risk from lighting up a rock rather than gumming or snorting the drug is greater, that any serious damage will more likely result in the consumption of the impure, sloppily prepared drug. For that reason the penalties on crack cocaine are harsher than powder as it is in aims to keep the general public safe and in good health.

Here is the thing, though. If you are acting out of necessity.. how could it be a crime? If we go back to ancient times, before we even had any concept of wealth, we all still have the drive to what we need to survive. It is our survival instinct, and that is something that we cannot deny so easily. It was in these times that we acted only out of need and never out of our own petty desires that people would not even consider such a thought as this. I think that as our ancestors have, it is no crime to do that which is necessary to survive. Actually, I think it's a crime to prevent people from doing what they need to do to survive. There used to be a time in this world where if a man needed to provide for his family, he could do just that: go out into the woods, hunt a deer or two, catch some fish maybe... but times like these are gone. With the vast amount of regulations that we have in this world and the extreme importance that we have placed on money in society, it makes it rather difficult for those in poverty to make a living without resorting to "crime." While I'm not condoning such a life and I do agree that you could live a morally sound life as pauper and still have your basic needs provided for, I AM alluding to the fact that there is NOTHING wrong with doing that which you need to do to survive. There is a line, though, and that can't be crossed. There is only one circumstance in which you would need to kill a person, and that is to protect yourself or those you love from an active threat; that means a guy is actually charging you, not just talking trash. There is never any circumstance that would denote moral righteousness in the cases of assault, rape, vandalism etc as these are all crimes that could never in the end solve any problems. The actions would not bring you any closer to your goal. And that is when it becomes it crime. When your goal is ill-fated or involves the belittling of others then it is the goal of a criminal; when your goal is sound, logical, and for the common(or personal, I suppose) good then there is no way you could be committing a crime.

@Synaesthesia: The education thing would be marvelous, but that opens up a whole new debate about how flawed most school systems are. Starting with of course that you need to promote the desire to learn, not force it upon people. When you do that, then learning is ruined.

 

[NarutoActor]

I don't believe it is ever a necessity to commit a crime, the way America is set up, is that your basic needs can be fulfilled by working 40hrs/week (Full Time) at a minimum wage Job(7.25USD/Hr). And that is how it should be, the government should not be giving out entitlements, nor is poverty an excuse to free that person from their immoral occurrence. Any crime committed is that persons choice regardless of the scenario, or circumstances, and they are subjected to the laws that they have broken in the state that they reside in.

 

[Livewire]

I don't believe it is ever a necessity to commit a crime, the way America is set up, is that your basic needs can be fulfilled by working 40hrs/week (Full Time) at a minimum wage Job(7.25USD/Hr). And that is how it should be, the government should not be giving out entitlements, nor is poverty an excuse to free that person from their immoral occurrence. Any crime committed is that persons choice regardless of the scenario, or circumstances, and they are subjected to the laws that they have broken in the state that they reside in.

You have yet to cite or mention anything in this thread (or the old version) with any ring of truth to it.

 

[Synaesthesia]

@Synaesthesia: The education thing would be marvelous, but that opens up a whole new debate about how flawed most school systems are. Starting with of course that you need to promote the desire to learn, not force it upon people. When you do that, then learning is ruined.

I definitely agree that the desire to learn is in jeopardy when forced upon. But learning is mostly, if not only, forced in k-12. It's a different story post-secondary and that's where I was referring to. The ideal is if you want to learn to be a pilot, professional cook, architect, whatever, you have the right as a human being to seek that knowledge and perfect that skill. But if you've found a job that meets your standards of living, by all means keep at it.

I'll stop there so as to not fall too off-topic.

I don't believe it is ever a necessity to commit a crime, the way America is set up, is that your basic needs can be fulfilled by working 40hrs/week (Full Time) at a minimum wage Job(7.25USD/Hr). And that is how it should be, the government should not be giving out entitlements, nor is poverty an excuse to free that person from their immoral occurrence. Any crime committed is that persons choice regardless of the scenario, or circumstances, and they are subjected to the laws that they have broken in the state that they reside in.

Right, so you're saying that it's not okay to kill in order to protect? You and your family are currently under death threat and your soon-to-be-killer has no reason left not to waste all of you. You and your significant other are both in the working class, raising two children, hoping to help them cover some of their tuition so they can eventually give you grandkids and experience parenthood themselves. You have a shot at killing your threat who is, as far as you're concerned, nothing better than a good-for-nothing junkie murderer who's half-baked plan went south. You're telling me you're going to let your moral compass keep you from eliminating the threat to you and your family?

Further, a poor person gives off the look of just that. You don't see them wearing designer clothing and rolling up in their BMWs. Profiling is very much alive in the United States and Canada, and if you see a kid walk in with his baggy clothes, his poor vocabulary (no pun intended) and you're pretty sure he just got done smoking a doobie out in front of your place of business, you sure he's a reliable kid? America's a big place with lotsa people. Put yourself in the shoes of an employer. Why take a chance on hiring this kid, just to seem like the ethical guy that doesn't judge, when he might only drive you to letting him go 3 weeks later and having to rehire and retrain someone else, a process, by the way, which hinders a place of work more than helps it run smoothly.

Government housing, welfare programs, these things are very necessary. Those stuck in poverty have it off way harder than I can even imagine. I'm writing from what I believe it must be like.

 

[Esper]

That is hardly a strike against the poor.

But it's a disproportional penalty. Imagine if you had different kinds of speeding tickets, one for luxury cars that was a fine of $100, and one for other cars which was $500. That'd be unfair to people who couldn't afford luxury cars (a.k.a. the not-rich). Yes, speeding is against the law, but the penalties should fit the crime. Speeding is speeding, or in the example in my previous post, cocaine use is cocaine use.

I don't believe it is ever a necessity to commit a crime, the way America is set up, is that your basic needs can be fulfilled by working 40hrs/week (Full Time) at a minimum wage Job(7.25USD/Hr). And that is how it should be, the government should not be giving out entitlements, nor is poverty an excuse to free that person from their immoral occurrence. Any crime committed is that persons choice regardless of the scenario, or circumstances, and they are subjected to the laws that they have broken in the state that they reside in.

No one is really saying poverty is an "excuse" to commit crimes. (Most of us are actually saying that poverty doesn't directly cause crimes anyway.) We're saying that poverty is a way to humanize people when they don't have options. When someone who is impoverished commits a crime out of desperation because they system fails them that's a bad thing on both sides, but since the system is more at fault we don't think it's fair to blame a person for a fault that isn't theirs.

And it's not easy to live on $7.25 an hour, especially in some parts of the US. You also assume that anyone can have a job, and a full-time job at that.

 

[NarutoActor]

That is true, but with any amount of hard work even in a jobless market, work can be found. Even begging can be seen as work, and I have spotted many times in NYC homeless people going out to each house going through the garbage cans and taking out the bottles to trade in for money. There are also public housing, affordable house/rent laws, and homeless shelters. Even more frequently free food is given out in large tent events, mostly at parks, and are largely because of private donators, not the government. There are also second hand stores to obtain clothing, and other materials at dirt low prices. The other day I got [Donkey Kong 64] form Good Will for 4$ USD. The government does a lot already, and although being poor limits your options per se, and you may become more inclined to a crime not out of necessity but out of a desire for an easier life, to commit a/the crime it is always the perpetrator's choice.

 

[Esper]

That is true, but with any amount of hard work even in a jobless market, work can be found. Even begging can be seen as work, and I have spotted many times in NYC homeless people going out to each house going through the garbage cans and taking out the bottles to trade in for money. There are also public housing, affordable house/rent laws, and homeless shelters. Even more frequently free food is given out in large tent events, mostly at parks, and are largely because of private donators, not the government. There are also second hand stores to obtain clothing, and other materials at dirt low prices. The other day I got [Donkey Kong 64] form Good Will for 4$ USD. The government does a lot already, and although being poor limits your options per se, and you may become more inclined to a crime not out of necessity but out of a desire for an easier life, to commit a/the crime it is always the perpetrator's choice.

I see what you're saying. I get that at sure at some level no one ever "needs" to commit a crime, but for some people the odds are really against them. I mean, you can't go to many job interviews if you're dressed in clothes from the $2 rack at the Goodwill, right? And if you live in a small town there literally might not be any jobs at all, and no charity organizations, and no way to get to another town.

 

[Novykh]

But it's a disproportional penalty. Imagine if you had different kinds of speeding tickets, one for luxury cars that was a fine of $100, and one for other cars which was $500. That'd be unfair to people who couldn't afford luxury cars (a.k.a. the not-rich). Yes, speeding is against the law, but the penalties should fit the crime. Speeding is speeding, or in the example in my previous post, cocaine use is cocaine use.

You're missing the point entirely here. The reason that crack cocaine is subject to a harsher penalty is that it is more dangerous. Your car analogy does not belong here; a regular car is no less dangerous than a luxury car (It depends on the model, though). They all have certain factory specifications that they need to meet in terms of safety for their consumer. The laws are subject, however, to how responsible of a driver you are; you are supposed to first of all drive safely, so that means no speeding; secondly you need exercise routine maintenance on your vehicle to ensure it's working, safe, condition. If you, as a driver, are operating a vehicle that does not meet the safety requirements or if you operate the vehicle inconsistently with the guidelines then you are threat to the safety and well-being of others; in that regard you get a ticket for such violations. Crack cocaine is much the same as these traffic safety violations. While they are all violating traffic safety, they all are doing it to different degrees and thus have more severe penalties depending on what you do and how you do it. It has nothing to do with any petty biases but it is only out of concern for the user's safety and those around him.

I don't believe it is ever a necessity to commit a crime, the way America is set up, is that your basic needs can be fulfilled by working 40hrs/week (Full Time) at a minimum wage Job(7.25USD/Hr). And that is how it should be, the government should not be giving out entitlements, nor is poverty an excuse to free that person from their immoral occurrence. Any crime committed is that persons choice regardless of the scenario, or circumstances, and they are subjected to the laws that they have broken in the state that they reside in.

That is true, but with any amount of hard work even in a jobless market, work can be found. Even begging can be seen as work, and I have spotted many times in NYC homeless people going out to each house going through the garbage cans and taking out the bottles to trade in for money. There are also public housing, affordable house/rent laws, and homeless shelters. Even more frequently free food is given out in large tent events, mostly at parks, and are largely because of private donators, not the government. There are also second hand stores to obtain clothing, and other materials at dirt low prices. The other day I got [Donkey Kong 64] form Good Will for 4$ USD. The government does a lot already, and although being poor limits your options per se, and you may become more inclined to a crime not out of necessity but out of a desire for an easier life, to commit a/the crime it is always the perpetrator's choice.

Basic needs? Off 7.25? No. That idea is just ridiculous. You might be able to get enough food to eat, but if you need to a place to live you're pretty much screwed. Not to mention how extremely difficult it is to get a job. When people despise you simply because you aren't on the side of luck the world is quite difficult. Always being judged, teased, and hassled for it; as if life wasn't already trouble people only seem to add more difficulty into the life of the poor. It is extremely difficult to get a job as a transient, and in that regard difficult to keep it. Most employers are looking for someone with more stability, someone more "refined." I.E. someone that isn't a bum. While it's easy to say that you could find somewhere to live, that just always isn't the case. While such places do exist and are options, they are not everywhere and they are not options for everyone. So they have no where to stay, no job... no food. They could panhandle or recycle for money but those both bring in their own set of problems: one the legality of such things(mostly the former and only then in certain circumstances) are questionable at best and you could even ticketed for doing such acts and thus not only have NO money, but be indebted as well. Also, begging is NOT a job; you earn your money in a job, you have it pathetically given to you by begging. Recycling is a decent method. But you need a fair amount of cans and like a job while you can get enough for food and some other basic necessities anything else is out of the question, especially in the case of our intrepid recycler; as more people discover this "trick" to cash then it will become less available as the competition increases. The number of recyclables is of a finite amount; if enough people catch on then you will not be able to make any money of this as everyone else will be hogging all the aluminum.

You are very correct in the sense that no one NEEDS to commit a crime. But in that logic no one NEEDS to do anything but fulfill their biological obligations: drink water, breathe oxygen, eat food, and sleep. Everything else can be argued as just a "want" and not a "need." They don't have to commit any crimes, you're right. But it's often not that simple. What do I do when I need food or water and one of those "large tent events" is nowhere to be found? And the recycling plants, they are shut down, so even if I collected cans I couldn't cash them in. No money, no food, no house.... Another cold, sleepless night that you had to go to bed without eating. Or simply, instead of living in such anguish and turmoil you can walk into the nearby Safeway and grab yourself some sustenance. So you lifted a sub sandwich with pastrami and pepper jack on rye bread with a coke to wash it all down and you go back to that park bench that you are so fond of to eat your food. Life is good, by taking from the store that obviously had more than enough that it could ever need you gained the ability to see another day in your miserable little life. As you are just sitting there, minding your own business just trying to get by, some jerk has the nerve to walk up and demand that you give them all your money and any other valuables. While you desperately try to convince them that you have nothing they get increasingly hostile(verbally, of course) and so before he can get on with his jig you jump to your face and give him one solid one right to the cheek, his knees buckle and he collapses. The cops come up at this moment and well guess what: It turns out that the guy who tried to rob you is actually someone who is pretty well off, respectable, you know all that jazz. And so instead of saying that he tried to rob you he says that you tried to rob him and even assaulted him. The cop and the court and jury judge the situation and see this: a well off, "valued" member of society vs a jobless, homeless bum. Oh, and did I mention that they're blackandmexicanandchineseandindianandarabicallinone and shoot up heroin every other weekend? So, the verdict: guilty as charged. Jail time or community service, maybe an anger management class and since you had a little marijuana leaf in your pocket they'll sign you up for a drug awareness class and slap you with the bill for all these things here. I have personally witnessed such travesties occur, and it is these situations that make people believe there is no way out other than to do such things. Society offers options to live morally upright lives, but it does not promote an environment that allows such a life to flourish with the impoverished; it promotes in its stead the crime that we are trying to prevent by making those afflicted by poverty to be in such dire situations to commit these crimes.

It isn't the need for these material things that drives them to act so. It is the need for a sure tomorrow; being able to rest easy because your future is secure. While the methods you indicated are great methods, they are like I've said not always available, and not for all people. Given a choice of stealing some food tonight or starving through the night and then trying to find some food in the morning leaves you with a rather obvious answer

 

[NarutoActor]

Interesting story with a lot of it I agree with. The only thing is, that the government gives out Food Stamps, which can also be traded with for other things with your fellow poor man. Of course this whole concept of poverty is kinda abstractly talked about. What is poor? Is living in an apartment pay-check to pay-check poor, or do you have to be homeless. Is there a cretin income you can declare poverty? I do agree however that the police, at least in New Jersey and in New York, are horrible, racist, and discriminate against anyone; Not a 40 year old Caucasian male. In NJ There are decals which allow for the police to find the younger drivers and discriminate with ease. I also agree with you that the courts are too subjected by outward appearances, and should care more about the crime committed them the actually preponderate. I also agree with you, when you loosely claim that the justice system is too harsh, and rely more on punishment then rehabilitation. Also what is wrong with anger management classes, everyone gets angry, every one can use more knowledge to better deal with anger.

 

[Novykh]

Interesting story with a lot of it I agree with. The only thing is, that the government gives out Food Stamps, which can also be traded with for other things with your fellow poor man. Of course this whole concept of poverty is kinda abstractly talked about. What is poor? Is living in an apartment pay-check to pay-check poor, or do you have to be homeless. Is there a cretin income you can declare poverty? I do agree however that the police, at least in New Jersey and in New York, are horrible, racist, and discriminate against anyone; Not a 40 year old Caucasian male. In NJ There are decals which allow for the police to find the younger drivers and discriminate with ease. I also agree with you that the courts are too subjected by outward appearances, and should care more about the crime committed them the actually preponderate. I also agree with you, when you loosely claim that the justice system is too harsh, and rely more on punishment then rehabilitation. Also what is wrong with anger management classes, everyone gets angry, every one can use more knowledge to better deal with anger.

There is nothing wrong with anger management classes themselves. What is wrong with them is the fact that many a person ends up having to PAY for the attendance in such a program. As I see we are on the same page for a lot of this, that doesn't leave very much to talk about, so excuse my brevity in this.

I'm speaking from personal experience here about the food stamp deal. I myself am a welfare child, but I rather abhor the system. It promotes to the general that you can be a lazy, non-productive member of society and still expect the liberties of one; in my mind the welfare program would be designed to GET YOU OFF welfare; to teach you how to fish, and not just catch you fish. That is one the fatal flaw in the ordeal, but anyway, that was a little off-topic. As I was saying, the food stamp situation is screwy at best for a lot of people. My mom barely gets enough money to feed my entire family off the foodstamps that she gets, it just isn't enough. By the end of the month are cupboards are empty and we have to scavenge to hold out until the next check. Meanwhile, my neighbor with her one kid has so many food stamps that she "didn't know what to do with them" and started buying her dogs chicken. They have on more the one occasion apparently sent us too much money, and in ramification for this took money from the following checks. They have constantly deducted, fined, or otherwise withheld money from us. They sent a notice about an apparent monthly due my sister would have to pay if she continued to live at our house. So while that system is great in theory and somewhat in practice, it has a lot of faults and issues; a lot of people get screwed over. The major problem with this, of course, is the system in it's entirety needs a makeover.

 

[NarutoActor]

Now I agree with you that, that is wrong, any class given/forced to help rehabilitate someone should be free of charge to that person. It is the states obligation to do so.

My mother lived on food stamps and said it was more of an embarrassment, but it got them by. I was lucky enough growing up that my mom and dad where able to provide enough for at least one meal at home every day. Now I have a job, and I pay for my own meals. I never had to deal with food stamps, nor as my mother used them since her childhood. I am not sure how well the system actually works, and that is something however that the government should keep a close eye on to make sure some people don't abuse it, and the people who need it, get it.