In recent years, the national concern over heightened and rising crime rates has encompassed not only the nation’s tax payers, but also experts in the field of criminology. The number of violent crimes, homicides, rapes, and even robberies increased from 2015-2016, and shows signs of increasing in the near future (Bruer). The public’s concern for their safety has forced criminal experts, researchers, politicians, and even experts of social sciences to look deeper into such matters, and identify the stems of these nation-wide problems. Experts of criminology have specifically looked at regions of the US where crime rates are substantially elevated, the major cities of the US and the deprived sub-sections of those cities. Due to the increased crime rates in these areas, researchers have begun to wonder, who or what is causing individuals within these regions to commit crimes more frequently than individuals in less populated cities? The answer is found when the backgrounds of individuals who reside in these areas are thoroughly analyzed. American individuals who are born into environments of elevated crime rates, lower socio-economic status, and unstable family structure are more likely to become criminals or partake in criminal behavior than those born in areas of higher socio-economic status. 

An elevated number of criminals within a city is not an issue that develops overnight. Criminals deliberately target neighborhoods where individuals are vulnerable and crime is easier to get away with. Furthermore, as these individuals commit more crimes, additional criminals join, the families and youth of the neighborhood are forced to live and deal with this incessant crime, the elevated standard of crime becomes the norm, and consequently, the area becomes infested with crime (Walker, Aguayo). Therefore, the community becomes trapped in a state where crime is a normal and accepted part of life, making it extremely difficult for police to intervene and eliminate crime from the area. As a result, this cycle of corruption forces individuals born into these areas to adopt a lifestyle of delinquency.

In addition to the unlawful dynamic of their neighborhood, the youth and adolescents of areas with a lower socio-economic status face myriad risk factors for involvement with crime. The authors of Adolescent Reputations and Risk: Developmental Trajectories to Delinquency explain there are four main risk factors that can lead an individual into a life of criminality. The risk factors include, individual risk factors, family risk factors, school risk factors, and peer risk factors. Individual risk factors include personal psychological short-comings within the individual’s personality. For example, a young boy who is known to be very impulsive or hyperactive is at a greater risk to display delinquent behaviors than his calm and rational counterpart. While this factor is not directly affected by socio-economic status, having a trait that falls under this risk factor only further increases an individual’s likeliness to become involved with crime within an environment with a lower socio-economic status. Secondly, family risk factors play a crucial role in determining the likelihood that a child or adolescent will become involved with criminal behavior. The authors explain the risk when stating, “Young people are considered to be at risk… if they were born to… a single parent, a parent or guardian with a history of criminal activities, or… a disorganized family environment, father absence… and poverty or economic disadvantage have also been shown to act as risk factors” (Carroll, Houghton, Durkin, Hattie 5). The risks mentioned are all directly connected to the typical lifestyle of an individual living in a setting of lower economic status. For example, a child in a family that is living in an area of low income, and frequent crime is likely to have a brother, sister, mother, or father that are already involved with crime. Therefore, most of their life they will witness and experience criminal behavior. Thus, leading them to believe crime is normal and simply a part of their family life. Consequently, making the young boy or girl more likely to get involved with crime, just like their family member(s). Additionally, the authors continue to explain the risk factors that come with school. Especially in areas of lower income, schools often do not provide healthy environments for children and teens to receive an appropriate education. Within these unstable school environments, kids and teens frequently do not understand the importance and significance of an education and do not take school, their teachers, or administrators seriously (Carroll, Houghton, Durkin, Hattie 5). Without learning self-control, rule-enforcement, and how to live in a healthy and safe way, many the students drop out. Moreover, these individuals find themselves trapped in a world that revolves around crime, forcing them to conform to the criminal lifestyle or be left behind. However, there is one final risk factor that poses the greatest threat. Peer risk factors become a very strong influence on decision making as adolescents grow into young adults (Carroll, Houghton, Durkin, Hattie 5). As these individuals from lower income areas grow up, they are faced with a choice, delinquency or obedience. Choosing delinquent behavior is almost always considered the “cooler” of the two options, and partaking in such behaviors usually goes hand in hand with excitement, friendship, and respect from their peers. With the pressure and desire for a sense of belonging, many of these underprivileged adolescents and young adults partake in delinquent behaviors to impress and attract other peers. For example, a young man growing up in a region of lower socio-economic status with criminal history in his family, a lack of respect for school, and a group of peers with similar backgrounds encouraging him to live a lifestyle of crime, is incredibly likely to give in to the pressure of his environment. The factors mentioned in this source all depict how an individual of low socio-economic status automatically is placed at a heightened likelihood to find themselves in a life motivated by crime. 

In similar fashion to the authors of the previous source, some experts believe in different, yet similar approaches when trying to determine what defines an individual as likely to commit or participate in criminal behavior. A popular press article entitled, “Criminal Behavior” declares there are 3 main approaches when determining if and why an individual is likely to show signs of criminal behavior.  The approaches are defined as the psychological approach, the sociological approach, and the biological approach (“Criminal Behavior”). The psychological approach analyzes the single individual and their basis of thinking. This approach specifically looks at the individual’s thought process in comparison to the societal norm. For example, a psychiatrist using this approach would try to analyze the individual’s standard of thinking and what they consider rational compared to what the average individual thinks is logical or ethical. When using this approach, it is clear to observe that a citizen of a major US city, who is also a member of the lower class and has lived in a violent and crime driven environment will have a different standard of logic and ethics than the average American. Being raised in a generally violent environment with unstable income would consequently make that individual more likely to display criminal behaviors than the average member of society. The sociological approach pertains to the background of the given individual. For example, if the individual stems from a more high class, financially stable environment, the conclusion can be drawn that they are theoretically less likely to become a criminal or show signs of criminal behavior. On the other hand, an individual from a more violent and financially weak or unstable environment would be considered at a higher risk to become a criminal or behave delinquently. Finally, the biological approach connects crime with biological deficiencies. For example, an individual with a biological short-coming such as an underdeveloped brain would be considered more likely to commit crimes than their mentally healthy counterpart. While all these approaches and potential theories may be qualitative systems with room for error, they still provide a basis of understanding as to what groups of people are at a higher risk of becoming criminals. Therefore, using the psychological approach and the sociological approach, individuals coming from inner-city environments of heightened violence, elevated crime rates, and lower income are more likely to commit crimes or exhibit criminal-like behaviors than their more privileged counterpart. Furthermore, in attempt to fully comprehend why certain individuals grow up to become criminals, researchers have studied young children to try and understand if criminal behaviors can be traced back as far as grade school. 

Researchers of criminology often wonder how a juvenile could have the capacity to commit heinous crimes like assault, battery, and even rape before they are even adults. Tim Huerena, author and narrator of the YouTube video, “Following The Wrong Path: Why Do Children Become Criminals?”, provides statistics and possible theories as to why children sometimes commit serious crimes. Huerena attributes parenting, family income, and socio-economic status as some of the main contributing factors for why children show delinquent behavior at such a young age (Huerena 2013). Huerena also discusses that poor parenting of young children can result in the children not understanding right from wrong (Huerena 2013). Therefore, it is possible for the children to do things they feel will have no consequences, but in-reality are very dangerous. Additionally, Huerena concludes that raising children in a lower socio-economic status can mean violent and dangerous neighborhoods along with poor school systems (Huerena 2013). With little income and an unstable education system, it is easy for children to find themselves getting into trouble at younger and younger ages. Moreover, if these children are developing these criminal-like tendencies at such young ages, it is very probable that their criminal behavior will only worsen as they get older. Consequently, finding themselves in a life driven by crime and delinquency that all began before they could know any better. Raising children in areas of low socio-economic status automatically places the children at a higher risk for developing criminal-like behaviors. However, if supplemented with poor parenting, these children are placed at an even greater risk to commit serious crimes at even younger ages. With all this support proving the lower class stands at a greater risk to leading a life of crime, one might wonder, is the opposite true for the upper class?

The American upper class is frequently thought of as a smaller, more elite group of the American public who selfishly control a large majority of the nation’s wealth. Consequently, it is assumed that because of their family’s financial comfort, children raised in these financially stable homes are placed at an advantage for succeeding in school and having the ability to avoid criminals and a life of crime. While this assumption may seem prejudicial, empirical evidence provided by sociological studies concur with this claim. An accomplished group of experts in the fields of psychology and sociology conducted an experiment in attempt to identify the correlation between household income and the outcome of the children and adolescents living in said households. The study was entitled, Parents’ Incomes and Children's Outcomes: A Quasi-Experiment (Akee, Copeland, Keeler, Angold, Costello). The procedure for this quasi-experiment was relatively simple, and yielded accurate and insightful information. The American families chosen for this study (almost all lower class) were provided with a monthly exogenous increase in income by a government entity. The amounts of additional income each family received varied, and each family was instructed to use the additional income to support the family, specifically to benefit the children and teens in the family. The children within the families were monitored until age 16, and then were interviewed at ages 19 and 21. A few families that did not receive additional income were included in the experiment as control groups to more clearly show the effects of the financial aid. The conclusions drawn from the experiment were not incredibly surprising, but included much useful and valuable information that supports my central claim. The researchers explain, “We find that children who reside… in households with exogenously increased incomes tend to do better later in life on several outcome measures. The children in these households are more likely to have graduated from high school…these same children have statistically significantly lower incidence of criminal behavior” (Akee, Copeland, Keeler, Angold, Costello). Therefore, a simple increase in household income can not only provide the children of the household with a more stable living environment, but also can lead to an increased appreciation for education. However, the most noteworthy conclusion from the experiment is of course, the notion that an increase in household income directly lowers the likelihood of child or adolescent involvement in criminal behavior. Despite the overwhelming evidence, not all researchers and experts believe that an increased likelihood for developing criminal behaviors stems from homes and areas of lower socio-economic status. 

Children and adolescents that come from higher income, more privileged households are typically believed to be less likely to smoke marijuana, experiment with illicit drugs, and distribute or sell drugs. Contrary to popular belief, in certain cases, the opposite is true. Members from The Hamilton Project, authored an article entitled, “Ten Economic Facts about Crime and Incarceration in the United States” that provides insight to some of the unknown truths about crime in the US (Kearney, Harris, Jácome, Parker). The Hamilton Project (THP) is a government regulated organization that was developed during George W. Bush’s presidency whose main goal is to achieve a stronger economy for all Americans (hamiltonproject.org). This article specifically addresses how crime and economics are very much connected. The article includes a very interesting bar graph exhibiting the percentage of youths (in lower, middle, and upper-class families) likely to take part in various illegal acts. Furthermore, the bar graph depicts youths from all backgrounds are just as likely to use marijuana, children and teens stemming from upper-class homes are almost 5% more likely to use other illegal substances than their middle and lower-class counterparts, and youths from upper-class backgrounds are even more likely to sell drugs than youths from lower and middle-class households (Kearney, Harris, Jácome, Parker). As surprising as those results may seem, the bar graph continues to provide further analyses. The graph shows that individuals of a lower socio-economic background are roughly 10% more likely to attack someone or get into a fight, those same lower-class children and adolescents are more than twice as likely to join a gang than their upper-class counterparts, they are also more likely to steal something worth more than $50, and almost twice as likely to carry a gun than their middle and upper-class peers (Kearney, Harris, Jácome, Parker). However, while children and teens from upper-class backgrounds may hold a greater likelihood of selling and/or experimenting with illicit drugs than their middle and lower-class counterparts, it is still evident that the individuals stemming from lower socio-economic environments are still more likely to become criminals. Experimenting with and/or selling illegal substances are serious problems, especially among our nation’s youth. With that said, those offenses are trumped by charges like assault, battery, theft, illegal possession of a firearm, or gang relation when comparing severity of crime or potential jail time. Therefore, even though it may seem that upper-class youths are just as likely to become criminals as their lower-class peers, the reality is that the children and adolescents of lower socio-economic backgrounds are truthfully more likely to become incarcerated criminals who grow up to be threats of society. Despite all this accurately proven evidence, there are skeptics that believe the cause of criminal behavior does not correlate with socio-economic status at all. 

Today’s experts in the fields of criminology and sociology will concur with the theory of socio-economic upbringing playing a crucial role in determining an individual’s likelihood of developing criminal-like tendencies. However, some professionals in those fields still chose to believe that criminality stems from factors other than the socio-economic environment in which an individual is born and raised in. Anna Miller, author of “The Criminal Mind” discusses her theory of why certain individuals stand at a higher risk than others when it comes to the likelihood of becoming or acting like a criminal. Miller takes a more scientific approach when analyzing motives behind criminal behavior when explaining, “The amygdala — a part of the brain involved in fear, aggression and social interactions — is implicated in crime… men with lower amygdala volumes were more than three times more likely to be aggressive, violent and to show psychopathic traits… than men of the same age with more normal-sized amygdalas” (Miller). Miller is addressing the possible connection between a biological deficiency and an individual’s likelihood of showing or developing a criminal-like demeanor. However, if biological short-comings are directly linked to criminal behaviors, how could she explain the elevated crime rates in major US cities and lower socio-economic areas? Would she simply claim that individuals born and raised in those areas who grew up to become criminals were all victims of a biological deficiency? While Miller’s claim holds rationality, it lacks support and empirical evidence. If Miller’s theory had more experiments or studies that supported her claim, discussion over which theory is more accurate may have taken place. However, the support and proof that the socio-economic theory has is irrefutable. Among all this debate over where criminality stems from, researchers and even the American public have wondered, is it possible to reform the criminal tendencies of these lower socio-economic areas? While the ultimate solution cannot be reached overnight, there are ways to reform the lower-class and inner city environments that force their inhabitants into a life driven by crime. 

Laurie Walker, a doctor of sociology, and Anabel Aguayo, a professor of social sciences conducted a study in attempt to reveal the truth about reform within low income, public housing areas of the United States. The procedure of the study was relatively simple; flyers advertising a meeting were distributed to the homes of 40 residents within 2 public housing neighborhoods. The meeting was explained to be regarding the safety and level of crime present in the given neighborhoods. Participants also filled out a survey on important topics such as comfortability with police, neighbor relations, and their desire to work together with their neighbors against crime (WTAC) (Aguayo, Walker 43). The surveys were analyzed and the researchers concluded their results when explaining, “Study participants may be more willing to WTAC if they have strong cohesion with their neighbors and believe that neighborhood associations can solve collective problems” (Aguayo, Walker 45). Therefore, the study backs the idea that reform within these areas of low income is possible. However, for the community to successfully work together against crime, there needs to be a collective understanding within the neighborhood that an effort is going to be made to eliminate or decrease crime prevalence. Joining together as one community and fighting for one common goal is the key to achieving success in reforming these typically crime-ridden areas. 

Crime has plagued certain areas and demographics within the United States over the past few decades, and has shown signs of increasing in recent years. With an increase in crime rates being one of our nation’s greatest concerns, experts in the fields of criminology, sociology, and psychology all have begun to ask, what is the underlying factor causing these areas and people to continually be associated with crime? The truth lies within the characteristics of the environments where crime rates are highest. For example, inner cities, where crime rates are typically highest, it is found that average household income is much lower than normal, proper family structure is very rare, and low socio-economic status is the norm. With so much negativity found in one area, it is almost impossible to not follow the usual lifestyle of crime and delinquency when raised in worlds like these. With that said, reformation of these lower socio-economic regions and a chance for the citizens of those regions to succeed in upstanding ways is possible! Through the joint effort of those residing in these rugged areas, it is feasible to reform these areas into positive environments. The United States needs the members of these communities to come together to fight crime and the criminal tendencies found in these areas of lower socio-economic status.  
