Tough on Crime? Try Tough on Poverty.

Those who live in poverty are overrepresented in many categories of society; this is also true with regards to their representation within the criminal justice system. Although there is no current statistical data that directly demonstrates a correlation between poverty and crime, it is known that poverty is a strong risk factor for explaining criminal activity (Bunge et al., 2005, p.20). The “tough on crime” stance that is associated with the Progressive Conservative party of Canada, fails to take into account the causes of crime but rather seeks to punish those who commit crimes; the Conservative’s increased budget for the expansion of prisons across Canada will be the focus of this post and how it will affect those living in poverty.

The founding principles of the Conservative party strongly promote individuality; it is the individual’s responsibility to provide for themselves, to take the initiative in their own lives. The Conservative party thereby mimics the neoconservative paradigm in the strong promotion of individuality. What’s more, this notion of individuality promotes the notion that individuals choose to pursue their own self-interest, and that those individuals who require social welfare programs are therefore only needing them because they choose to not participate in the economic society. The limited support of welfare programs then, is a measure that prevents individuals from abusing the system (Mullaly, 2007, p. 82); this ideology can and does harm those living in poverty, in many ways. Neoconservatives take the view that social welfare programing is the cause, not the solution, of many social problems that currently plague society, including crime (Mullaly, 2007, p. 73). The neoconservative paradigm does not take into account that those living in poverty are not doing so because it is of their own choosing, but rather because the society in which we live does not promote the equality of access to opportunities as much as it should.

As previously mentioned, the neoconservative paradigm takes a “law and order” approach to crime control, which is intended to produce and maintain a stable society (Mullaly, 2007, p. 81); this law and order approach is similar to the Conservative “tough-on-crime” campaign. The Conservative “tough-on-crime” campaign has produced new legislations, sentencing provisions and policies that are aimed at increasing the scope of the justice system by increasing the length of sentences for criminals. The Conservatives have now vowed to expand prisons across Canada to “help keep dangerous criminals behind bars” (2011); see the CBC article More prisons to be expanded.

While there are many individual and environmental factors that may have an impact on crime rates within cities,the research conducted by Kitchen found that there does in fact exist a correlation between higher rates of crime and a higher incidence of socio-economic disadvantage (2006, p. 85).  Since there does exist a link between those who are socio-economically disadvantaged and crime rates, it may be assumed that the large portion of individuals convicted of crimes have been affected by poverty. To take this one step further, Bunge et al. found that “cities or communities populated by disadvantaged minority groups tend to have low levels of social cohesion and informal social control among residents which can help avert or prevent crime” (2005, p.44); this in turn can be applied to poverty in that, poverty disassociates individuals from feeling as though they are part of a larger collective that works together to support one another. When the individual does not feel bonded to the larger society, they may turn against the accepted forms of behaviour out of need or frustration.

The problem with this newest tough-on-crime approach is that it fails to recognize that these “dangerous criminals” are few and far between. Evidence from the 2007 Juristat noted that violent crime accounts for only 13% of crimes and that this percentage has reached its lowest rate in 20 years (Dauvergne, 2007, p. 4). Furthermore, the Juristat also found that police reported crime overall had reached its lowest level since 1977 (Dauvergne, 2007, p. 2). Going by these statistics, crime then has been decreasing over years, which brings into question the Conservative government’s push to increase the amount of prison beds.

While I agree that any amount of crime is too much crime, I believe that the Conservative means of solving this problem is merely covering up the underlying root of crime; poverty. The statistics and research that has been presented bring into question the need for the expansion of prisons; rather than spending more money on prisons, government should be spending the money on decreasing poverty, by attacking its root causes. Results from Kitchen’s study found that if all levels of government work together, then “the goal should be to improve the standard of living of Aboriginal [peoples] and Non-Aboriginal [peoples] living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods and over time to reduce levels of violence and contact with the justice system” (2006, p.69). If the Conservative government intends on getting tough-on-crime, perhaps they should look at the statistics and research that’s been done in this area rather than base their policies purely on political (neoconservative) ideologies. The best way to fight crime should be to fight the poverty that causes it.

Kirsten

Bibliography

Bunge, V. P., Johnson, H., & Balde, T. A. (2005). Crime and Justice Research Paper Series: Exploring crime patterns in Canada. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

CBC News. (2011, January 10). More Prisons to be Expanded. CBC News. Canada.

Dauvergne, M. (2007). Juristat. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.

Kitchen, P. (2006). Exploring the Link between Crime and Socio-Economic Status in Ottawa and Saskatoon: a small-area geographical analysis. Department of Justice Canada: Research and Statistics Division.

Mullaly, B. (2007). The Neo-Conservative Paradigm. In The New Structural Social Work (3rd ed., pp. 70-90). Toronto: Oxford University Press.