Poverty does not always cause crimes in U.S.

By Gary Gentry

JAKARTA (JP): Gwynne Dyer's "American Gulag reflects white fear of black crime", in The Jakarta Post "View Point" of April 6, attempts to show that poverty is the main cause of crime. His article refers to several disturbing statistics as proof, noting that the percentage of prisoners who are poor and African- American far exceeds the proportion of the total population that is poor and African-American.

The article notes the disturbing fact that the American prison population has risen dramatically since the 1960s. Dyer then draws the conclusion that African-Americans are being sent to jail for no reason other than their color or their poverty. Stating that it is "hard to believe that American racism in worse now that in the past," he asks why the jail population has grown so rapidly in the past few years. He answers his own question. "One word: poverty".

The author demonstrates a fundamental -- but unfortunately common -- mistake in elementary logic by claiming that poverty causes crime since the two are statistically correlated. It is quite possible that the reason the two are statistically related is not that one causes the other, but that they both have a common cause.

If poverty didn't cause the relatively sudden increase in criminal behavior or the number of criminals in jail, what did? Several writers (including a number of African-Americans) have pointed to other great social changes which coincide with the start of the huge increase in American jail population, none of them were mentioned in Dyer's article.

In the 1960s, discipline in American public schools began to disappear. Indeed, disrespect for authority in general was endemic.

"Violence only reinforces violence," we were told by educators who failed to read or heed The Lord of the Flies, (William Golding's horrifying book about boys who descend into barbarity when they are left stranded on an isolated island). Teachers often faced law suits for paddling even the most recalcitrant, disruptive and disrespectful students.

The result was predictable: Schools lost control of problem students and violence became the norm, so that students and teachers in inner city schools are today often more concerned with physical safety than with academic progress. A student who spends more time hanging out on the street than studying will not get the education needed for a job. Not having a job leads directly to poverty.

Dyer's article noted that the increase in the number of U.S. prisoners in 1994 was greater than the entire prison populations of Canada and Great Britain. It must be pointed out that in Britain, discipline remains strong and teachers retain the corporal punishment option.

Coinciding with the collapse of discipline in American public schools was the collapse of the family in poor neighborhoods, especially among African-Americans. No longer did a rowdy young man have a tough father around to guide him through the naturally rebellious years. Instead, the toughs on the street were this boy's role models; drug runners and gang members brought him into manhood.

Another well reported social phenomenon which began in the 1960s was a near complete abdication of responsibility by Americans for their own actions. Everyone is now a victim of poverty, of society's indifference, of discrimination, of anything but their own carelessness, laziness or stupidity.

In the Menendez case in California, two brothers in their twenties brutally murdered their wealthy parents with shot guns. They claimed they did it because they were victims of abuse by their parents. Finally convicted, these two contradict Dyer by showing rich people also go to jail.

This is not to say that poverty and discrimination don't exist. They clearly do, and should be roundly condemned and corrected. But carelessness, laziness, stupidity and plain old evil also exist. They also contribute to poverty and crime and need to be acknowledged.

What is the solution to this complex social problem? There probably are many solutions, but restoring discipline has to be the priority among them.

That is a daunting task in America. School administrators risk being shot because the National Rifle Association mindlessly and ferociously fights any sensible restriction on the right of a criminal to arm himself with an arsenal of handguns.

Trial lawyers with dollar signs in their eyes stand ready to bring suit against any school administrator who dares discipline a potentially armed student.

There are doubtless many solutions, but allowing crime to go unpunished, even if it disproportionately affects the poor, is unacceptable.

The common factor of every single prisoner in the U.S. is that the person committed a crime. People go to jail because they commit crimes, not because they are poor and not because their skin is a particular color.

It is certainly true in America that the more money you can pay for a lawyer, the better your chances of avoiding jail. The O.J. Simpson trial certainly proved that -- if proof was required. It is also true that a smaller proportion of African- Americans can afford a slick lawyer. Those facts are contemptible, but do not remove the fact that all prisoners have committed a crime.

I don't deny that poverty correlates with criminal behavior, but statistical correlation with crime is not the same as causing crime. Note that the vast majority of poor people do not commit crimes, and do not got to jail... a fact never mentioned by apologists for criminals.

The writer is an engineering consultant based in Jakarta.