I've been in "inner cities" of Manila, Bangkok, Rangoon, Guatemala City, Hong Kong, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Saigon, and Madras. These places contained some of the most downtrodden people I've ever seen on Earth. Granted some of these cities are in "police states", but some are in democracies with fair (albeit harsh, to Western standards) judicial systems. And muggings do happen on occasion. But I've felt safer in all these places compared to the inner cities of Baltimore, Washington, New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, St. Louis, New Orleans and yes, even Minneapolis (one of the safer major US cities). I've been mugged once in my life, and that was in Baltimore, where I lived the same amount of time as I did in Guatemala.
But we probably even blow the crime picture in the US way out of proportion--statistically the chances of one being a victim of violent crime anywhere in the US are very very low (I can dig these up if need be). But they're even lower in most of these places I've been in the third world.
But why is there more crime in poor inner cities than elsewhere? One should also ask why there ISN'T a lot of crime in poor rural areas, or even poor small "welfare towns" like Kane, Pennsylvania where I lived for a few years? Poverty may be a small part of the demographic factoring, but there are other parts as well:
a) Gang mentality. Traditionally cities have been more "fend for yourself" places, where, since there are SO MANY people, many semi-transient and therefore not there long enough to establish a good level of trust, the idea of "looking after your neighbor" breaks down. Couple this sometimes harsh anonymity with a past history of harsh racism against certain people (notably the blacks, but also to lesser extent Italians, Irish, Mexicans, Asians, etc.), and these certain people will be lured more easily to the idea of a "gang" to offer mutual protection. Gangs offered this, but they were based on holding power in a given area or community. And in the past not availed easily legal (political) channels to hold this power, they resorted to holding it by illegal means.
These days, the "need" (notice I put this in quotes) for gangs in the US is hardly what the perceived need was when they started. Racism still exists but is relatively rare, and colleges HAVE opened their doors wide to minorities--as have the jobs that follow. And student loans are available to everyone, and financial aid is available to all but the richest prospective students. Not to mention the GI Bill if you choose to join the military. There IS a way out for those who would take it--legislation has done more than enough (some would say, unfairly too much in cases such as "affirmative action", and I agree in principle) to remedy the past situation. The problem is that old ways die hard, and some choose to live by the old patterns. Maybe it's inertia, maybe it's pressure from peers, maybe it's the feel of power from gang life, maybe it's fear of being rejected by old friends if you reject the gang and rise above it. Maybe you're in and you can't get out because they'll come after you. All but the last reason can be overcome though. It's a choice. And right now the choice to be in gangs and do violence is way easier than it should be.
2) Addiction. Especially addiction to drugs VERY high in price because of prohibitions. Generally speaking an addict addicted to such high-priced drugs WILL find himself either in poverty (due to his habit taking over his finances, possible loss of job due to being high on the job or drug tests, etc.), or never getting out of poverty if that's where he started. I propose two things for this: legalization (to bring down the price of these drugs so that people don't feel they have to resort to crime to finance them), and free rehab clinics (paid for by a tax on these drugs). As for mothers neglecting their children for the crack pipe, child neglect is a CRIME--we need to find ways of enforcing this better or more consistantly.
3) Inconsistent police protection. Someone I know reported a burglary IN PROGRESS at his neighbor's house in a "bad" neighborhood in St. Paul, and it took the cops 45 minutes to show up--by which time the burglar was gone. I've heard stories of ridiculously long "10-12" (code for "heading to the scene") times for even cases involving violence before too, all in inner city areas. Go to a wealthy suburb, or even a wealthy area in the city limits, and the service will be prompt.
These three demographic factors probably contribute far more to crime than poverty in and of itself. I agree poverty is something we should fight (I don't tend to agree with the oft-proposed methods though) for many reasons--primarily because it IS a bad thing.
But crime itself can be solved primarily by giving more accountability to the individual for his actions. The consequences aren't good now, but obviously they are not bad enough to deter some determined individuals. In some countries, they are. Of course, we have a phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" describing what punishments we should avoid. But that term is subjective. I would ask the philosophical question: is "an eye for an eye" cruel and unusual? I don't really think it is. If people actually had to suffer the way they made their victims suffer, and this were guaranteed, I can almost guarantee violent crime would not exist (except maybe among the suicidal, or masochistic
), and we'd be at peace in the world. But this is an ideal, and will never happen.
But the next best thing is to make our prisons places EVERYONE wants to avoid at all costs. And of course couple that with more legal emphasis on violent crime versus people putting unauthorized substances in their noses or whatever. The prison-building lobby of course won't like the approach, in that there will probably be prisons shut down for lack of a huge prison population (through both the deterrence of violence and the decriminalization of victimless crimes such as drug use), but that's too bad--mine and my brethren's peace and safety is more important than their concerns.
If we seriously want to curb violence in our society, then we need to send a message that it will not be tolerated anymore, period.
(I see that this has deviated quite a bit from the topic of the thread, but it ties into it. If people own a gun but do no wrong with it, then they should not be punished. People that DO do wrong with it, should. And more severely and consistently, I might add.)
