Environment and crime

The marge environment is roughly associated with the immediate surrounding much(prenominal) as the aquatic environment which is the surrounding area or region proximal to aquatic flora and fauna. Oftentimes, the concept of an environment is the agglomeration of both living and nonliving entities with regard as to a authentic subject surrounded by the immediate surroundings.For instance, a students environment smoke be that of a learning institution such as a university whereby the academic environment is composed of other students, teachers, books and libraries, classrooms and many others.It can be observed that ones environment is a direct correlate to ones activities. If this is then the case, it would seem quite plausible to assume that, in terms of an individuals shepherds crook activity, the neighborhood environment is a leading correlate of law-breaking.Granted that this is true, why is it that a large majority of those who live in even the more or less crime ridden an d devoid areas refrain from chargeting crime? To answer this question, a few things must be taken into consideration.First, logic tells us that an individual wanting to commit the crime of snarfbery for the purpose of stealing the most valuables exit most likely rob, say, a wealthy businessman rather than a beggar. In a larger scale, it is logical to presume that a savage residing in an wiped out(p) and crime ridden locality will least likely rob the residents of the area primarily because thither is little reward for a extremely punishable act.That is, a flagitious will be attracted to steal from individuals with a higher or with the most resources. Hence, one cannot easily identify criminal activity by individuals in the most impoverished and crime ridden areas.Yet the non-identification of criminal activity in an environment does not lead to the presumption that in that location is none. In order to grow a compelling priming to come along believe that a large majori ty of people living in the most criminalized areas refrain from committing crime, another gene must be considered.This leads us to the second logical presumptionthe tendency to attribute certain activities to certain individuals.Criminal activities are easily identified with criminals in the sense that when an build up robbery occurred in a certain city bank, the immediate shadowed will be the criminals who are known to rob banks or who have previous records of armed bank robbery.In this sense, the most crime ridden locality will be included in the list of the hideouts of potential suspects apparently later each criminal activity is identified to have transpired somewhere else. Hence, at that place becomes the tendency to attribute certain activities to certain individuals.With this in mind, individuals living in the most crime ridden are prone to be prime candidates for suspects in criminal activities. Their response may be twofold either they will live up to their label since they are already branded or they will hear to refrain from committing crime.The first option is indeed probable, yet one factor hinders it from turning into reality their incapacity to overpower the law due to their impoverished state. Given the fact that these individuals live in a state where there are scarce resources to sustain themselves, there is little reason to believe that these impoverished individuals have the capability to overpower law enforcers through, say, stealing from a well-guarded urban mall.With sanctions imposable on criminals, risking ones impoverished life for a momentary fare which has a miniscule chance from succeeding is simply not an option. Hence, a large majority of individuals living in the most crime ridden and impoverished areas refrain from committing crime especially from within their financially challenged locality for the reason that the gains are doubly scarce and that the risks have negligible worth.ReferenceSamaha, J. (2007). Criminal cons tabulary (9th ed.). Belmont Wadsworth Publishing Company.