How relevant is stratification in understanding crime from a sociological perspective?

Its a tutorial question in advanced statistics and research methods in criminology.

How relevant is stratification in understanding crime from a sociological perspective?
If you mean to imply that based on your social class you more or less likely to commit crimes, then I have some things I wish to throw out there for debate and consideration. First of all, people of different status may commit different "kinds" of crimes, but people of all status commit crimes. An aristocrate may not rob a 7-11 but may embezzle from his own company or cheat on his taxes, still basically stealing money. He may not gun down a rival in a drive by shooting, but he might hire a hit man on a business rival or a cheating wife. Also we might think about whether the environment we are raised in is an influence and to what extent. If this was the only influence then only lower class people raised in bad environments would commit crimes. This we know is not true. In fact a good number of these people turn out to be very productive members of society. I also would like to consider genetics in the relevancy mix. Look at the examples for instance where siblings (especially twins where there is no social difference in the family) turn out completely different. I think a good look at the prison population is in order. What is the one commonality amongst male prisoners? Abscence of a father. That is an avenue to be explored and seems like not too many (except for the extreme right) care to go there. If this theory holds water then why not do something to bring the issue to the surface and try to educate people on the value of a two parent intact family who overcomes their selfish immaturaty to bring up productive, well adjusted members of society? The relevancy of stratification in understanding crime might need a little study in and of itself and why the question was posed that way to begin with is very telling. I mean to say that asking that way is suggestive. I may not have offered an answer here but I didn't intend to. I merely hoped to offer some food for thought.
Reply:First of all, u shld define stratification in your ans and perhaps define crime as well.





crime normally is committed by unsatisfied pple who has a thing against the world. they feel society has short changed them or let them down. Hence, the desire to unleash their anger against the vast innocents. With stratification, we have class structures. individual opportunities are shaped by a society class structure, with sharply unequal resources and life chances. Many poeple in the lower class structure are marginalized by the elites, in the pursue of their own goals at the expenses of others. hence it may lead to the resentment caused by the marginalized and thus deviate from the norm and crime may be committed as a result.





Crime is a form of social deviance. Perhaps u shld study Merton's theory of structural strain, the conflict between culturally induced desires and the structure of opportunity. can try to do a little case study to illustrate.
Reply:Tony Blair said there's no point increasing the tax on the rich because they will find ways of getting around it. Kind of says it all really.
Reply:extremely -: the majority of crimes are committed by young male members of the lower economic groupings against members of the same economic groupings. These findings are valid in both multicultural societies and monoculture's. I typed your exact question into Yahoo search and got 2500 hits, try it.
Reply:You should define stratification as it relates to this question.





Stratification is very important to understanding crime from a statistical point of view. The relevance is dependent on the type of crime, but it is always important.
Reply:I think it is very relevent.

hotels