This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
Around the world the terms "youth ", "adolescent", "teenager", and "young person" are interchanged, often meaning the same thing, occasionally differentiated. Youth generally refers to a time of life that is neither childhood nor adulthood, but rather somewhere in-between (Webster's, 2004).Youth is an alternative word to the scientifically-oriented adolescent and the common terms of teen and teenager. Another common title for youth is young person or young people (Konopka G., 1973).This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind, a temper of the will, a quality of imagination, a predominance of courage over timidity, of the appetite for adventure over the life of ease (Robert Kennedy, 2007).
Crime is an offence against the values system of a society. The cost and effects of crime vary among the various segments of the population and touch almost everyone by some degree and in general as the economic growth and development of countries increase, it would be expected that crime level reduces. This may not necessarily be. The socio-economic effects of crime have been well articulated in the literature (Odumosu, 1999).
Crime is highly concentrated in certain geographic areas and among certain types of people, and rises and falls over time in waves. In 1995, for instance, the FBI crime index per hundred thousand persons varied among metropolitan areas from 12,319 for Miami, Florida to 2196 for Wheeling, West Virginia. Similarly, within cities, crime is concentrated in a limited number of areas or precincts. It is difficult to account for the concentration of crime across areas or over time in terms of standard demographic variables or measures of incentives. These variables do not differ enough across areas to explain more than 30% or so of the geographic variation in crime (Glaeser et al. 1995).
The radically changes the way of thinking about criminal behaviour.The first model of criminal choice, stressing that "some individuals become criminals because of the financial and other rewards from crime compared to legal work, taking account of the likelihood of apprehension and conviction, and the severity of punishment". Criminal choice is not determined by mental illness or bad attitudes, but it is made on the basis of a maximization problem in which agents compare the costs and the benefits of legal and illegal activities taking into account the probability of being arrested and punished and the expected returns from crime (Ehrlich, 1973).
Identifying the factors underlying engagement in criminal activity has preoccupied philosophers, psychologists and other groups of scholars for a very long time. The issues raised in that debate have by no means been completely resolved, but it is encouraging to note that significant theoretical and empirical advances in our understanding of youth crime have been made over the past 20 or so years by psychologists and criminologists (Andrews and Bonta 1998).
Education has strong impact on crime ratio in every society .To study the relationship between education and criminal activity from a different point of view, many researches were made in past. Education also has a "civilization" effect, on criminal activity. Education conveys a civic externality, a benefit to society over and above the benefit to the student in enhancing his future earning power. Students are taught not only to be productive, but to be law abiding and loyal to their country. The civic externality is incorporated into an "anarchy" model where people choose to be farmers or bandits, and schooling inculcates distaste for a life of crime. Estimates of the return to education are biased down when the civic externality is overlooked. In particular "education promotes good citizenship. Education does more than teach skills to enhance one's capacity to earn income. It perpetuates the values of society, acculturates people to serve their communities, and promotes the virtues of hard work and honesty". And also suggest low education is one of the determinants of criminal activity (David Usher, 1997).
The continued crime high rate in the U.S despite massive imprisonment of criminals, may be one of the costs of the rising inequality in the country, and in particularly of the falling real earning of the less educated and perhaps the widely increase in earnings inequality and the fall in the real earnings of the less skilled men who commit most crimes gave young men a job market push into crime (Freeman, 1994).
Keeping in view all above aspects the present study has been designed to analyze the current situation related crimes and the involvement of the youth in criminal activities in Dera Ghazi Khan.
Bechdolt (1975) said that crime rates among Los Angeles census tracts for 1960. Data for the second analysis consisted of crime rate figures for the police districts of Chicago for the year, 1970. The socioeconomic variables studied included crowding, population density, employment density, unemployment, and income. The principal finding of both these analyses was that unemployment, not the level of income, was the most relevant determinant of differences in crime rates.
Graham (2000) estimated that the moral statisticians Guerry and Quetelet and continuing to the present, criminologists have repeatedly shown that serious crime rates vary across geographic units. The most prominent framework for explaining this variation was the macro social perspective, which asserted that the crime rate is a reflection of social organization. Research on the regional variability in crime primarily had focused on explaining Southern/non-Southern differences in homicide through two theoretical models: the Southern culture of violence and economic deprivation. Despite some inconsistency in this literature, there was considerable evidence that supports each view. Studies examining variation in crime across cities and metropolitan areas had mostly focused on two explanatory perspectives: social stratification and social control.
Peri (2004) examined the connection between unemployment and crime. He studied on this subject that this connection ranged from the condition of the labor market to crime: higher unemployment rates tend to determine a higher incidence of some crimes. One tends, however, to exclude the possibility that the existence of crime could reduce job opportunities in the local labor markets, creating unemployment.
Demombynes and Ã-zler (2005) concluded that there was great wealth inequality; the level of crime was expected to be higher, and vice versa. However, as opposed to what was claimed by sociological theories, this relationship did not necessarily mean that inequality causes crime. Controlling for the benefits and costs of crime, local inequality might not be correlated with the number of offenses.
Cahill (2005) estimated that the "ecological" approach to crime was focused on the environment in which crime occurs, rather than on individual offenders. Therefore, such approach was not concerned with individual motivations to commit crimes, but rather provided a macro-social explanation of deviant behavior .Crime, according to the environmental criminologists, could only be understood having a thorough knowledge of the social, economic and geographic context in which it occurs.
Steven and Melissa (2005) observed shifting patterns in crime across Wisconsin counties between 1990 and 2000. Building on the three core ecological theories of criminology including strain/anomie, social disorganization and economic rational choice theories. Author hypothesized that socioeconomic well-being can be used to identify predictable patterns of change in crime. The data generally supported the notion that higher levels of socioeconomic well-being at the beginning of the period were associated with lower levels of both violent and property crime at the end of the study period.
Alessandra and Verner (2006) reviewed the recent literature on crime and violence in Latin America and the Caribbean and presented a broad overview of the main ideas and empirical findings. They provided estimates of the magnitude of the problem, trends, and the manifestations of crime and violence in Latin America. They also discussed the ways in which violence affects development, the root causes of violence and the empirical evidence on the determinants of crime. The authors concluded by stressing that preventive measures and innovative social policies were efficient and under-utilized strategies to address the problem and called for both more research and operational experimentation.
Mousumi and Zakir (2009) narrated that the analysis of crime and punishment had initiated a series of theoretical and empirical works investigating the determinants of crime. However, there was a dearth of literature in the context of developing countries .Paper was an attempt to address this deficiency. The paper investigated the relative impact of deterrence variables (load on police force, arrest rates, charge sheet rates, conviction rates and quick disposal of cases) and socio-economic variables (economic growth, poverty, urbanization and education) on crime rates in India. State-level data was collected on the above variables for the period 1999 to 2005.Zellner's SURE model was used to estimate the model. Subsequently, this was extended by introducing endogenously. The results showed that both deterrence and socioeconomic factors were important in explaining crime rates.
Borlizzi (2009) said that the economic versus sociological theories explained the variation in property and violent crime rates separately. Second, they considered how the relative economic position of a community among neighboring areas might be associated with crime. Both economic and sociological theories suggested that higher inequality may be associated with crime. Economic theories implied that inequality may be positively correlated with crime through its effect on the differential returns from criminal activity versus legitimate pursuits. This suggests that there would be no relationship between crime and inequality, if the benefits and costs of crime participation were controlled. However, sociological theories of crime implied that inequality may have effects on crime through other channels such as lack of social capital, lack of upward mobility, or social disorganization.