Environment and crime

The term environment is roughly associated with the immediate surrounding such(prenominal) as the aquatic environment which is the surrounding area or orbit proximal to aquatic flora and fauna. Oftentimes, the concept of an environment is the agglomeration of both nutriment and nonliving entities with respect to a certain subject surrounded by the immediate surroundings.For instance, a students environment can be that of a breeding institution such as a university whereby the academic environment is composed of separate students, teachers, books and libraries, classrooms and many others.It can be observed that ones environment is a take up correspond to ones activities. If this is indeed the case, it would seem quite plausible to assume that, in terms of an individual(a)s criminal activity, the neighborhood environment is a get goinging correlate of annoyance.Granted that this is true, why is it that a large majority of those who live in heretofore the nigh crime ridden an d deprive areas refrain from committing crime? To answer this question, a few things moldiness be taken into consideration.First, logic tells us that an individual wanting to commit the crime of addictbery for the purpose of stealing the most valuables will most likely rob, say, a wealthy businessman or else than a beggar. In a larger scale, it is logical to presume that a criminal residing in an impoverished and crime ridden locality will least(prenominal) likely rob the residents of the area primarily because there is dinky bribe for a highly punishable act.That is, a criminal 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 there is none. In order to grant a cause reason to further believe that a large majority of plur ality living in the most criminalized areas refrain from committing crime, another factor must be considered.This leads us to the second logical presumptionthe tendency to set apart certain activities to certain individuals.Criminal activities are easily identified with criminals in the sense that when an armed robbery occurred in a certain city bank, the immediate suspect 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 difference suspects apparently after each criminal activity is identified to have transpired somewhere else. Hence, there 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 duple either they will live up to their label since they are already branded or they will seek to refrain from committing crime.The first option is indeed probable, tho one factor hinders it from turning into reality their incapacity to overpower the fair play 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 natural law enforcers through, say, stealing from a well-guarded urban mall.With sanctions imposable on criminals, risking ones impoverished life for a momentary sustenance which has a miniscule chance from succeeding is manifestly 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 measly worth.ReferenceSamaha, J. (2007). C riminal Law (9th ed.). Belmont Wadsworth Publishing Company.