The purpose of the study is to examine homicides in American neighborhoods and how social disorganization theory determines it. Qualitative research has shown that murders that motivate groups or other types of crimes can have different characteristics. There is little knowledge of the interaction between the violence of the group and the areas in which they work, especially at a neighborhood level, in the absence of a full total benefit of gang masses. Studying the consequences of material breaches such as killing talents, and other species. Murder, such as murder and murder during a street robbery, shows the relative unity of gang murders in this work. The results show that social demolition theory helps explain the different types of marriages, including kill gangs. However, there is also a difference in the killings of bugs from other kinds of murders that justify the further investigation of these murders as forms of personal violence (Mares, 2009).
Many investigators’ crime and interconnection of poverty-focused with each other. Individuals have committed more crimes against the poor, but, at least, that it is the street crime. This is about crime, however, for free crimes against too much property and violence. Even in rural areas, there are fewer crimes, such violent actions. Prices are involved and often apply to the socio-economic situation. Poor, more motivated to steal their vehicles to satisfy, candidates must only steal violence, armed robbery. Social disorganization theory suggests that one of the three factors of poverty, a high level of crime. This is true for theft and related crimes. Made in the neighborhood and high turnover rates and violent crime with a high level of poverty such as above, poverty and violence are exposed to being able to accept violence and others that show that half of all misconduct interpersonal conflicts arise. Definite crime shows that criminals have no control over offenders (Regoeczi & Jarvis, 2011).
Criminals apply to criminals, but there is some inconsistency in the connection of economic variables in each crime. This may be due to the difficulty of some variables, divorce, unemployment, broken houses, neighborhood decomposition, such as research or other variables. Individuals in needy families and the community have many sociologists, placing appliances, drugs, and exhibitions, they are likely to find illegal profits. He found that there were more property crimes in wealthy communities because they had more stolen. In the same way, poor there were no property crimes, as there was no inequality. Everyone was so bad. About unemployment, there is no convincing evidence that anyone who is more sublet to suicide has been unemployed. At the primary level, unemployment growth has increased crime levels. There are problems in low-income communities, often unemployment, poverty, divorce, broken homes, poor schools, poor housing quality, racial and ethnic instability, with a wide range of crimes, such as housing and mobility. Socio-economic status and classes have no direct consequences in society. Undoubtedly, low living conditions create conditions that pose a risk for residents exposed to criminal behavior. Wealth, status and essential assets determine the success of a person; Poor people can use illegal as the only way to get these properties. Legal means do not allow them to obtain master or education. There is a link between socio-economic and rational choices (Mark, 2015).
A person looks at where there are economically and have received a particular type of economic benefit from a legal or illegal basis. There may be underlying social explanations, such as poverty, but even if someone feels stealing and calculates potential risks and benefits. A rich man makes a reasonable choice to take, but is not motivated, because the standard of living is adequate. Critics are also in the sensible option. The option is reasonably legal but weak. Many variables and factors explain the person’s decision to commit a crime. Other social factors must be taken into account if you want to understand their behaviors, to see another person’s great picture and to understand their motives for their activities, even if someone is a reasonable choice, the crime of crime. Despite the rational decision, the underlying conditions of the poor will encourage many people to steal. If a person dies of hunger, it is difficult to eat the impulse.
Crimes learned by young people who work within the social disorganization theory that they can win something through violence (Charis, Kubrin & Weitzer, 2003). For this reason, the desire to steal property is even motivated by violent crimes. The same young people say that they are afraid they will not always succeed in their lives in traditional ways. Some of them defile the system of poor education in these communities; None of the students here can do nothing other than fast food restaurants. Consistent, social support and social structures, which always end socially, in these areas.
Research in the field of rural crime, also associated with socioeconomic conditions with criminal behavior, shows that there are definite correlations between crime levels and socio-economic factors such as per capita income, inequality, and unemployment. There is a negative correlation between the crime and the percentage of population below the poverty line. When legal employment opportunities are denied, more crimes are committed. It is said that rural areas should create economic opportunities, such as the construction industry, different from existing agricultural activities. Go indirectly to the relationship between the economic situation and the crime. There is a link between prosperity and crime. These rooms are more likely for single families or broken houses. These families and areas may not have social or social structure links to reduce crime. Conclusions are not directly linked to crime-related poverty, but they associate the series of poverty and social disorders that are common in poor neighborhoods, to higher levels of crime. Social control is the term of scale for social disturbance and is determined by imprisonment for clean neighborhoods, groups of anti-crime agencies to help individuals, domestic and foreign matters and other criminal penalties for criminals. The windows theory breaks down with a social disorder to the detriment of the neighborhood (Baller et al. 2001).
An increase in crime. If the offenders are not prosecuted or things that are not subject to unwanted abuse, the public points that are understood in society and can offer worse crime. In this article, various theories were used to link socio-economic crime. However, the social disorder theory explains, and community associates with low income with a crime rate are higher than the average and high income. Many are many, but they have high moral standards, and they prefer to follow the charts and charts. Undoubtedly there will be a continued increase in homicide rate because of the social and environmental factors identified in the social disorganization theory.
Baller, R.D., Anselin, L., Messner, S.F., Deane, G., & Hawkins, D.F. (2001). Structural covariates of US county homicide rates: Incorporating spatial effects. Criminology, 39, 561-590.
Block, C. R., & Block, R. L. (2005). Homicides in Chicago, 1965-1995 [computer file]. ICPSR06399-v5. Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority [producer], 1998. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.
Bond Mark, (2015). Criminology: Social Disorganization Theory Explained. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/criminology-social-disorganization-theory-explained-mark-bond
Dennis Mares, (2009). Social Disorganization and Gang Homicides in Chicago. A Neighborhood Level Comparison of Disaggregated Homicides.
Charis E. Kubrin, Ronald Weitzer, (2003). New Directions in Social Disorganization Theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency.
Wendy C. Regoeczi & John P. Jarvis (2011). Beyond the Social Production of Homicide Rates: Extending Social Disorganization Theory to Explain Homicide Case Outcomes, Justice Quarterly, 30:6, 983-1014, DOI: 10.1080/07418825.2011.639793