Crime is being committed every second of each twenty-four hours around the universe. Citizens of certain communities view offense as unwanted and causes of unneeded stressors. although citizens from the lower category society position offense as a normal criterion for mundane life. Certain offenses across the United States can be straight associated with gender. ethnicity. For case. adult female shoplift more than a adult male. and work forces conduct more violent discourtesies such as slaying. armed robbery. and assault are associated with gender particular.
The Federal Bureau of Investigations implemented a state broad database known as the Uniform Crime Report. which compiles statistics of condemnable discourtesies from 18. 000 1000 bureaus that record and study offense informations to the Federal Bureau of Investigations. The Uniform Crime Report is an indispensable tool for comparison and contrasting the offenses across the state and assorted constituents of offense causing. This paper will cover the assorted offense rates of Los Angeles. California. and Phoenix. Arizona. while using the most recent statistics derived from the Uniform Crime Report.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports on legion offenses that have been committed in different countries. and while stressing violent offenses. Violent offenses include Acts of the Apostless as robbery. slaying. physical colza. aggravated assault. and non-negligent manslaughter. In Los Angeles. California. has about 3. 837. 207 people as of 2011. and Phoenix. Arizona. has a population of 1. 466. 097 in 2011. which indicates the population size is rather different. The obvious hypothesis is that Los Angeles posses two times the sum of population than that of Phoenix. The offense comparing informations clearly illustrates per one hundred thousand people shacking in Los Angeles. California. committed 20045 violent offenses than that reported offense in Phoenix. Arizona. which 8089 violent offenses in 2011.
In 2011. Los Angeles had reported 11956 more violent offenses than those compared to Phoenix. In 2011. harmonizing to the Federal Bureau of Investigations. the Los Angeles population commits 5. 22 % of violent offenses per 1. 000 occupants with a violent offense rate sum 20045 happenings. whereas Phoenix has an estimated population of 5. 52 % of 1. 000 occupants has commit violent offenses with the happening of 8089 ( Herald Review. 2013 ) . This signifies that Los Angeles has about double the sum of persons with a proportion of 2:1. which means that for every one person residing in Phoenix. Arizona. there are two people in Los Angeles. California. The offense information indicates that Los Angeles has 44 % less unsafe to populate oppose to Phoenix.
The offense informations for Phoenix indicates that occupants are 15. 8 % to acquire robbed. 2. 2 % more likely to acquire murdered. Despite the figure of citizens reported. the sum of offense committed has far greater ratio than that of Los Angeles ( Herald Review. 2013 ) . Harmonizing to the informations retrieved from the Uniform Crime Report Los Angeles ranked 95 out of 459 metropoliss throughout California for violent offenses. and Phoenix was ranked figure 16 out of 67 metropoliss for violent offenses. Los Angeles has 3. 07 % of violent offenses when compared to Phoenix. which has 4. 64 % violent offenses. Phoenix has 0. 55 % offense and 0. 63 % for Los Angeles. Los Angeles has the larger per centum because the population is larger.
Although the offense rates for Los Angeles. and Phoenix did alteration between the old ages of 2011 and 2012. there was a immense alteration in offense rates. Even though the rates of violent offenses have decreased by 1498 in Los Angeles. California. some offense rates have increased by 1345 in Phoenix. Arizona. although other offenses decreased.
A figure of factors take topographic point sing incidents of offenses and why they may hold been committed that may explicate the difference between the two. Harmonizing to Schmalleger. difficult determinism would be an acceptable apprehension of offense causing ( Schmalleger. 2013. p. 62 ) . To understand the factors of offense causing theories. theories of offense must be examined because there is more than one factor nowadays when an single commits a offense. These theories include larning theory. labeling theory. societal disorganisation. trait theory. societal struggle. pick theory. and life class theory.
The societal procedure theories. which include the labeling theory and larning theory. take into idea that condemnable behaviours in people are foreseeable based on the interaction with her or his environment. The acquisition theory is based on the chief thought that one must be taught both the emotional and practical accomplishments that an person will necessitate to perpetrate a offense. These accomplishments are characteristically “taught” by a friend or household member who shows condemnable behaviours them self. The labeling theory is founded on the thought that society creates felons and offense by puting labels on people who show deviancy. These labels may ensue in excluded from society and finally could ensue in an person to follow the features of that label ( Gaines & A ; Miller. 2006 ) .
The societal disorganisation theory is founded on the thought that condemnable behaviour is more likely to happen in countries where societal organisations such as schools. household. and the justness system fail to use control over the community. This means that if the Torahs. guidelines. and regulations of the community or society are non being enforced. condemnable activity is more likely to be higher in those communities than those who do implement the Torahs ( Gaines & A ; Miller. 2006 ) .
The trait theory is founded on the belief that psychological and biochemical conditions play a major function in one perpetrating a condemnable act. If one has a psychological upset or a hormonal instability. there may be an increased opportunity that the person is vulnerable to giving into condemnable impulses. The pick theory is based on the belief that before one commits a condemnable act. that single weighs the possible benefits versus the costs of perpetrating a offense. If that individual believes they have a greater opportunity of profiting from that offense. she or he is most likely traveling to continue with that offense ( Gaines & A ; Miller. 2006 ) .
Harmonizing to Gaines and Miller. the life class theory is based on the idea that behavior jobs such as stealing. lying. and strong-arming seen in childhood are strong indexs of person demoing future condemnable behaviour. The societal struggle theory provinces that condemnable behaviour is founded on the struggle with a governing societal category labeling specific behaviours as illegal because of a societal or an economic involvement in protecting that community’s position quo.
This is based on the belief that alternatively of Torahs demoing the values of an full society. the Torahs merely exhibit the values of the few in society that hold power. and has no resistances in utilizing the justness system as a agency of guaranting that power is kept. If behaviours. such as these are non corrected subsequently in one’s life with betterments such as occupations and positive relationships. unlawful Acts of the Apostless of behaviour will go on to be. perchance taking to future condemnable activity ( 2006 ) .
The life class theory could explicate the differences of condemnable activity between Los Angeles and Phoenix every bit good as the societal procedure theory. The societal procedure theory governs the labeling theory. and larning theory. The development of condemnable behaviour can be tribute to the environmental conditions. In many instances look intoing offense indicate that each offense is different. besides the factors lending to a certain offense can differ. The commonalty between the two offense riddled metropolitan countries are the environmental conditions that enhance condemnable behaviour. In the terminal offense causing can be linked to several theories but unless mentally unstable should be able to state right from incorrect.
Gaines. L. K. & A ; Miller. R. L. ( 2006 ) . Condemnable Justice in Action: The Core. Retrieved from:
hypertext transfer protocol: //search. proquest. com/docview/199569524? accountid=458
Schmalleger. F. ( 2012 ) . Criminology today: An integrative debut. ( 6th ed. ) . Upper Saddle River. New jersey: Prentice Hall. p. 62. The Federal Bureau of Investigation. ( 2013 ) . A Word about UCR Data. Retrieved from:
hypertext transfer protocol: //www. Federal Bureau of Investigation. gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/word