Your point about correlation not being causation is valid, but it applies to your own comments, too. There is a statistical correlation between poverty and crime, but that doesn't show that poverty causes crime. Several other models are possible:
* People who have been convicted of a crime have a record that makes it much more difficult for them to get decent jobs, and therefore are more likely to be poor.
* People who have high time preference (that is, are motivated by immediate rewards much more strongly than by long-term rewards) are both more likely to be poor and more likely to commit crimes.
* People who commit crimes, but are rich, can afford high-priced lawyers; poor criminals get public defenders working in a system that rewards plea bargains. Poor people are therefore more likely to be counted as criminals in proportion to the rate at which they commit crimes.
Each of these supports a different social and political narrative. Do you have independent evidence that your interpretation and your narrative identify the causal paths correctly?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
zvi and
no subject
Date: 2010-05-14 01:55 pm (UTC)* People who have been convicted of a crime have a record that makes it much more difficult for them to get decent jobs, and therefore are more likely to be poor.
* People who have high time preference (that is, are motivated by immediate rewards much more strongly than by long-term rewards) are both more likely to be poor and more likely to commit crimes.
* People who commit crimes, but are rich, can afford high-priced lawyers; poor criminals get public defenders working in a system that rewards plea bargains. Poor people are therefore more likely to be counted as criminals in proportion to the rate at which they commit crimes.
Each of these supports a different social and political narrative. Do you have independent evidence that your interpretation and your narrative identify the causal paths correctly?