This House Believe That Social Deprivation causes Crimes

(OPP)
And before anything else, a very good morning to the respected Mr/Madam Speaker,
distinguished panel of judges, accurate timekeepers, worthy opponents, and last
but not least, members of the floor. Today, I as the second speaker of the opposition
will be providing strong and accurate rebuttals to counter the governments second
speakers arguments. After that, I will move on to introduce and provide two new
points of my own. Again we the opposition firmly against the motion today being
THBT social deprivation causes crimes.
The second speaker of the government has tried to tell you that
(Rebuttals)
He/ she has also tried to tell you
(rebuttals)
My first speaker has told you that (state your first speakers points and
elaborate slightly)
Now my first point for opposing todays motion is the increasing relative deprivation
decreasing crime
Before that, allow me to define Relative deprivation. It is the lack of resources to
sustain the diet, lifestyle, activities and amenities that an individual or group are
accustomed to or that are widely encouraged or approved in the society to which
they belong. Measuring relative deprivation allows an objective comparison
between the situation of the individual or group compared to the rest of society. So
ladies and gentlemen we can say that social deprivation and relative deprivation is
related.
According to a document by Paul OMahony Ph.D about Social Deprivation and
Crime, shows a critique of the UCD Faculty of Law Criminal Justice Committees
views on Social Deprivation and Crime. The Criminal Justice Committee has made
the observation that crime has recently decreased in a period of 'alleged' increased
social inequity and alienation. On the one hand, they, perhaps justifiably, demand
evidence that crime has increased with increasing relative deprivation.
At any rate, their argument seriously understates the rapidity and complexity of
recent social and economic change and the convoluted associations of these
changes with the prevalence of crime. The fall in the unemployment rate,
including the long-term unemployment rate, the fall in levels of absolute poverty
and the plethora of projects to increase social inclusion in employment, housing
and education can hardly be counted as signs of increased social inequality and

alienation. Moreover, there have been significant changes within the criminal
justice system that, it is reasonable to conclude, may have impacted directly on
crime rates, independently of changes in structures relevant to social inequality.
For example, since 1996 in Ireland, there has been a galvanised response by the
Ireland police to drug crime and organised crime.

According to most theorists, it is the psychological experience of relative

disadvantage that is most crucial to the promotion of offending. It is the sense
that one is devalued and stigmatised in comparison with most other citizens and
the realization that one has no legitimate access to goods, such as motor cars,
which have become normative in society. It is these kind of psychological
reactions and attitudes to the experience of relative deprivation that can
motivate and promote crime given the presence of other factors favouring
criminality. What constitutes poverty and exclusion has been totally redefined as
society becomes more affluent and as social welfare provision improves.
Arguably, despite growing affluence, there has been a substantial increase in
the amount of relative deprivation experienced in society since the 1950s, when
a large majority shared an almost universally austere material lifestyle.
However, as I have already discussed, relative material deprivation is only one
aspect of social deprivation and is, moreover, unlikely to have a straightforward
linear relationship with crime.
Ladies and gentlemen, we the opposition would like to stress that we stand strong
and tall against todays motion being THBT Social Deprivation causes crime. Now I
am going to move on to my second point which is, The statistics about poverty and
crime show correlation, not causation.
Direct measures of poverty that look at deprivation and living standards have a very
long history, particularly in Britain. From Charles Booth and before, through to
Seebholm Rowntree and Peter Townsend in the twentieth century, the living
conditions of the poor have been investigated to establish those who live in poverty.
Measures of deprivation are not the same as measures of income they relate to
how people live. Deprivation is the consequence of a lack of income and other
resources, which cumulatively can be seen as living in poverty. The relative
deprivation approach to poverty examines the indicators of deprivation, which are
then related back to income levels and resources.
Povertys effects on crime can be explained through a variety of reasons. However,
many other factors influence crime and are correlated with poverty as well. Higher
unemployment would certainly increase poverty and at the same time lead to more
crime due to depression associated with being unemployed. Personal income per
capita, which is inversely correlated with the poverty level, still may increase crime
since greater wealth means greater benefits to thieves and robbers. Furthermore,

because of social class gaps, personal income per capita rates may not affect
poverty to a great extent (the income may be concentrated in a small percentage of
the population). It might even accentuate the difference between the upper and
lower classes, thereby inducing more crime.
While it is true that crime is correlated with people coming from poorer socioeconomic backgrounds this does not in itself prove that poverty itself is the cause of
crime. A lack of education or bad parenting might be equally, if not more convincing
explanations for both phenomena. The causation may even be reversed, with those
who indulge in violent behaviour and who seek illegal short-cuts to success rather
than being prepared to hold down a steady job being more likely to end up poor. So
poverty is not a cause of crime in itself, but might merely be associated with other
factors which cause it. In order to tackle crime, therefore, we dont need to
eradicate poverty, but improve peoples internalization of social norms through law
enforcement and education.
So Mr/Madam Speaker , (summarise your points and end with a quote) . The
arguments and evidence put forward by my first speaker and myself strongly state
that we the opposition stand strong against todays motion.
With that I beg to oppose. Thank you.