While it is believed that criminal behaviors stem from the inherent nature of aggressive people, this essay agrees that social elements and economic factors can have their roots in crimes.
Admittedly, advocates of biological factors being to blame for antisocial acts often emphasize that people with inborn aggressive traits tend to lose capacities to control thoughts and actions and be highly vulnerable to anxiety and depression at the slightest provocation. Hence, the combination of loss and mental disorders can potentially trigger these people’s mindset of negative interpretation of events in their lives, with the result that they will presumably have no alternative but to turn to violent activities. Many cases of violence bred by aggressive people who were unable to control their thoughts because of incitement can be prime examples for the theory.
Conversely, I believe that socioeconomic factors are primary culprits behind rule-breaking actions. Doubtless, social issues such as unemployment and poverty generally render individuals highly susceptible to financial precariousness, which proportionally likely acts as an inherent barrier against their access to basic needs, namely housing, water. This hindrance would probably be an inaugural step for the development of a sense of injustice, compared to wealthy people who are provided with necessities and facilities, inauspiciously followed by a thought of resentment. Consequently, these people will likely commit offences as a socially responsive vehicle. By the same token, to support their daily livelihood, these people can potentially resort to criminality to earn finance.
In conclusion, while life of crime can be partially affected by individual characteristics, it seems advisable that social problems and economic factors are underlying causes of engaging in societally opposing behaviors. Therefore, providing support to vulnerable resident emerges as a wise and viable approach to not only deter crimes but also create equitable society.