There is what is called Broken Windows theory. The argument is that crime is the inevitable result of disorder. If a window is broken and left unrepaired, people walking by will conclude that no one cares and no one is in charge. Soon, more windows will be broken, and the sense of anarchy will spread from the building to the street on which it faces, sending a signal that anything goes. Broken windows are invitations to more serious crimes.
Muggers and robbers, whether opportunistic or professional, believe they reduce their chances of being caught or even identified if they operate on streets where potential victims are already intimidated by prevailing conditions. If the neighborhood cannot keep a bothersome panhandler from annoying passersby, the thief may reason, it is even less likely to call the police to identify a potential mugger or to interfere if the mugging actually takes place.
This is an epidemic theory of crime. It says that crime is contagious---just as a fashion trend is contagious---that it can start with a broken window and spread to an entire community. The impetus to engage in a certain kind of behavior is not coming from a certain kind or person but from a feature of the environment.
In New York City removing graffiti from the subway system resulted in a lowering of the crime rate.
You might wonder what this has to do with two college students using a pellet gun to commit a robbery. Circumstances and situations may make committing a crime more inviting, make it seem more logical. Circumstances or the environment may encourage a person inclined to criminal behavior to act or to pause. Circumstances or the environment do not turn a criminal into a law abiding citizen but they might cause an otherwise law abiding citizen think twice about committing a crime.
NCAA rules allow athletes on scholarship to earn up to $2,000 during the school year working part-time jobs. In principle, it's a step in the right direction. In reality, it's a cruel joke. Given the demands of being a college athlete, putting in 20 hours a week at a part-time job is not very practical. The hours athletes would spend working at a job are already spoken for. Typically, they already spend that much time every week in team meetings, practices and traveling to out-of-town games. And depending on the sport, the time demands during the off season aren't that much different from the actual season. That's why college athletes should be paid some kind of reasonable stipend which should be made part of the awarded scholarship. Since they don't have the time to work, it's the only way they can receive money without breaking any NCAA rules. It's the fair thing to do, especially for those athletes who come from low-income families. True, athletes who are on a "full ride" have all the basics covered for school: tuition, books and room and board. Even so, the scholarship does not include a spending money allowance to help cover incidental expenses such as laundry and bath items or being able to go to the movies or buy a hamburger and french fries.
The question is would some of the criminal behavior by University of Tennessee athletes been avoided if not for the NCAA rules.
Robbery is never the solution but a change in circumstances may deter someone from thinking it is. These fellows need to be punished but can something to be done to help others avoid making the same bad decision?
No comments:
Post a Comment