write 400-600 words that respond to the following questions with your thoughts, ideas, and comments. This will be the foundation for future discussions by your classmates. Be substantive and clear, and use examples to reinforce your ideas:
Select and discuss two victimization theories, and compare and contrast how they address the various behaviors that lead to individuals becoming victims. You may select from the following theories: Mendelsohn’s theory of victimization (the 6 categories) Von Hentig’s theory of victimization (3 categories) Stephen Schafer’s functional responsibility Wolfgang’s study of homicide Karmen’s theory of victimization Lifestyle theory Routine activities approach Opportunity model of victimization Critical victimology Victim blaming Victim’s contribution to the crime How are the theories different in their victim assessments? Explain. How are the theories similar in the victim assessments? Explain.
Sociologists differ over what neediness really is. In this exposition I mean to examine and reprimand Seebohm Rowntree’s hypothesis from 1899 – 1950 then I will talk about and scrutinize, Peter Townsend’s hypothesis. The following area will be to talk about and condemn, Mack and Lansley’s hypothesis, and the thoughts of Herbert Spencer (social Darwinism) There will at that point be a dialog of backward and dynamic tax collection and a clarification of Marslands hypothesis. At long last I will clarify and reprimand, John Wetergaard and Henrietta Resler’s arguement that there is a legend encompassing the welfare state. This fantasy is that the welfare state is dynamic and redistributes from the rich to poor people. Destitution and Seebohm Rowntree In the season of Queen Elizabeth the primary it was individuals’ obligation to help lighten neediness. They did this by bolstering poor people and going to the wiped out and endeavoring to guarantee that individuals were not penniless. After the Reformation things changed and laws were passed to direct the sum that was spent on poor people. In 1601 the Elizabethan Poor Law was passed and made arrangement for “the setting of the poor on work” The Poor Law additionally said that the poor were in charge of tending to each other. Regulators were delegated in each territory to choose how much poor alleviation would be required. In the altered Poor Law of 1834 managers knew the conditions of the poor in their are and the individuals who were viewed as lethargic would not get much help. These alterations to the Poor Law gave people with great influence a more prominent level of control over the lives of poor people. In the 1860s, Joseph Rowntree, Seebohm Rowtree’s dad directed two examinations into poverty. This drove Seebohm Rowntree to later lead his own particular investigation which was distributed in 1901. He made an early refinement amongst essential and optional destitution – a qualification which sociologists still utilize today. Essential neediness implied that a family did not have enough cash coming in to cover the fundamental necessities of nourishment, haven and garments. Optional neediness was the place families sufficiently earned however spent their cash on things other than the fundamental necessities. So some spending was viewed as okay while other spending was viewed as squandering cash, on drink for instance. He trusted that wages ought to be expanded on the grounds that at that point individuals would be all around sustained and sound and would be a proficient workforce. He raised the wages of laborers at his own organization and said that organizations who declined to do this ought to be shut down as they were doing the nation no favors. His second examination which he completed in the 1930s was distributed as “Advance and Poverty in 1941.” He contended in this investigation that the fundamental driver of destitution was joblessness, the finishes of his report impacted the establishing of the welfare state. Despite the fact that Seebohm Rowntree completed a great deal to facilitate the reason for poor people and to call attention to the reasons for destitution. His comments about essential and auxiliary destitution, while still persuasive today, were run of the mill of people with great influence. In other words they conveyed the message that the poor were flighty and should have been advised how to spend the cash that they had earned. Diminish Townsend – Poverty as a Social Problem Townsend (1979) has characterized destitution in the accompanying way: “People, families and gatherings in the populace can be said to be in destitution when they do not have the assets to get the sorts of weight control plans, take an interest in the exercises and have the living conditions which are standard, or if nothing else broadly energized and affirmed, in the social orders to which they have a place.” Townsend(1979:31). Townsend’s work makes it very certain that neediness isn’t only an absence of cash yet includes things other than entirely material needs. The individuals who are poor frequently live in poorer territories with severely performing schools and poor lodging. This regularly brings about sick wellbeing. Townsend said that there were two kinds of neediness, relative destitution and supreme neediness. Research embraced for the Rowntree Foundation (Howarth et al,1999) found that in nearby expert lodging in excess of 66% of the leaders of those family units were not in paid work and since 1991 there has been an expansion of 40% in the quantity of neighborhood specialist zones with better than expected death rates. Total destitution isn’t generally found in the west. In immature nations individuals are frequently denied thenecessities e.g. nourishment and safe house which look after presence. Giddens (2001:311) contends that the possibility of outright neediness is grounded in ‘subsistence’. Anybody without adequate nourishment, safe house and attire could be said to live in total neediness. One of the manners by which supreme destitution is estimated is by the neediness line which depends on the cost of merchandise in a given society that people requirement for survival. The individuals who can’t bear the cost of these products live in neediness. Not every person concurs with this and the possibility of supreme destitution is very challenged in light of the fact that the utilization of a solitary model neglects to consider the contrasts between social orders. Needs are not the same in all social orders, or even in a similar society, healthful necessities are diverse for individuals working in various occupations, a worker for instance may require a bigger number of calories than a bank agent. Drewnowski and Scott (1966) contend that outright destitution ought to likewise incorporate an absence of social needs. This is regularly contended over on the grounds that a settled standard on such needs will undoubtedly fizzle. These individuals are more inspired by relative neediness. Relative destitution takes a gander at people groups wages and thinks about them to a national normal. Relative destitution implies that individuals are living in neediness when their life is contrasted with those of the normal family this is on account of absence of wage likewise implies poorer lodging. Individuals who live in relative neediness normally live in denied zones too. Since 1979 expanded joblessness and an ascent in advantage installments and profit that are record connected to costs as opposed to compensation, has brought about an enormous ascent in the quantity of individuals living in relative poverty. In a report inThe British Medical Journal (2000) the author took a gander at total and relative youngster destitution in created nations where a few people groups earnings were in excess of 50% lower than the normal. It likewise said that in the group table of relative kid destitution one of the four base spots was held by the UK. An article in the Daily Telegraph (27/08/02) says that the possibility of relative destitution is an issue. The article proposes that as opposed to utilizing family unit wage as the controller it may be better if analysts figured the costs of fundamental products and ventures. Under the present framework the rich were getting to be more extravagant and the poor were paying for it in expanded expenses and an absence of administrations. Another way to deal with estimating relative neediness is through individuals’ impression of the necessities of life which is the thing that Mack and Lansley did. Mack and Lansley Crafted by Mack and Lansley (1985, 1992) recorded those things that were thought to be important to advanced life if a man was not living in neediness. They completed two examinations on relative neediness in the UK. Mack and Lansley completed a supposition survey to discover what individuals thought were the necessities of advanced life. There were twenty six things that a great many people considered vital these things included new garments, warming, a shower and indoor latrine. Relative neediness was along these lines estimated by the nearness or nonappearance of the things that had been recorded. Mack and Lansley’s examination discovered that the quantity of individuals living in neediness in the 1980s went up a lot, this destitution was characterized by the absence of at least three of the fundamental necessities specified before. In the vicinity of 1983 and 1990 when the two examinations were embraced the quantity of individuals who were living in destitution went up from 7.5 million to 11 million and the quantity of those living in serious neediness or who were inadequate with regards to more than 7 of the things that were viewed as basic, went up from 2.6 to 3.5 million (Mack and Lansley, 1992). Neediness is likewise characterized by how far individuals can bear to partake in social exercises, for example, school trips. Lately this has been called social rejection. Social rejection does not take a gander at destitution just regarding an absence of material things. It takes a gander at the more extensive picture and this incorporates wheter individuals can take part in the public eye. There are no unmistakable methods for estimating neediness. Outright and relative destitution are both complex and methods for estimating what it is to be poor, and not every person concurs on them. Arrangement creators say what destitution is and afterward influence laws for it yet few of them to encounter what it is to be poor. A report distributed by the Rowntree establishment says that what the poor need to state should be mulled over in look into on destitution. Considering the assessments of the individuals who really lived in destitution would give valuable data to existing associations that may help shape approach making in the long term. In this there is an inclination that the poor are by one means or another to fault for the conditions in which they get themselves. A point which Herbert Spencer writing in the nineteenth century would have concurred with. To the extent Spencer was concerned individuals lived in neediness because of wicked living. He had no sensitivity at all for poor people and viewed a considerable lot of them as offenders and lushes. He trusted it was unnatural to help individuals who lived in destitution because of their own conduct and flightiness. In the event that individuals were excessively languid, making it impossible to work then they ought not be permitted to eat. He trusted that the reason for neediness could be found by an examination of the ethical character of a person. The Poor Laws weren’t right since they urged poor people to be apathetic and to depend on another person’s diligent work to give them the necessities of life. This enabled moral decrease to spread through the populace. The outcome would be that both society and the economy would endure. Late nineteenth and mid twentieth century thought was vigorously inf>