Explanation:
How would you critically discuss this statement, "unequal access to basic services is responsible for various criminal activities in South Africa"?
I think it is a problematic statement for four main reasons.
First, that many millions of people lack access to basic services is a moral and political problem independant of its relation to crime. If one is raising the question as only pertinent insofar as it impacts crime, we are off on a bad ideological and cruel footing.
Secondly, as far as I am aware, between poverty and inequality, inequality is the greater driver of crime. This is observable across many poorer countries than South Africa, where crime is less severe (even when other problems might be decidely worse).
I can only speculate why this might be the case. But in a behavioral sense I would hypothesize that most parsimoniously it is because the social cost of crime is lower (low social interpersonal relations across classes, more mobile and alienated relative population), and the potential rewards greater (power and status more closely tied to wealth, and hence distinded from other virtues) in an unequal society than a simply poor one.
Thirdly, and relatedly, by positing poverty as the main driver of crime we are almost categorically ignoring crimes by rich people. This can include organized crime syndicates, or even corporate and government crimes. Even when they may carry a less directly violent interpersonal character, their social impact can be much more profound (say, embezzling from a hospital or polluting water sources).
Fourthly, if we are speaking purely in legal terms, then we ignore moral crimes. Is it right, ethically and morally, that company owners will receive profits from the work done by employees? I would argue not, but it is a legal foundation of our economy.
This is not to say that the desperation of poverty cannot act as a driver to crime, or even a significant one. But I think it is problematic to assume it to be the strongest social force.
