Quote:"Conflict theorists assume that force or its threat is the fundamental element that holds unequal societies together. Because conflict theorists also hold that the state's monopoly of violence is controlled by those who benefit from inequality, it follows that the control agents of the state should be more likely to use extreme force when economic inequality is most pronounced. This hypothesis was tested with data on the number of killings committed by policemen in the American states. After controlling for six additional explanations, we found that the police were most likely to use deadly force in the most unequal states. The amount of violent crimes and riots and the percentage change in population also predicted these lethal events. But the major implication of our findings is that a hypothesis derived from conflict theory does predict that amount of police-caused homicides..."

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/800504?uid=3739448&uid=2&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21101118962111

Quote:"...Urban violence is prevalent in many places. Why? You think people prefer lives of crime rather than gainful employment? The fact is young men don't, can't find jobs, and without jobs, they turn to crime.

In the United States we found that when we got our unemployment rate down, in the '90s, it had an enormous impact on our crime rate. And when you get the unemployment rate up, which was an intrinsic part of the policies that were pushed in these [Latin American] countries, this social stress was inevitable. The implication, of course, is that societies in which there is a high level of violence are not going to be attractive for investment. So in the end it turns out not even to be good economic policy..."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitextlo/int_josephstiglitz.html

Quote:"...Penalization measures respond to discriminatory stereotypes that assume that persons living in poverty are lazy, irresponsible, indifferent to their children’s health and education, dishonest, undeserving and even criminal. Persons living in poverty are often portrayed as authors of their own misfortune, who can remedy their situation by simply “trying harder”. These prejudices and stereotypes are often reinforced by biased and sensationalist media reports that particularly target those living in poverty who are victims of multiple forms of discrimination, such as single mothers, ethnic minorities, indigenous people and migrants. Such attitudes are so deeply entrenched that they inform public policies and prevent policymakers from addressing the systemic factors that prevent persons living in poverty from overcoming their situation.

...As a consequence of the discrimination and stigma that they suffer, persons living in poverty often develop fear of and even hostility towards public authorities, and have little confidence in the institutions that should assist them. Too often, they are treated with disrespect or condescension by policymakers, civil servants, social workers, law enforcement officials, teachers and health-care providers, who may fail to recognize and support the efforts that persons living in poverty are making to improve their lives...

...In every country, developed or developing, historical social divisions and power structures ensure that the poorest and most excluded are at a constant disadvantage in their relations with State authorities. Asymmetries of power mean that persons living in poverty are unable to claim rights or protest their violation. They may face obstacles in communicating with authorities owing to illiteracy, lack of information or language barriers, a situation which is particularly acute for migrants, indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities and persons with disabilities. As a result, they are less likely to know and understand their rights and entitlements or to report infringements and abuses....

...A significant obstacle in breaking this cycle of penalization and poverty is the inability of persons living in poverty to access legal assistance, as they are unable to afford private legal representation and legal aid is often unavailable or inadequate. Without access to competent, comprehensive legal assistance, the poorest and most excluded are further disadvantaged in their dealings with authorities, not only when they are facing criminal charges, but also with respect to administrative procedures such as child protection cases, benefit fraud matters or eviction and immigration proceedings...

...When persons living in poverty do not have access to legal representation or advice, particularly in circumstances where they are unfamiliar with complex legal language, they are more likely to receive and accept unfair or unequal treatment. There is a higher likelihood that they will be detrimentally affected by corruption or asked to pay bribes, will be detained for longer periods of time and, if facing trial, will be convicted. Even when legal assistance is available, discrimination and linguistic barriers are powerful obstacles in the way of those seeking access to justice and redress...

...Children who live or work on the street are particularly vulnerable to penalization measures. Street children lead lives defined by abuse, violence and fear, but because they are stigmatized as criminal or illegitimate they have little recourse to help or redress. Children on the street are exploited, trafficked, forced to perform hazardous work and recruited by armed forces and armed groups, and do not seek the assistance of authorities for fear of further penalization or abuse. In many cases children living in poverty are not registered at birth and as such cannot access basic services including primary education. With nowhere else to turn, they must undertake activities such as street vending, begging or panhandling in order to survive.30 When these actions are made illegal, they are further forced into dangerous and abusive situations...

...Because law enforcement officials often use “poverty”, “homelessness” or “disadvantage” as an indicator of criminality, persons living in poverty come into contact with the criminal justice system with a disproportionately high frequency. They also encounter considerable obstacles manoeuvring within or exiting the system. As a result, disproportionately high numbers of the poorest and most excluded are arrested, detained and imprisoned...

...Poverty is a complex, multifaceted condition, which is only exacerbated and perpetuated by measures that directly or indirectly punish, segregate, control and undermine the autonomy of persons living in poverty. Such measures greatly impair the ability of persons living in poverty to enjoy a wide range of human rights and freedoms, deepening and prolonging the cycle of poverty and exclusion...

...Often, States invoke grounds of public safety, health or security in an attempt to justify the restriction of human rights through penalization measures. However, human rights law establishes strict requirements for the imposition of limitations on individual rights. Any restriction on the enjoyment of human rights by those living in poverty must comply with several safeguards, including requirements that they be legally established, non-discriminatory and proportionate, and have a legitimate aim. The burden falls upon States to prove that a limitation imposed upon the enjoyment of rights by those living in poverty is in conformity with international human rights law...

...Measures that result in the penalization of those living in poverty do nothing to tackle the root causes of poverty and social exclusion. They serve only to entrench further the multiple deprivations faced by those living in poverty and create barriers to poverty reduction and social inclusion. Consequently, they greatly undermine the ability of States to comply with their obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Poverty/A.66.265.pdf