Type of Crime and Demography of the Inmates

Hasnida

, Namora Lumongga Lubis

, Etti Rahmawati

, Juliana Irmayanti Saragih

Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Jalan Dr.T.Mansyur No. 7 Medan, Indoensia

Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan, Indoensia

Keywords: Type of crime, demograpphy of inmates.

Abstract: This research aimed to describe the types of crimes viewed from the level of education, employment status,

marital status, and the involvement of family members in crime. Survey method was used to get research data,

and contingency correlation technique was used to know the relation between five variables that was studied.

The results of the analysis showed that the level of education and employment status had a significant

correlation to the type of crime in prisoners. In contrast, marital status and the involvement of family members

in crime did not have a significant correlation to the type of crime in prisoners.

1 INTRODUCTION

The number of crimes in the last three years has

increased, amounted to 325,317 cases (2014);

352,936 cases (2015) and 357,200 cases (2016)

(Aprillan, 2017; Badan Pusat Statistik, 2016). The

crime committed by a person had various types,

ranging from mild levels such as the act of stealing

sandals to serious crimes such as conducting murders.

Type of crime committed cannot be separated from

the background of the culprit. Research showed that

there were several factors that was quite prominent as

the source of a person committing a crime such as

economic problems (Pieszko,2016), education

(Lochner & Moretti,2004) occupation (Lageson &

Uggen, 2013), and history of family members

involved in crime (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). This

research aimed to describe the types of crimes viewed

from the level of education, employment status,

marital status, and the involvement of family

members in crime.

2 METHODS

This research was a survey research which used a

quantitative approach. Respondents in this study are

newly admitted prisoners of Tanjung Gusta

penitentiary and were undergoing Masa Pengenalan

Lingkungan (MaPenaLing) socialization. 101

respondents were selected non-randomly as sample of

this research. Interviews were used as data collection

techniques to obtain the data of the five variables that

were studied. Descriptive statistics covering

frequency and percentage, as well as correlation

contingency were used as data analysis techniques to

describe the condition of the five variables and the

link between them.

Table.1. Description of Research Variables

Variables n (%)

Education No Formal Education 9 (8.9)

Elementary School 19 (18.8)

Junior High School 21 (20.8)

Senior High School 38 (37.6)

Diploma Degree 2 (2.0)

Bachelor Degree 10 (9.9)

Master Degree 1 (1.0)

Doctoral Degree 1 (1.0)

Total 101 (100.0)

Occupation Job Holder 23 (22.8)

Nonpermanent Worker 67 (66.3)

Unemployed 11 (10.9)

Total 101 (100.0)

Marital status Not Married 39 (38.6)

Married 52 (51.5)

Divorced 10 (9.9)

Total 101 (100.0)

1490

Hasnida, ., Lubis, N., Rahmawati, E. and Saragih, J.

Type of Crime and Demography of the Inmates.

DOI: 10.5220/0010084314901495

In Proceedings of the International Conference of Science, Technology, Engineering, Environmental and Ramiﬁcation Researches (ICOSTEERR 2018) - Research in Industry 4.0, pages

1490-1495

ISBN: 978-989-758-449-7

Table.1. Description of Research Variables (cont.).

Variable n (%)

Involvement

of Family

Members

None

84 (83.2)

Yes

17 (16.8)

Total

101 (100.0)

Cases Drugs

57 (56.4)

Trafficking

5 (5.0)

Morality

9 (8.9)

Murder

7 (6.9)

Robbery & Murder

2 (2.0)

Domestic Violence

1 (1.0)

Gambling & Morality

1 (1.0)

Corruption

8 (7.9)

Robbery

7 (6.9)

Gang Fights

1 (1.0)

Fraud

3 (3.0)

Total

101 (100.0)

3 RESULTS

The total number of respondents involved in the study

was amounted to 101 people. Of the 101 respondents

of prisoners who are in prison, 11 types of crimes

were committed by them such as drugs, trafficking,

morality, murder, robbery and murder, domestic

violence, gambling and morality, corruption, robbery,

gang fights and fraud and caused them to go to jail.

The variables seen in this study are divided into five

types: education level, employment status before

entering prison, marital status, family members’

involvement in crime and type of crimes.

The description of education level shown in Table

1 shows that most respondents have high school

education level (37.6%) followed by junior high

school (20.8%) and elementary school level (18.8%).

For jobs prior to jail admission, 66.3% were

nonpermanent worker, 22.8% were job holder and

10.9% were unemployed. Married status had the most

respondent (51.5%) followed by unmarried status

amounted to 38.6% and divorced status amounted to

9.9%. Family members involved in crime were about

16.8% compared with uninvolved family members

(83.2%). The three most notable types of crime are

drugs (56.4%) followed by morality (8.9%) and

corruption (7.9%).

Drugs type of crimes were committed by

respondents with no formal education (2%), primary

school (9.9%), junior high (14.9%) and high school

(26.7%) education levels. Trafficking type of crimes

were conducted by respondents of elementary school

(4.0%) and high school (1.0%) level. Morality type of

crimes were committed by respondents with non-

school (2.0%), primary school (1.0%), junior high

(2.0%) and senior high (3.0%) education levels.

Robbery type of crimes were conducted by

respondents with non-school (2.0%), primary school

(2.0%), junior high (2.0%) and senior high (1.0%)

education level. Fraud type of crimes were conducted

by respondents with Diploma (1.0%) and Master

Degree (1.0%) education level. Corruption type of

crimes were conducted by respondents with bachelor

degree level of education (5.9%).

Drugs (7.9%), corruption (7.9%) and fraud (3.0%)

type of crimes tend to be conducted by respondents

with permanent employment status. While Drugs

(48.5%), trafficking (5%), morality (8%), murder

(7%), and robbery (6.0%) tend to be conducted by

respondents who have temporary jobs or

unemployed.

Respondents who did not have family members

involved in crime tends to commit drugs (45.5%),

trafficking (4.0%), morality (6.9%), corruption

(7.9%) and fraud (3.0%) type of crimes. In addition,

respondents who had family members involved in

crime tends to commit drugs types of crimes (10.9%).

Respondents with unmarried status tends to

commit drugs (26.7%) and morality (5.0%) type of

crimes. Respondents with married status tends to

commit drugs (23.8%), corruption (7.9%), robbery

(5.9%), and murder (4.0%). In addition, respondents

with divorced status tends to commit drugs type of

crimes (5.9%).

Type of Crime and Demography of the Inmates

1491

Table 2.Cross Tabulation between Variables

Variable

Cases

(

)

Drugs Trafficki

Morality Murder Robbery

Murder

Domesti

Violenc

Gamble

Morality

Corrupti

Robbery Gang

Fights

Fraud Total

(%)

Educati

No Formal

Education

2 (2.00) 0 (0.00) 2 (2.00) 3 (3.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 2 (2.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 9 (8.90)

Elementary 10

(9.90)

(4.00%)

1 (1.00) 2 (2.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 2 (2.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 19

(18.80)

Junior High 15

(

14.90

)

0 (0.00) 2 (2.00) 1 (1.00) 1 (1.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 2 (2.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 21

(

20.80

)

Senior High 27

(

26.70

)

1 (1.00) 3 (3.00) 1 (1.00) 1 (1.00) 1 (1.00) 1 (1.00) 1 (1.00) 1 (1.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (1.00) 38

(

37.60

)

Diploma

ree

1 (1.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (1.00) 2 (2.00)

Bachelor

ree

2 (2.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (1.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 6 (5.90) 0 (0.00) 1 (1.00) 0 (0.00) 10

(

9.90

)

Master

ree

0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (1.00) 1 (1.00)

Doctoral

ree

0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (1.00)

Total 57

(

56.40

)

5 (5.00) 9 (9.00) 7 (7.00) 2 (2.00) 1 (1.00) 1 (1.00) 8 (8.00) 7 (7.00) 1 (1.00) 3 (3.00) 101

(

100.00

)

Involve

ment of

Family

Member

None 46

(

45.50

)

4 (4.00) 7 (6.90) 6 (5.90) 1 (1.00) 1 (1.00) 0 (0.00) 8 (7.90) 7 (6.90) 1 (1.00) 3 (3.00) 84

(

83.20

)

Yes 11

(10.90)

1 (1.00) 1 (1.00) 1 (1.00) 1 (1.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (1.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 17

(16.80)

Total 57

(

56.40

)

5 (5.00) 9 (8.90) 7 (6.90) 2 (2.00) 1 (1.00) 1 (1.00) 8 (7.90) 7 (6.900) 1 (1.00) 3 (3.00) 101

(

100.00

)

Occupat

ion

Job Holder 8 (7.90) 0 (0.00) 1 (1.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (1.00) 0 (0.00) 8 (7.90) 1 (1.00) 1 (1.00) 3 (3.00) 23

(

22.80

)

Nonpermane

nt Job

(

40.60

)

5 (5.00) 8 (7.90) 6 (5.90) 2 (2.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (1.00) 0 (0.00) 4 (4.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 67

(

66.30

)

Unemployed 8 (7.90) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (1.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 2 (2.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 11

(

10.90

)

Total 57

(

56.40

)

5 (5.00) 9 (8.90) 7 (6.90) 2 (2.00) 1 (1.00) 1 (1.00) 8 (7.90) 7 (6.90) 1 (1.00) 3 (3.00) 101

(

100.00

)

Marital

Status

Not Married 27

(

26.70

)

2 (2.00) 5 (5.00) 2 (2.00) 2 (2.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (1.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 39

(

38.60

)

Married 24

(

23.80

)

1 (1.00) 3 (3.00) 4 (4.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (1.00) 1 (1.00) 8 (7.90) 6 (5.90) 1 (1.00) 3 (3.00) 52

(

51.50

)

Divorced 6 (5.90) 2 (2.00) 1 (1.00) 1 (1.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 10

(

9.90

)

Total 57

(

56.40

)

5 (5.00) 9 (8.90) 7 (6.90) 2 (2.00) 1 (1.00) 1 (1.00) 8 (7.90) 7 (6.90) 1 (1.00) 3 (3.00) 101

(

100.00

)

4 DISCUSSION

4.1 Educations and Type of Crimes

Based on Table 2, if the categorization of education

levels is made into two levels, namely low (no formal

education up to high school level) and high (Diploma

to Doctoral Degree level), it can be seen that there

was a tendency for respondents who have a low level

of education tend to commit drugs, trafficking,

morality, murder, and robbery crimes. While

respondents who had higher education, had a

tendency to commit corruption and fraud crimes. This

is supported by the results of analysis with

Contingency Correlation which found that there is a

very significant relationship between education level

and type of crime (c = 0.776; p = 0.00).

There are a number of reasons to believe that

education will affect subsequent crime. The first

reason, education increases the legitimacy of

legitimate work and increases the chances of avoiding

illicit behavior. Second, education can directly affect

a person's financial or psychological reward. Finally,

education can change preferences in an indirect way,

ICOSTEERR 2018 - International Conference of Science, Technology, Engineering, Environmental and Ramiﬁcation Researches

1492

which may influence a person's decision to be

involved or not involved in crime (Lochner &

Moretti,2004). In this research, 44.8% of 87

respondents of low education dropped out or did not

complete education at the level they were in.

Absenteeism or early drop out and criminal behavior

in adult individuals is an important issue and

dropping out can be linked to unemployment, low

income and high crime rates. The relatively low level

of academic achievement is a risk factor for criminal

behavior, and the predictive validity continues into

adulthood (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). In accordance

with economic theory, adults have economic motives

or interests to be involved in a crime (Lochner &

Moretti,2004; Becker,1968; Lochner,2011).

4.2 Occupations and Type of Crimes

Based on the results of the analysis with the

Contingency Correlation, it is known that the

employment status has a very significant relationship

with crimes (c = .602, p = 0.00). Respondents who

initially had permanent employment status tends to

commit drugs, corruption, and fraud crimes. While

respondents who had temporary job or unemployed

tends to commit drugs, trafficking, morality, murder,

and robbery crimes.

Research that aimed to see the interrelationship

between employment status and criminal behavior

(Gillespie,1975) was described in terms of theoretical

frameworks such as Rational Economic Theory put

forward that the income earned by working will

reduce the motivation to commit a crime for

economic reasons (Becker,1968). Correspondingly,

anomie and differential opportunity theories

(Becker,1968) see that criminal behavior will be an

attractive option for someone who feels that legal

efforts to achieve economic well-being are hampered.

Social control theory (Becker,1968) suspected that

people who are workers have felt they are in a

comfortable position so they will not take an action

that risking the comfort that has been obtained. Being

a worker also promotes informal social control, which

binds individuals to mutual obligations with those

around them (Lageson & Uggen, 2013).

In the last two decades, the literature reviewing

the relationship between status of unemployed with

criminal behavior is continuously developed. Three

studies were showed a statistically significant

relationship between the status of unemployed with

criminal behavior, while 7 other studies found no

significant association (Gillespie,1975). The status of

an unemployed person has no effect on the likelihood

of criminal behavior occurrence (Lageson & Uggen,

2013). On the other hand, other study stated the exact

opposite (Gillespie,1975). A job stability is a stronger

risk factor than the unemployment rate adulthood

(Andrews & Bonta, 2010). In particular, criminal

behavior increases with frequent unemployment and

a longer period of unemployment experienced by a

person adulthood (Andrews & Bonta, 2010).

A poverty for not having an income may

encourage someone to commit a crime because they

feel they have no way to cope with perceived

economic pressures, especially when they did not

have a job (Kartono, 2009). Other research showed a

significant influence on employment status on the

occurrence of criminal behavior in Batang District,

Jawa Tengah, where people who did not have a job

have greater potential to commit criminal acts than

people who work (Dermawanti, Hoyyi,& Rusgiyono,

2013).

4.3 Involvement of Family Members

and Type of Crimes

Based on the results of analysis with the Contingency

Correlation it is known that the involvement of family

members in crime has no significant relationship with

the type of crimes (c = 3.14, p = .353). Respondents

who do not have family members involved in crime

tends to commit drugs, trafficking, morality,

corruption, and fraud crimes. In addition, respondents

who have family members involved in crime tends to

commit drugs crimes.

Many studies stated that there is a significant

relationship between the involvement of family

members and the type of crime committed. However,

this study differs from other studies in which the

results showed no significant association between the

involvements of family members in crime with the

type of crime. This finding supports Sutherland's

theory. This renowned Criminologist in 1947

renewed his earlier theory and put more emphasis on

all behavior could be learned (differential social

organization theories) (Sutherland, 1947). This

theory contradicted that no evil behavior is passed on

from both parents. The pattern of evil behavior is not

inherited but learned through communication in an

intimate interaction or association. In social contact,

there is a learning process that includes crime

techniques, motives, encouragement, attitude and

rationalization of a crime.

The Social Control Theory of Hirschi seen crime

as a result of social institutions losing control over

individuals (Hirschi,1969). Weak institutions such as

certain types of families, disruption of local

Type of Crime and Demography of the Inmates

1493

communities, and the destruction of trust in the

government and the police, all of which are related to

the high crime rate.

4.4 Marital Status and Type of Crimes

Based on the results of analysis with the Contingency

Correlation, it is known that marriage status of

prisoners in the penitentiary had no significant

relationship with the type of crime(c = 0.472, p =

0.087). Respondents with not-married status tends to

commit drugs and morality crimes. Respondents with

married status tends to commit drugs, corruption,

robbery, and murder crimes. In addition, respondents

with divorced status tend to commit drugs crimes

(5.9%).

Past studies on the relationship between a person's

marital status and criminal predisposition still showed

some different results. A person's marriage bond will

indeed be an obstacle to committing a criminal act, in

which couples can be a social control of the tendency

to commit a crime (Andersen, Andersen, &

Skov,2015; Monsbakken, Lyngstad, Skardhamar,

2012). On the other hand, several researches showed

different results, including in this research where the

relationship between marital status and type of crime

was not found significantly. This can be explained by

the findings that the tendency to commit crimes will

actually increase when couples, especially the wife,

had been involved with certain criminal acts (Wyse,

Harding, & Morenoff, 2014) Romantic Relationships

and Criminal Desistance: Pathways and Process..

This finding is reinforced that marriage will reduce

the likelihood of criminal behavior only if the couple

did not have a history of criminal behavior (Sampson,

Laub, Wimer, 2006). The findings also reinforced this

conclusion by stating that quality marriages will

reduce the level of criminal behavior, particularly the

strong bond between husband and wife (Sampson,

Laub, Wimer, 2006). Early marriage would actually

increase criminal behavior especially when

individuals married under 21 years of age

Monsbakken, Lyngstad, Skardhamar, 2012).

5 CONCLUSIONS

Looking at 11 types of crimes, except for prisoners

with education from level of diploma degree to

doctoral degree, drugs was the most frequent criminal

act. Prisoners with nonpermanent job and

unemployed, tends to be involved in drugs crimes,

higher than 10 other types of crime. On the other

hand, prisoners with permanent employment status

tends to commit corruption. Drugs crime tend to be

committed by prisoners regardless of marital status

and the history of family members' involvement in

committing a crime.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Funded by:

Directorate of Research and Community Service

Directorate General of Research and Strengthening

Development of the Ministry of Research,

Technology and Higher Education In accordance

with the Funding Agreement for Research and

Community Service 2018 Fiscal Year

REFERENCES

Aprillan, S. (2017). 2016, Jumlah Kejahatan di Indonesia

Meningkat. Diakses melalui

https://databoks.katadata.co.id/datapublish/2017/12/23

/2016-jumlah-kejahatan-di-indonesia-meningkat

Badan Pusat Statistik (2016). Statistika Kriminal 2016.

Badan Pusat Statistika - Jakarta Indonesia.

Pieszko, G. (2016). The influence of socio - economic

factors on crime. Journal Of Humanities And Social

Science (IOSR - JHSS), Vol. 21, Issue 9, pp. 18-21.

Lochner, L & Moretti, E. ( 2004). The Effect of Education

on Crime: Evidence from Prison Inmates, Arrests, and

Self-Reports. American Economic Review , Vol. 94,

No. 1, pp. 155-189.

Lageson, S & Uggen, C. (2013). How Work Affects

Crime—And Crime Affects Work—Over The Life

Course in C.L. Gibson and M.D. Krohn (eds.),

Handbook of Life-Course Criminology: Emerging

Trends and Directions for Future Research. Springer

Science Business Media New York.

Andrews, D.A & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of

criminal conduct. Fith edition. Matthew Bender &

Company, Inc., New Providence, NJ.

Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and Punishment: An Economic

Approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2),

pp.169-217.

Lochner , L. (2011). Non - Production Benefits of

Education: Crime, Health, and Good Citizenship. In

Hanushek, Machin and Woessman, (Eds.), Handbook

of Economics of Education, vol.4. Elsevier.

Gillespie, R .1975. Economic Factors in Crime and

Deliquency: A Critical Review of The Empirical

Evidence. Department of Justice. Nat’l Inst. Of Law

Enforcement and Criminal. Justice. Supra note 15.

Kartono, K. 2009. Patologi Sosial, Jilid 1. PT. Raja

Grafindo Persada: Jakarta.

Dermawanti, Hoyyi, A., Rusgiyono A. Factors affecting

criminality in Batang Regency Year 2013 With Path

Analysis.

ICOSTEERR 2018 - International Conference of Science, Technology, Engineering, Environmental and Ramiﬁcation Researches

1494

https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/97283

-ID-faktor-faktor-yang-mempengaruhi-kriminal.pdf

(Retrieved June 30, 2018)

Sutherland, E. L.(1947). Differential Association Theory.

Retrieved June 30, 2018

http://criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/

Hirschi, T. (1969). The causes of delinquency. Berkeley:

The University of California Press

Hirschi, T. (1969). The causes of delinquency. Berkeley:

The University of California Press

Andersen, S.H., Andersen, L.J., Skov, P.E. (2015). Effect

of Marriage and Spousal Criminality on Recidivism.

Journal of marriage and family. Vol.77 (2), pp.496-

509.

Monsbakken, C.W., Lyngstad, T.H. & Skardhamar, T.,

(2012). Crime and the Transition to Marriage: The Role

of the Spouse’s Criminal Involvement.

Discussion

paper. No.678

Sampson, R.J., Laub, J.H., Wimer, C. Does Marriage

Reduce Crime ? A Counterfactual Approach to Within-

Individual Causal Effect.

Criminology: An

Interdisciplinary Journal, 44(3), 465-508.

Wyse, J. JB., Harding, David J., Morenoff, J.D. Romantic

Relationships and Criminal Desistance: Pathways and

Process. Socialogical forum. Vol.29 (2), pp.365-385.

Type of Crime and Demography of the Inmates

1495