1. Why do you think people judge female addicts more harshly than male addicts, especially female street addicts such as the women described in Article #5 in Renzetti?
Studies of crime show that serious social problems are problems which are directly associated with a males behavior and are not considered to be expected to be a females behavior. The reality is that women commit and fully participate in terrible crimes and drug acts just as much as men do. But the fact that women get judges harshly is because they aren't expected to be committing these crimes as men are.
2. At this point what types of theories do you think are most important for understanding and solving crimes, those about people or those about places. What informs your decision?
I feel that one theory cannot be accurate without the other, therefore the study of places cannot have accurate information without the study of people in that certain environment or the other way around.
3.Since 1993 the crime rate has generally declined. Can routine activites theory explain this? How do you think routine Activities theory explains the violent crime rate in Philadelphia?
The routine theory could support the fact that crime rate has generally declines. As one factor of a town, government, or organization is changed or removed the whole picture id automatically changed.
4. Is it possible for crime to increase even when the number of would be criminals remains constant?
If the prevention or rehabilitation or elimination are not factors in those committing a crime the rates of crime to those will rise because they will continue to do bigger and worse crimes if not stopped, caught or helped.
5. Do you think it is possible to predict violent behavior? Why or why not?
I don't think...