Cause and effect: The Vicious Cycle of Violent Inner City Crime (generations, illegal)

[LuckyGem]

I have spent a little time reading other threads and decided to pose this question to you:

Does exposure to violent crime in an urban socio-economically depressed city, have an effect on young people becoming desensitized to violence, which causes them to turn to a life of crime.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Please attempt to keep the discussion focused only on the parameters I am outlining below. I am thinking only of the United States with regard to this question and I would prefer that race, and ethnicity not be discussed in this thread - but I know some of you cannot resist.

I personally believe that violence and crimes are committed by individuals, and not by "races" of people. Crimes and violence occur in communities of people of any ethnicity, in all cities on planet earth.

My questions are as follows:

1. Do you believe that urban areas of cities with socio-economically depressed residents produce more children born out of wedlock that then grow up to commit violent crimes?

2. Can it be said that single mothers with little education and/or work skills are at a higher risk of giving birth to a child who will turn to a life of crime and violence because of her socio-economic status and the absence of a father?

3. Looking at reasons why a teen female gives birth out of wedlock, does it follow that she came from a home where self-worth was not reinforced in her by her father, and as she develops into a young woman she sees herself as a sexual object before she sees herself as a person because of external influences (friends, television, media advertising)?

4. Do you believe that young teen females who are shunned, abandoned or ignored by their natural fathers will become vulnerable to engage in sexual activity before she is mature enough to understand the consequences?

5. Does it then follow that SOME single mothers may not have a desire to bond with her child in a loving way, and she may see the child as a liability and constant reminder of the sexual encounter she had with a man who had no intention of marrying her or having any participation in raising the child. Could that then lead to the child being abused or neglected by the mother or caregiver?

6. Will a child who is raised in an economically depressed violent area of a city, with no exposure to positive social reinforcement and interaction cause some children to become desensitized to violence and develop violent anti-social tendencies?

7. Even if some mothers were not physically or emotionally abusive to their offspring and they are attempting to raise their child in a loving home, and their children are thrown into the same environment with offspring from a similar socio-economic background who were subjected to negative social reinforcement, abandonment, or physically abused is it logical to say that many of these children will be influenced by violent crime in their environment and then grow up to become violent, anti-social and commit crimes.

What is your opinion, and what is the remedy for this vicious cycle of inner city violence?

[subsound]

That's like 7 different threads worth of questions, each requires in depth answers and considerations.

[SlickRick1]

You have to many rules and parameters. You want a sugarcoated politically correct answer. Unfortunately, If you want peoples true opinions, I suggest you put away all of those rules.

[Tin Knocker]

Originally Posted by LuckyGem

I have spent a little time reading other threads and decided to pose this question to you:

Does exposure to violent crime in an urban socio-economically depressed city, have an effect on young people becoming desensitized to violence, which causes them to turn to a life of crime.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Please attempt to keep the discussion focused only on the parameters I am outlining below. I am thinking only of the United States with regard to this question and I would prefer that race, and ethnicity not be discussed in this thread - but I know some of you cannot resist.

I personally believe that violence and crimes are committed by individuals, and not by "races" of people. Crimes and violence occur in communities of people of any ethnicity, in all cities on planet earth.

My questions are as follows:

1. Do you believe that urban areas of cities with socio-economically depressed residents produce more children born out of wedlock that then grow up to commit violent crimes?

Its a statistical fact

2. Can it be said that single mothers with little education and/or work skills are at a higher risk of giving birth to a child who will turn to a life of crime and violence because of her socio-economic status and the absence of a father?

Lotsa variables but in general yes.

3. Looking at reasons why a teen female gives birth out of wedlock, does it follow that she came from a home where self-worth was not reinforced in her by her father, and as she develops into a young woman she sees herself as a sexual object before she sees herself as a person because of external influences (friends, television, media advertising)?

Nope, rich brats have kids out of wedlock all the time.

4. Do you believe that young teen females who are shunned, abandoned or ignored by their natural fathers will become vulnerable to engage in sexual activity before she is mature enough to understand the consequences?

Nope.

5. Does it then follow that SOME single mothers may not have a desire to bond with her child in a loving way, and she may see the child as a liability and constant reminder of the sexual encounter she had with a man who had no intention of marrying her or having any participation in raising the child. Could that then lead to the child being abused or neglected by the mother or caregiver?

Nope

6. Will a child who is raised in an economically depressed violent area of a city, with no exposure to positive social reinforcement and interaction cause some children to become desensitized to violence and develop violent anti-social tendencies?

Yep

7. Even if some mothers were not physically or emotionally abusive to their offspring and they are attempting to raise their child in a loving home, and their children are thrown into the same environment with offspring from a similar socio-economic background who were subjected to negative social reinforcement, abandonment, or physically abused is it logical to say that many of these children will be influenced by violent crime in their environment and then grow up to become violent, anti-social and commit crimes.

Sure is, thats why people need to get out of the sewer instead of swimming around in it & complaining.

What is your opinion, and what is the remedy for this vicious cycle of inner city violence?

My opinion is there will always be slums & people that belong in them. Those who dont belong there get out, those that do dont, neither is anyones problem beyond those directly involved.

A partial remedy that would at least make the sewer a safer place would be to do away with plea bargaining & have some truth in sentencing. If people really did 20 years when given twenty years it would certainly help alot. Beyond that you reap what you sow.

[BLAZER PROPHET]

In general, we are products of our environment. There are, of course, numerous exceptions, but I think people inherit to a certain degree the traits of those around them- or in some cases, what they surround themselves with.

[Pandamonium]

Originally Posted by LuckyGem

My questions are as follows:

1. Do you believe that urban areas of cities with socio-economically depressed residents produce more children born out of wedlock that then grow up to commit violent crimes?

All YOU's are general.

Wedlock is misleading. It does not count unless the other (in this instance male) makes enough money to lift the woman and children out of poverty.

2. Can it be said that single mothers with little education and/or work skills are at a higher risk of giving birth to a child who will turn to a life of crime and violence because of her socio-economic status and the absence of a father?

It can be said that any parent that has a child and has little education and or/work skills will more than likely have a child that will also have little education/work skills. It can be said that the parent will more than likely be working at the hours that the child will be out of school and/or be working more than one job. It can also be said that those single mothers that are working and are in school to get a better job will also be absent. (read as doing what society says for better achievement and still being absent in the attempt.) Too, there are those parents that due to the career that they are in will be absent, as in medical or law enforcement or etc. and so on. They don’t work 9-5, therefore, those kids are at risk. A father may be present in any and all circumstances or none.

You will find that there are boys that do not have a father present that miss the step from unavailable role models that teaches them how to be men. There was a study that was done by a sociologist that came out in 1991 that showed that missing step due to father’s being either dead or incarcerated. That is an entire generation of young men. Which precisely coincides with the movement of factories out of urban areas into other parts of the world starting in the 1970’s.

So, they would be presented with middle class/main stream societies monetary achievements but miss it all together. Or do they?

Pretending that those middleclass/mainstream ideals are virtuous would be a lie. It operates from the beginning on devaluing those that are not already in that socioeconomic class. Thus, they start out with
failure from the get go.

3. Looking at reasons why a teen female gives birth out of wedlock, does it follow that she came from a home where self-worth was not reinforced in her by her father, and as she develops into a young woman she sees herself as a sexual object before she sees herself as a person because of external influences (friends, television, media advertising)?

Therefore a teen that married would be exempt? I don’t think so. Do not make father=savior and marriage=self worth. One factor that cannot be ignored is that just because society has stated that the age to be sexually active is at this point does not mean that the human body automatically agrees. I am trying to remember how this goes but by 1910 the age that one lives to dramatically increases but the body has its own evolutionary process.

Another factor to consider, is that a female may have a loving and caring father and still consider herself as a sexual object. Selling products is based on insecurity. If mother is not very strong, or “knows her place” then objectification is in the relationship that she witnesses from birth.

If the measure of masculinity is sexual prowess then your teen males are already at risk for teen pregnancy. Yet, you fail to address this.
Finally, young women with little education/work skills have a tendency to carry a fatalistic belief with religious roots.

4. Do you believe that young teen females who are shunned, abandoned or ignored by their natural fathers will become vulnerable to engage in sexual activity before she is mature enough to understand the consequences?

No. I believe that 99% of all sexual activity in teen males and females occurs when the zipper comes down or the skirt comes up. Now, do I think that there are females that will seek sexual activity to replace that type of relationship? Sure. Is it possible that she may view a failed relationship between mother and father as mother’s loss in the game of sexual competition? Sure. The concept of time and consequence will not be present in most adolescents. Secondly, there are those females that have father figures in step fathers and shun their natural fathers.

5. Does it then follow that SOME single mothers may not have a desire to bond with her child in a loving way, and she may see the child as a liability and constant reminder of the sexual encounter she had with a man who had no intention of marrying her or having any participation in raising the child. Could that then lead to the child being abused or neglected by the mother or caregiver?

No. It does not follow. Do not confuse neglect with poverty. Abuse can and does occur when the parents are married. You will find a high rate of abuse and neglect occurs if mom remarries/marries or hooks up with a male that does not have any experience with children OR she and the child/ren are dependent economically on that male. That abuse is most often at the hands of the male but I personally feel that it is neglect when mom chooses s/o over the child even if that relationship is based on economics.

6. Will a child who is raised in an economically depressed violent area of a city, with no exposure to positive social reinforcement and interaction cause some children to become desensitized to violence and develop violent anti-social tendencies?

If your community is gang orientated and the people who live around you engage in violence, then THEY may be receiving positive social reinforcement in that society/subculture. These are the social norms. You have to remember that the Latin Kings were created to protect themselves from the police. Vice Lords were initially started to keep the kids off the street and in turn that would protect them from the already established “bad“ elements and give them some place to go, pre-wars. Therefore, we already see elements that are coming into play: rejection from mainstream society, protection, and one thing that is never addressed is PTSD, and activities and places for kids to go.

7. Even if some mothers were not physically or emotionally abusive to their offspring and they are attempting to raise their child in a loving home, and their children are thrown into the same environment with offspring from a similar socio-economic background who were subjected to negative social reinforcement, abandonment, or physically abused is it logical to say that many of these children will be influenced by violent crime in their environment and then grow up to become violent, anti-social and commit crimes.

All violence influences. You can have a child and purchase clothes that do not resemble any street wear. That child will walk out of the house and immediately change clothes in order to make it down the street without getting his/her behind kicked. Survival. Any violent crime will have an influence on any child. That does not mean that all children will grow up to commit crimes and become violent. That child will lead a double life. Violence can and does occur at other levels of socioeconomic status.

What is your opinion, and what is the remedy for this vicious cycle of inner city violence?

Drop the pretense that mainstream society/middle class is “it”. It is devaluing and operates from the beginning as exclusion because it considers a lower socioeconomic class as failures from the beginning. The concept of not including ethnicity is automatically devaluing and you won’t find any stats that do not incorporate that. Further, you will find no concrete answers. It is willful ignorance to deny the existence of any subcultures values/concept of time/worldview because it might devalue your own. Drop the pretense that “wedlock” is it. That instigates sexual competition. There is sexual competition in finding a mate. Your questions assume that the object worth competing for is male. It then follows that sexual competition is OK if you say so and under your conditions. You want that to be the ultimate goal but by your standards. Male figure as savior puts entirely too much on either gender. It sets the pretext for failure. Not to mention that it sets the bar for achievement for women extremely low and only obtainable through another.
It is necessary for young women and men to visualize a future, have role models and see those in their community achieve success. I mean success that is not acquired by guns and drugs. Remove wedlock as the only option and add more options.
If you have any in that socioeconomic level that have done the crime and done the time, do not persecute them for the rest of their lives. They have paid there debt to society. The same study followed a young man who acquired a job at a loading dock and he was attempting to pay child support and every time he went to work he was belittled for the amount of children that he had and his past record. So, eventually he quit and went back to making cash through illegal methods. He should have stayed even if supervisors and other workers needed a big bowl of shut it stew. But it does show the attitude held and conveyed.

Recognize the difference between neglect and poverty. If you have children that are home alone and mother or father is at work. The issue is not neglect it is affordable or available child care. If little education/work skills are a problem then address them. If job availability is a problem then work on creating it. If available transportation is a problem then address it. If a viable support system is the problem then aid in creating one.

Other ways of expression are highly important. They should be celebrated and they should be available. The options cannot be sports and church and gangs and drugs. Violence and sexuality cannot be the measure of manhood.

[LuckyGem]

Lucky Gem said: 3. Looking at reasons why a teen female gives birth out of wedlock, does it follow that she came from a home where self-worth was not reinforced in her by her father, and as she develops into a young woman she sees herself as a sexual object before she sees herself as a person because of external influences (friends, television, media advertising)?

Originally Posted by Tin Knocker

Nope, rich brats have kids out of wedlock all the time.

So you don't think that rich brats are victims of the same type of external influences that poor ones are? Don't all kids get the same exposure to sexual imagery at an early age? And violence and abuse can occur in a wealthy home also. I don't think it's only the poor ones who succumb to the sexual imagery which leads them to view themselves as sexual objects to be used at an early age.

[Cliffie]

I don't believe desensitization to violence is a significant issue at all when it comes to crime. I'm a Detroiter who's lost several family members to violence and it doesn't make you numb to it, believe me -- I don't know anyone in my position who hasn't been sensitized to, even radicalized against violence as a result. It's the ones who haven't experienced it yet who think it's cool to gun someone down because he looked at you sideways.

I think the issue is having a sense of personal power. Everyone needs it and the lousier the neighborhood, the likelier you are to need to get it by joining a gang, scaring the crap out of everyone around you or helping your mom out by robbing houses.

[LuckyGem]

In response to your statements I have answered you in blue.

Originally Posted by Pandamonium

All YOU's are general.

In my original post all you’s are specific, not general. They are you’s directed toward the reader.

Wedlock is misleading. It does not count unless the other (in this instance male) makes enough money to lift the woman and children out of poverty.

Wedlock means, marriage. It’s not misleading. Having children outside of marriage with a single mother who has little education or work skills, as the only familial support puts the child at considerable risk for living in poverty.

It can be said that any parent that has a child and has little education and or/work skills will more than likely have a child that will also have little education/work skills. It can be said that the parent will more than likely be working at the hours that the child will be out of school and/or be working more than one job. It can also be said that those single mothers that are working and are in school to get a better job will also be absent. (read as doing what society says for better achievement and still being absent in the attempt.) Too, there are those parents that due to the career that they are in will be absent, as in medical or law enforcement or etc. and so on. They don’t work 9-5, therefore, those kids are at risk. A father may be present in any and all circumstances or none.

So, you believe that an absent parent, parent with little education/work skills, parent with a job which causes them to work odd hours, a parent who works more than one job, put the child at risk considering the environment to turn to a life of crime and violence. Agreed.

You will find that there are boys that do not have a father present that miss the step from unavailable role models that teaches them how to be men. There was a study that was done by a sociologist that came out in 1991 that showed that missing step due to father’s being either dead or incarcerated. That is an entire generation of young men. Which precisely coincides with the movement of factories out of urban areas into other parts of the world starting in the 1970’s.

True.

So, they would be presented with middle class/main stream societies monetary achievements but miss it all together. Or do they?

Please clarify. What do you mean by, “they would be presented with middle class/mainstream societies monetary achievements but miss it all together, or do they?” How could someone who has no role model be presented with what you describe?

Pretending that those middleclass/mainstream ideals are virtuous would be a lie. It operates from the beginning on devaluing those that are not already in that socioeconomic class. Thus, they start out with failure from the get go.

My post does not exalt the virtues of the middle class, nor is it demeaning people who are not middle class. The fact is that the ideal situation to raise a child in American society is within the framework of a healthy beginning. That healthy beginning includes two parents who are emotionally balanced, physically healthy, at least one gainfully employed, financially stable, and married.

Therefore a teen that married would be exempt? I don’t think so. Do not make father=savior and marriage=self worth. One factor that cannot be ignored is that just because society has stated that the age to be sexually active is at this point does not mean that the human body automatically agrees. I am trying to remember how this goes but by 1910 the age that one lives to dramatically increases but the body has its own evolutionary process.

My position is that a teen should not engage in sexual activity and/or become pregnant. Not enough has been done to persuade teens to refrain from sexual activity until they are adults. I believe that teen sexual activity and pregnancy relates directly to the amount and degree of advertising, media exposure, and sexual imagery a child is exposed to from birth.

Sexual activity carries the weight of social responsibility because the potential to bring life into the world is a variable that goes along with having sex. Not enough has been done to reinforce that fact among American teens. Having a child before you are an adult is always the result of irresponsibility and puts a young female at risk for living in poverty. Many times the teen wants to have a child as a substitute for something they are not receiving in their family.

Another factor to consider, is that a female may have a loving and caring father and still consider herself as a sexual object. Selling products is based on insecurity. If mother is not very strong, or “knows her place” then objectification is in the relationship that she witnesses from birth.

If the measure of masculinity is sexual prowess then your teen males are already at risk for teen pregnancy. Yet, you fail to address this.

What do you mean by, “selling products is based on insecurity”? And why do you believe that teens feel the need to have so much sexual expression? I believe it is because of marketing/advertising that is directed toward teens. The measure of masculinity is not sexual prowess, no more than the measure of femininity is in how many children a woman bears.

Finally, young women with little education/work skills have a tendency to carry a fatalistic belief with religious roots.

Please clarify. “Young women with little education/work skills have a tendency to carry a fatalistic belief with religious roots”. Why? And how does this relate to a cycle of inner city crime and violence?

No. I believe that 99% of all sexual activity in teen males and females occurs when the zipper comes down or the skirt comes up. Now, do I think that there are females that will seek sexual activity to replace that type of relationship? Sure.

So you agree with my statement.

Is it possible that she may view a failed relationship between mother and father as mother’s loss in the game of sexual competition? Sure.

Please clarify. Are you saying that the daughter sees the mother’s failure to keep her father bonded to the family, then turns that around into sexual competition with other females including the mother for male sexual affection?

The concept of time and consequence will not be present in most adolescents. Secondly, there are those females that have father figures in step fathers and shun their natural fathers.

Even if the daughter shuns her natural father the child will still have a male role model in her life through her stepfather. That is a given factor and doesn’t have anything to do with what I outlined in #4.

No. It does not follow. Do not confuse neglect with poverty. Abuse can and does occur when the parents are married. You will find a high rate of abuse and neglect occurs if mom remarries/marries or hooks up with a male that does not have any experience with children OR she and the child/ren are dependent economically on that male. That abuse is most often at the hands of the male but I personally feel that it is neglect when mom chooses s/o over the child even if that relationship is based on economics.

I think you are misunderstanding my question in #5. So you believe that all mothers who give birth to children actually want them, and would nurture them 100% if they weren’t living in poverty. This question relates only to mothers who neglect their children because they regret having the child and reject them emotionally and physically.

If your community is gang orientated and the people who live around you engage in violence, then THEY may be receiving positive social reinforcement in that society/subculture. These are the social norms. You have to remember that the Latin Kings were created to protect themselves from the police. Vice Lords were initially started to keep the kids off the street and in turn that would protect them from the already established “bad“ elements and give them some place to go, pre-wars. Therefore, we already see elements that are coming into play: rejection from mainstream society, protection, and one thing that is never addressed is PTSD, and activities and places for kids to go.

The positive reinforcement an individual receives “within” a gang is a substitute for the reinforcement they miss within the confines of a bonded natural family. There has always been poverty, but there haven’t always been violent street gangs which terrorize communities. Street gangs (as we know them today) are a phenomenon which began in the late 1940’s and proliferated in the 1970’s and 80’s because of jail culture and incarceration. What ever the original intent of “Vice Lords”, “Bloods”, “Crips”, “Surenos”, “Nortenos”, “MS-13” or any other gang that you could name, they have morphed into organized crime syndicates which terrorize neighborhoods today and reinforce violence and crime. In turn they perpetuate a cycle of lower economic status, poor communication and social skills, crime and violence, which as a result… rejection from mainstream society continues. Having places for kids to go relates to government money and grants as well as money from tax revenue. Taxpayers and home ownership is directly tied to how much money a community receives from the government for social programs and education. If there are people who do not pay into a system but receive from the system, it follows that their community will not have as much as another community that has higher tax revenue.

All violence influences. You can have a child and purchase clothes that do not resemble any street wear. That child will walk out of the house and immediately change clothes in order to make it down the street without getting his/her behind kicked. Survival. Any violent crime will have an influence on any child. That does not mean that all children will grow up to commit crimes and become violent. That child will lead a double life. Violence can and does occur at other levels of socioeconomic status.

The fact that a child swaps clothes on their way to school so they won’t have to fight, says a lot about the environment where the child is living and supports my theory about the environment having a major impact on how a child is socialized, either toward violence, or influenced to commit crime and violence. Having mandatory school uniforms is an excellent way to combat bullying by other kids and threats from gangsters. It takes away competition for material things because they all dress the same.

Drop the pretense that mainstream society/middle class is “it”. It is devaluing and operates from the beginning as exclusion because it considers a lower socioeconomic class as failures from the beginning. The concept of not including ethnicity is automatically devaluing and you won’t find any stats that do not incorporate that.

Nowhere in my post did I exalt one lifestyle over another. My questions you may not like because you may perceive them to be slanted for one side and against another, but if you read my questions you will see that I have done an excellent job of being impartial and non judgmental.

Not including ethnicity takes the “race” component out of it because poverty exists in all parts of the world. The dynamic in the USA is not slanted because of ethnic background or race it is because of social status. It is not important the color of skin, the importance lies in the social status of an individual because a skin color does not commit a crime. It devalues a person of any ethnic background to use “race” or “ethnicity” in crime statistics because it labels certain groups as being more likely to commit a crime or be incarcerated as a result of being grouped with an ethnicity or “race”.

Here is a statistical study that does not include race:

Further, you will find no concrete answers. It is willful ignorance to deny the existence of any subcultures values/concept of time/worldview because it might devalue your own. Drop the pretense that “wedlock” is it.

I have no pretense that wedlock is “it”. My position is that premature sexual activity and pregnancy in teens, combined with low socio-economic status, elementary education, and violence in the environment leads to a vicious cycle of poverty and a lower socio-economic status for people in urban inner city areas. And those who refrain from having children before they can financially care for them take themselves out of the cycle of poverty sooner than those who continue the cycle.

That instigates sexual competition. There is sexual competition in finding a mate. Your questions assume that the object worth competing for is male. It then follows that sexual competition is OK if you say so and under your conditions. You want that to be the ultimate goal but by your standards.

Please clarify what you mean by “sexual competition”. There should not be sexual competition among teens. My thread concentrates on premature sex among teens having an absent father causing a cycle of poverty among people in economically depressed urban areas. Whether you want to admit it or not, the most beneficial way to raise a child is within the confines of a committed union between and adult man and woman. Children raising children, or children raised by the street and/or street gangs does not make a stable family. Furthermore I have not made any conditions for “sexual competition” in my post, nor have I set any standards in my opening thread. You are defensive and inferring that I have outlined an “ideal” situation because of the questions I have posted. Every point I outlined are questions, and not statements.

Male figure as savior puts entirely too much on either gender. It sets the pretext for failure. Not to mention that it sets the bar for achievement for women extremely low and only obtainable through another.

Please clarify. “Male figure as savior puts entirely too much on either gender. It sets the pretext for failure”. So, what you are saying is, having a male in a union with a female to raise a child in a stable environment puts too much strain on the male to accept responsibility for his offspring, and is a pretext for failure.

It is necessary for young women and men to visualize a future have role models and see those in their community achieve success. I mean success that is not acquired by guns and drugs. Remove wedlock as the only option and add more options.

What other option/condition for having a child would you propose? Because obviously you don’t believe that two adult people rearing a child they created together is good enough and there should be other options.

Recognize the difference between neglect and poverty. If you have children that are home alone and mother or father is at work. The issue is not neglect it is affordable or available child care.

If there is only one parent in the home and only one source of income, then affordable child care is an issue. It is much less an issue when there are two parents in the picture.

If little education/work skills are a problem then address them. If job availability is a problem then work on creating it. If available transportation is a problem then address it. If a viable support system is the problem then aid in creating one.

What solutions do you propose for meeting these goals.

Other ways of expression are highly important. They should be celebrated and they should be available. The options cannot be sports and church and gangs and drugs. Violence and sexuality cannot be the measure of manhood.

Other ways of expression meaning, things for teens to do outside of having sex and making babies they cannot afford?

[backfist]

1. Do you believe that urban areas of cities with socio-economically depressed residents produce more children born out of wedlock that then grow up to commit violent crimes?

Yes. But the dynamics aren't limited to cities. See Appalachia.

2. Can it be said that single mothers with little education and/or work skills are at a higher risk of giving birth to a child who will turn to a life of crime and violence because of her socio-economic status and the absence of a father?

Yes, there is a stronger likelihood.

3. Looking at reasons why a teen female gives birth out of wedlock, does it follow that she came from a home where self-worth was not reinforced in her by her father, and as she develops into a young woman she sees herself as a sexual object before she sees herself as a person because of external influences (friends, television, media advertising)?

Yes, a girl needs a father for multitudes of reasons, including the ones you mention.

4. Do you believe that young teen females who are shunned, abandoned or ignored by their natural fathers will become vulnerable to engage in sexual activity before she is mature enough to understand the consequences?

Yes. But this occurs in all socio-economic backgrounds. Many of the "suburban" girls that I had sex with, had a father was absent from the home.

5. Does it then follow that SOME single mothers may not have a desire to bond with her child in a loving way, and she may see the child as a liability and constant reminder of the sexual encounter she had with a man who had no intention of marrying her or having any participation in raising the child. Could that then lead to the child being abused or neglected by the mother or caregiver?

Yes.

6. Will a child who is raised in an economically depressed violent area of a city, with no exposure to positive social reinforcement and interaction cause some children to become desensitized to violence and develop violent anti-social tendencies?

It's highly likely.

7. Even if some mothers were not physically or emotionally abusive to their offspring and they are attempting to raise their child in a loving home, and their children are thrown into the same environment with offspring from a similar socio-economic background who were subjected to negative social reinforcement, abandonment, or physically abused is it logical to say that many of these children will be influenced by violent crime in their environment and then grow up to become violent, anti-social and commit crimes.

Certainly possible.

What is your opinion, and what is the remedy for this vicious cycle of inner city violence?

Generations of people have lived healthy, productive and function lives in our nation's inner cities for hundreds of years. So it's necessary to determine when and how our cities went from family-nurturing environments to blighted scapes of violence, poverty and dysfunction. And it's not enough to merely suggest "well, things were fine until the [fill-in-the-blanks] moved in".

If we are all Americans; if all of our cities are part of America; then the problems of our cities are America's to share and remedy. The remedy, IMO, begins with strong committment from suburban AND urban to first and foremost ... give a damn. Second, acknowledge that our cities got this way, not only through neglect, but by design. And then move fcrward with rebuilding them. If we can do it with Baghdad, we can do it with Detroit.