My theory on crime

 My personal theory is that almost every crime can be sorted into three categories. The criminal may have wanted material gain, such as money, food, or shelter. They may not want somebody else to have something, be it out of fear, jealousy, or any other reason. Lastly, they may be committing the crime for some form of satisfaction, such as attention or pleasure. Ultimately what these categories have in common is some form of unmet need or desire.

Clearly this is very general and crime can be much more complicated than it seems, but these 3 categories should be able to encompass most crimes. I believe that every choice that humans make are out of some form of need or want, and crime is no different. A crime will occur when the criminal feels some unmet need, weighs the benefits against the potential penalties, and consider their other options to be either harder or less likely to succeed. Thus, because I believe crime to be a product of thought and choice, difference in brain structure will obviously have an effect on the likelihood of an individual choosing to commit a crime. Because everybody processes information differently, a set of circumstances which would lead one person to commit a crime may not lead another to commit a crime. 

If we are to believe that crime is a product of unmet needs and desires, it stands to reason that crime could be reduced by providing easier alternatives for would-be criminals. Helping to provide people with the materials they need to survive and feel fulfilled should reduce the likelihood that they deem it necessary to commit a crime in order to obtain these things. Ultimately there will still be people who want more and are willing to commit crime to gain more, but the aforementioned measures should see a decrease in crime.

Let's look at an actual crime as an example to see how it fits this theory and how it could have been avoided. This article actually already does a great job of explaining what happened, why they think it happened, and how it could have been avoided. A 13 year old boy shot and killed a 15 year old boy the day after stealing from a drugstore. This set of crimes would seem to fit into the satisfaction and material gain parts of my theory. The boy robbed the store for the material gain of the things he was stealing, and likely also to build a reputation for himself. His actions were driven by a sense of need for what he was stealing and the attention it would bring him. This could likely have been avoided if  the boy's family had been in a more stable financial position, and if the boy had received more positive attention from his peers. A more stable financial position would have made him less desperate for what he was stealing, and a better social life would have made him less desperate for the reputation it would provide him with, and with both the big factors taken care of he wouldn't have felt the need to commit the crime.

Tl;dr - Crime is a product of circumstances and how those circumstances are processed. Somebody will commit a crime when an outside influence causes them to feel an unmet need, and the criminal deems that crime will be the best or easiest option. Providing resources to would-be criminals to ensure their survival and fulfillment should reduce the likelihood that they feel the need to commit crime.