3&2“? '1'! ' , ‘1 1 n .3. I E :‘QSE I 1‘ 1 » .. \ n . n...- - ‘ A ~ .“,v-r. v ‘ r1 3 1 . .‘ u TA. "" ,. .me «A . (cw <<"“‘ ' “ “— ,‘. ‘4: ,-..uM A "‘ l A?” = .— he-tfii‘ ‘ <3» I .,‘. ll!- __ o.. . .. ,«A 1-]! {PEA-(F I.. .. .1”. MI‘L'HS” :9 ; ‘r; ‘3‘ “.5“ -- .y. '4: “i H '1’" .x- u. ‘ I" 3': ' u 3"} z... -.. - .. . 31.x- . E... x' -K‘ - d f. v I :v' ,x.x «5" It .' A 1? ~,. ‘31:». 1 W53 _ ..'-f"'. .A h ‘H’ “.rrraw W ‘- ~ --._ “3* .fi - V..- . nu. ‘ u::i§£:.u .... u ‘t‘ a. a w, ‘ ”a.“ 53:; C‘ ‘ 1‘33": ' :4... z; “ “ V V 557") ‘ ,Ci‘Tw x. mm m3f‘§?{~g’é& H wig " .‘3‘3 s.-( w‘ 1.5"“ Q§-§\Qk m." "“ k M - -.~... ‘V «a? 1.33% " ya: .\ dig" 7“: : ’.-~-'-Ju ad's-:1; .21.“ Syxfmx-r '4 5 .u~v ‘99 ' “31:31am. “A: .- ’3‘“... "P.” It ‘ ‘ .J. ‘.sx. uns- M1“ "fl‘ , I $5.8”. . r“. 4 -. . ' “xxx-‘43 $1.“ .-_ 4:4. . ‘Li-x ' ‘6“ . n I t U‘ - ‘_ ”2,17. 0'”: _ _ . v "‘4,” _ w“ £fi+mvx4" 1-4” .. o.’ - “U' V”. 1“,..L old 1’5 1“") L 4. figflljflgf '1‘ ’J “ f. I ‘ ”'4’ , ."x > ‘ . . V ,‘J ‘ V ‘ v “I I 13.7.)": fin, {I V " J " - ' I 4’!“ #Z‘I,’:«.;?‘zf;?‘vti§9 "5’5?" "’ ‘ .r‘. r?- r‘. [Jr/.11 d a-) 0 '4‘ . )Vf' I - I , am}; ’ -'2,;:crr?«‘mr A 15‘3“? 4' Mm! {wkgififfiwfif{85"fisx?w'l 4'4 ‘ :1-‘-'- ”"' "1“". ’h ’V ’ . . A “2‘1 . ll' 21¢:er Ilflifllflm flflflflfllflmflilflfllfl'lfflflfllifil LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled CRIME AMONG IMMIGRANTS: A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF CRIME IN KUWAIT presented by Adel Bu-Rashed has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein Sociology Major professor Date_%rM/‘~< (cc; (93X MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: Piece in book drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from “ your record. FINES W'iH be charged if book is returned after the date MAGtCZ stamped below. Nugafi3ltiggg CRIME axons IMMIGRANTS: A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY or CRIME In KUWAIT BY Adel Bu-Rashed A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology 1988 ABSTRACT CRIME AMONG IMMIGRANTS: A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF CRIME IN KUHAIT BY Adel Bu-Rashed Immigrants in Kuwait have higher overall felony crime rates than the Kuwaiti population. This study attempted to investigate possible factors which might lead to that high crime rate. Data were collected by a self-administered questionnaire to the total population of 597 male felons in the central jail in Khwait: 471 responses were obtained. Government population censuses were also used to carry out some of the analyses comparing offenders with the total population. Several variables were selected in order to investigate their effects on crime by both Kuwaitis and non-Kuwaitis. Age and marital status were selected to measure demographic effects on crime: level of education and level of income measured the effects of socio- economic variables on crime: nationality, length of stay in Kuwait and homogeneity versus heterogeneity of the area of residence measured the cultural variable. Bu-Rashed Social isolation and anomy were measured to ascertain if there were any differences between the two groups which might lead to the difference in crime rate. Finally we compared Kuwaiti and non-Kuwaiti populations on four variables, i.e., age, education, marital status, and level of income, to see if immigrants' high involvement in crime is a result of them having more young people, less educated people, more single people, and more low income people. General descriptive statistics such as frequencies, proportions, and cross-tabulations were used to describe each variable under study. The chi-square test was used to determine the relationship between the categorical variables. Z-test and t-test were utilized to test significance of differences between proportions and means of the sample. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to check the relationship between the social isolation scale and anomy scale. Analysis of variance was also utilized to investigate the relationship between the continuous and the categorical variables. Our findings show that compared to the Kuwaiti offenders, immigrant offenders were older, less educated, less often accompanied by their wives, have lower levels of income, live in heterogeneous areas, and were more socially isolated than the Kuwaitis. Bu-Rashed Both immigrant and Kuwaiti offenders scored high on the anomy scale. Non—Kuwaiti non-Arab immigrants committed more crimes compared to non-Kuwaiti Arab immigrants. DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my grandfather and grandmother, who passed away while I was working on my doctoral program in the 0.8. May God bless their souls. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In the name of Allah, most benevolent, ever-merciful. Praise and thanks be to Allah (God), first and last, lord and cherisher of all the world, who taught humankind everything they knew not. I wish to acknowledge all those persons who assisted me in the undertaking and completion of this dissertation. My heartfelt thanks and appreciation go to Professor William A. Faunce, advisor and chairman of my doctoral committee, for his valuable time, guidance, direction, consistent counsel, continual encouragement, and constructive advice throughout the entire doctoral program. Sincere appreciation and gratitude are also due to the other committee members, Dr. Allan Beegle, Dr. Peter Manning, and Dr. Harry Perlstadt, for their valuable support, contributions, advice, constructive comments, and service on my doctoral committee. I also wish to express my thanks to all my friends and colleagues in the Kuwaiti police force who helped me in this research. Special thanks go to Captain walleed Al-Salamah, Captain Abdulaziz Al-Rashed and First vi Lieutenant Saleh Bu-Rahama from the Public Administra— tion of Police College, and First Lieutenant Sarhan Al-Otiby and First Lieutenant Fauzy Al-Shayh from the Central Jail for their assistance and help throughout the data collection stage. I also wish to express my appreciation to my parents, brothers, sisters, and all members of my family who have offered a great deal of concern, encouragement, and prayers throughout my years of study in the 0.8. Special thanks must go to my wife, Amal, for her sacrifices and patience. Finally, thanks are due to the Ministry of Interior for providing me with my scholarship. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER I 0 INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O Statement of the Problem Purpose of the Study . . Need for the Study . . . Limitations of the Study Definition . . . . . . . II. THEORIES AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Theories of Crime . . . . . . . . . Anomie, the Structural Approac . Cultural Conflict Theory . . . . Socio—Cultural Perspectives . . . Ecological-Cultural Perspective . Theories of International Migration Review of Literature . . . . . . . . I I I O METHODOLOGY 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O Hypotheses . . . Age . . . . . Marital Status Education . . Level of Income Length of Stay . Area of Residence Nationality . . . Social Isolation . Anomy . . . . . . . . Comparison with General P p 1 Population and Sampling . . . . Data Sources and Analysis . . . . . Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 H00 0 o o o o o o o o 50 o o o o o o s o o O oua (1' viii Page Page Problems in Data Collection . . . . . . 53 Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 IV. DATA ANALYSIS 0 O O O O O O O O O C C O O O 59 Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Marital St tus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Level of Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Length of Stay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Area of Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Nationality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Social Isolation Scale . . . . . . . . . . 92 Anomy Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Comparision with General Population . . . 96 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 98 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Summary and Discussion of Major Findings . 103 Demographic Variables . . . . . . . . . 103 Socioeconomic Variables . . . . . . . . 104 Cultural Variables . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Social Isolation and Anomy . . . . . . . 108 Comparison with the Total Population . . 109 General Conclusions of the Study . . . . . 110 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 APPENDIX 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 119 BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 132 ix 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. LIST OF TABLES Population by Gender in Census Years 1957 to 1985 O O O O O O O O O O I Felonies by Nationality and Nature of Offense, 1980’1984 o o o o o o o o Misdemeanors by Nationality and Nature of Offense, 1980-1984 a o o o o o o 0 Estimated Mid-Year Population by Nationality, 1980‘1984 o o o o a o o o o o o o 0 Percent Distribution of Kuwaiti and Non- Kuwaiti Male Population by Level of Education, Age, Marital Status, and Level of Income Percent and Frequency Distribution of Offenders by Nationality . . . . . Frequency and Percentage Distribution Offenders by Age . . . . . . . . . Frequency and Percentage Distribution Kuwaiti Offenders by Age . . . . . Frequency and Percentage Distribution non-Kuwaiti Offenders by Age . . . Result of t-test Comparison Between Mean Ages of the Offenders and the General Population Results of Means and Standard Deviations for Types of Crimes . . . . . . . . . . Results of Mean Ages and Standard Deviations for violent and Nonviolent Crimes . Results of Analysis of Variance Comparing Violent and Nonviolent Crimes by Age Comparisons of Means and Standard Deviations Between Kuwaitis and Non-Kuwaitis by Type of Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 48 50 60 61 62 64 64 64 65 66 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. ZOO 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Results of Analysis of variance Test for Age and Type of Crime for Kuwaitis and NOD-Kuwaitis o s o o o o o o o o s o o o 0 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Offenders by Nationality and Marital Status Results of z—test Comparing Married Offenders and General P0pu1ation . . . . . . . . . . Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Offenders by Nationality and Marital Status Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Offenders by Nationality, Marital Status, and Place of Spouse . . . . . . . . . . . . Chi-square Test by Nationality of Married Offenders with Wives Present in Kuwait . Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Sexual Offenses by Nationality and Marital Status O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Sexual Offenses by Nationality and Marital Status Chi-square Test Results by Nationality of Married Sexual Offenders with Wives Present in mwait O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Offenders by Level of Education . . . . . . Result of t-test Comparison Between Mean Level of Education of the Offenders and the General Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Offenders by Level of Education and Nationality O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Offenders by Level of Income . . . . . . . Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Offenders by Level of Income and Nationality xi Page 66 68 68 69 7O 71 71 73 74 74 75 77 77 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. Result of t-test Comparison Between Average Income of the Offenders and the General POPUlation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Result of t-test Comparison Between Average Income of Offenders by Nationality . . . . Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Theft Offenses by Level of Income and Nationality Results of z-test Comparing Non-Kuwaiti Offend- ers on Duration of Time Spent in the Kuwait Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Non-Kuwaiti Offenders by Duration of Time Spent in Kuwait and Type of Crime . . . . Results of Analysis of Variance Comparing the Duration of Time Spent in Kuwait on the Social Isolation Scale . . . . . . . . . . Results of Analysis of Variance, Means and Standard Deviations Comparing the Duration of Time Spent in Kuwait with the Social Isolation Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Offenders by Locality of Residence . . . . Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Offenders by Type of Neighborhood . . . . Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Non-Kuwaiti Offenders by Locality and Type of Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Kuwaiti Offenders by Locality and Type of ReSidence O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Result of Chi-Square Test for Non-Kuwaitis for Type of Neighborhood. . . . . . . . . . Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Offenders by Nationality . . . . . . . . . Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Offenders by Nationality and Type of Crime. xii Page 78 78 79 80 81 82 83 85 86 87 89 90 90 92 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Results of z-test Comparing the Proportions of non-Kuwaiti Arabs with non-Kuwaiti DOD-Arabs a o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Results of Analysis of Variance of Sbcial Isolation Scale Comparing Kuwaitis with NOD-Kuwaitis o s o o o o o s o o o o o o a Results of Analysis of Variance, Means and Standard Deviations of Social Isolation Scale Comparing Kuwaitis and Non-Kuwaitis . . . . Results of Analysis of Variance of Anomy Scale Comparing Kuwaitis with Non-Kuwaitis Results of Analysis of Variance, Means and Standard Deviations of Anomy Scale Comparing Kuwaitis and Non-Kuwaitis . . . . Results of Pearson Correlation Between Social Isolation and Anomy Scales for Kuwaitis and Non-Kuwaitis . . . . . . . . . Results of Chi-square Test Comparing Non-Kuwaiti Offenders Level of Income with that of the General Population . . . . . . Results of Chi-square Test Comparing Non-Kuwaiti Offenders' Level of Income with that of the General Population . . . . . . xiii Page 93 93 94 95 95 95 96 97 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Kuwait is a Moslem-Arab country situated on the northwest corner of the Arabian Gulf bounded by Iraq to the north and Saudi Arabia to the west and south. Five decades ago, Kuwait was a small country of less than 100,000 inhabitants. Its population was comprised of either nomads living in the desert or seamen working in fishing or diving for pearls or in trade with other countries (e.g., India, Arabian Gulf countries)(Stanford Research Institute, 1974, p. 111—12). After the discovery of oil in 1935 and after the first shipment of crude oil in 1946, the country experienced two sharp sociocultural phenomena, namely, urbanization and immigration. These phenomena were a result of the seemingly endless flow of money from the oil revenues, which pushed the country to finance development of physical plant and services such as the construction of roads, schools, hospitals, houses, and so on. Due to a shortage of manpower and the urgent need for modernization, Kuwait opened its doors to foreign labor. The first wave of immigrants--Palestinians, Iraqis, and Iranians--came in the 19503. The second 1 2 wave came with the expansion of development activities from the late 19605 through the mid-19708 with an influx of South Asians, Egyptians, and Lebanese (Weiner, 1982). Since 1965, the number of immigrants in Kuwait has been larger than the number of natives. (Table 1 shows the proportion of foreigners to native Kuwaitis.) This fact is not only interesting, but is of great social, political, and economic importance. This strange demographic situation has captured much scholarly attention in an attempt to study the consequences of this situation. However, most of the studies deal with economic consequences and with political or social consequences. Unfortunately, what is lacking is research on the field of crime as a consequence of the demographic situation. Kuwait, as one of the richest developing countries in the world, has had a level of crime much below that of developed countries; but as Kuwait moves toward modernization, its crime rate is approaching those of industrial societies. This study is a modest attempt to understand the relationship between immigration and crime in Kuwait. Statement of the Probl- No one can argue that the accelerated growth of accumulated wealth in Kuwait did not lead to modernization and prosperity. Yet these same factors generated a number of social problems, one of which was 3 Table l--Popu1ation by Gender in CEnsus Years 1957 to 1985 Population Percentage Census Year Male Female Total Male Female Total Ratio* 1957 Kuwaiti 59,154 54,468 113,662 28.7 26.3 55.0 108.6 Non-Kuwaiti 72,904 19,947 92,851 35.3 9.7 45.0 365.5 Total 132,058 74,415 206,473 64.0 36.0 100.0 177.5 1961 Kuwaiti 84,461 77,448 161,909 26.3 24.1 50.3 109.1 Non-Kuwaiti 116,246 43,466 159,712 36.1 13.5 49.7 267.4 Total 200,707 120,913 321,621 62.4 37.6 100.0 166.0 1965 waaiti 112,569 107,490 220,059 24.1 23.0 47.1 104.7 Non-Kuwaiti 173,743 73,537 247,280 37.2 15.7 52.9 236.3 Total 286,312 181,027 467,339 61.3 38.7 100.0 158.2 1970 Kuwaiti 175,513 171,883 347,396 23.7 23.3 47.0 102.1 Non-Kuwaiti 244,368 146,898 391,266 33.1 19.9 53.0 166.4 Total 419,881 318,781 738,662 56.8 43.2 100.0 131.7 1975 Kuwaiti 236,600 235,488 472,088 23.8 23.7 47.5 100.5 Non—Kuwaiti 307,168 215,581 522,749 30.9 21.6 52.5 142.5 Total 543,768 451,069 994,837 54.7 45.3 100.0 120.6 1980 Kuwaiti 280,649 284,964 565,613 20.7 21.0 41.7 98.5 Non-Kuwaiti 495,990 296,349 792,339 36.5 21.8 58.3 167.4 Total 776,639 581,313 1,357,952 57.2 42.8 100.0 133.6 1985** Kuwaiti 337,243 342,358 679,601 22.3 20.2 40.1 98.5 Non-Kuwaiti 627,333 388,194 1,015,527 37.0 22.9 59.9 161.6 Total 964,576 730,552 1,695,128 56.9 43.1 100.0 132.0 *Males per 100 females **Provisional Data Sburce: Ministry of Planning, CEntral Statistical Office, State of Kuwait. Annual statistical abstract, edition XXII, 1985, p. 25 4 the influx of ethnically, culturally, and socially differentiated immigrants. "In the period from 1 April 1978 to 7 December 1983, a total of 439,908 work permits were issued to persons of 132 different nationalities" (International Convention, 1984, p. 10). These huge numbers of immigrants were accompanied by an increase in numbers of crimes, including new forms of crimes among immigrants to the country. Al-Doory (1975) describes Kuwait before the discovery of oil as: having a peaceful land with peaceful people who were until recently far from a crime problem. In fact, Kuwait had its first four cases of homicide as late as 1949-1950. Crime was a for- eign innovation unknown to the Kuwaiti natives, save a few occasional personal quarrels that were settled by tribal reconciliation. (p. 3) However, one look at recently published statistics on crime demonstrates the problem. Tables 2 and 3 show the 1 committed by proportion of felonies and misdemeanors immigrants and Kuwaitis from 1980 to 1984. By comparing the proportional percentages in Tables 2 and 3 with the population distribution in Table 4, it can be seen that a difference in serious crimes 1The reader will notice that some of the labels in Tables 2 and 3 are the same (e.g., theft, forgery, fraud and bribery, and sexual offenses), although Table 2 represents felonies and Table 3 represents misdemeanors. According to a Kuwaiti criminal law, "felonies are crimes punishable by death or life imprisonment or imprisonment for more then three years (Act 3). Misdemeanors are those crimes punishable by fine or imprisonment less than three years (Act 5)" (Al-Roshoud, 1982). Some types of crimes may be either felonies or misdemeanors depending upon their severity. .Aomma acm. mam .m .mmma .xx GOauapw 6cm Avmmalamma “Ow. omm .m .mmma .aaxx anauaum .uomuumnm amoaumauoun amused Jams—.2 no 33m .838 ambaumaumum acuusmo .mcacsmam «0 >535: ”858 N mm mth we ow «a. v5 vva mm. on chm ov. wh wmm mvo. mm mv av. 55 ace m.a om chN vmma a ma owwa I I mN. mm NVN mm. mm «em he. mm mm; mmo. «m cm 5N. oh va mm. mm am mmma N as OMON I I an. mm mam mm. mm mam ma. mh mme mmc. mm Nm «mo. Nm ma mm. mm Nb Nmma N Nb NaaN I I mm. mm vhN cm. «5 mo mm. mm NNm amo. m mv NN. mm mma mm. Nb N amma N ms mama I I mm. Nm men on. mm owm mm. on me mmo. Nm we MN. hm Nma ah. ah wm omma anam3nxlcoz m.a am mNNa ¢m mm who. mN am «N. on Noa ma. vN NNa owe. me me ma. MN ONa oc.a an own vmma m. mN mam oa. NN he mN. Nm Nwa aN. vN mma mmo. oN aN ma. on moa who. ma we mmma a mN mam I I ma. aN Nm ow. Nm mvN 0N. NN mNa ovo. Nm mN com. o v am. mm vmn Nmma a mN NNm I I ma. vN mm om. wN mha 5N. mm owa mac. ma oa va. Nm hm om. mN th amma a mN mmw I I Na. ma he an. eN oma ma. «N mm hao. ma oa hmo. MN mm av. mN mNN omma auamzaw coca a z w z coca w z ocoa w z oooa w z coca w z coca w z coca a z umww auaam20aumz and you you mom now mom 2 I“ e as m. m m m m. mm. 3 mm 3 a D. D. as w. m u. m m. .3 mm. mm s N. 3 3.3 ILA . mm m... m. m n“ D. 1.u I I. p a m T? £1 u m an m m a p b p I s a n a J 0 a J .4 48725 6838 mo 33% 8... 33.8382 an monsoammln 638. . Emma ~03 man .9 ~mmma .xx coauamvm can Gmmalamma How. Rm .m .mmma .aaxx coauaawm .uomuumno amoaunaunum asap—cc Jams—.2 no was“ .0033 aooaumaunum amuucwo 55553 no 53352 «0058 n.~ an Gnnn on man on. an nnn nn. an nnn an. nn nnn an. an nnn an. en sen nn. on nnn annn n.n an nnmn en nun me. on «an nn. an nnn mm. mm man an. no nnn n.n we nmo an. en nan nnnn ~.n we mean nn ms nu. no one on. nn nn on. nn nan en. no ann n.n as men an. no one mean n.n an nnon nn an on. nn non . u n on. an nnn nn. no nnn n.n no one nn. nn nnn nnnn n.n we nonn . u an. mn new i u I an. on «ma nn. an nan n.n no new on. on nnn onnn nunmsaencoz o.n an noon an an” an. an on nno. nn an on. on nnn nn. on men n.n an ens nn. on nnn «nan n.~ an onnn an nan an. on nnn nnc. nn an no. an nnn nn. nn nnn nn. an nan cc. nn «a nnnn n.n an «nan n n nn. on nnn one. en an as. me ens nn. nn nan m.n en nan nn. nn eon nnnn n.n en nnnn n n ma. nu mnn - i - nn. nn own an. nn nnn n.n en nnn an. nu onn nnnn m.~ nn nonn . - on. nn nnn . u . mm. «a nnn nn. an nan n.n nn «an an. on nnn onnn nunmzax coon n z n 2 Soon n z seen a z oocn n z coon n z coon n z coon « z anon nunnmaonunz awn..— uwm Hg Hg awn uwm H8 m. m m m m m. w m 0... .4 U. a I. n x S D. 1 w... m n. W m. m m 0..” a a T. T. J I U u .4 ILA D. u 0 O... a a I. B a D. S 1.. u 1 1.. S 9 D. ..A J m u 8 n B S .4 n... 1 U a U. D. D. D. S J 9 a J D. B J .4 D 00 S .nnnnuonnn .mmawmuo no musunz can nunnmaonnmz an muocmoewnmnzian mneme 7 Table 4--Estimated Mid-Year Population by Nationality, 1980—1984 Nationality Kuwaiti Non-Kuwaiti Total Year N % N % 1980* 565,613 41.7 792,339 58.3 1,357,952 1981 590,974 41.2 840,715 58.8 1,431,689 1982 613,077 40.9 883,488 59.1 1,496,565 1983 636,007 40.6 928,448 59.4 1,564,455 1984 659,795 40.3 975,708 59.7 1,635,503 Source: Ministry of Planning, Central Statistical Office, State of Kuwait. Annual Statistical Abstract, Edition XXII, 1985, p. 9. *The 1980 figures are actual figures rather than estimations from the same above source, p. 25. (felonies) and misdemeanors exists between Kuwaitis and non-Kuwaitis, with non-Kuwaitis having a higher overall rate of crime. For example, in felonies, non-Kuwaitis contributed 75%, 72%, 71%, 75%, and 69% for the years 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984, in that order, while their population proportions were 58.3%, 58.8%, 59.1%, 59.4%, and 59.7% for the same years. The same trend is seen for misdemeanors, except in the year 1984, when the non-Kuwaiti contribution to crime was approximately the same as the population distribution. Also, if we compare the overall per capita crime rates, the same conclusions appear to be true, i.e., non-Kuwaitis commit more crimes than do Kuwaitis; the exception was for misdemeanors in 1984, when the per capita crime rate for Kuwaitis and non-Kuwaitis was approximately the same. If we examine each type of 8 crime and compare the two groups, it is seen that, among felonies, the Kuwaiti per capita murder rate for 1984 is 0.060 and for non-Kuwaitis it is 0.049; among misdemeanors, the Kuwaiti crime rate exceeds the non—Kuwaiti crime rate in drunkenness and drug use (1980-1984), in assault and threat (1984), and in sexual offenses (1980 and 1984). However, it appears that non-Kuwaitis commit more overall crimes in most felony and misdemeanor categories. For this study, our interest is to study the more serious crimes (felonies). The focus will be directed toward studying the difference between Kuwaiti and non-Kuwaiti offenders in serious crimes. In other words, this study will try to investigate the following question: What are the possible factors behind the noticeably high rate of felonies among immigrants in Kuwait? Unfortunately, a complete answer to the research question suggested above would require a large sample of the general population. Because resources were not available for such a large study, this preliminary study focuses on offenders only. However, comparisons between our sample study of the offenders and the general population will be made using the general population census. 9 Pugpose of the Study The phenomenon of crime, through its impact on societies, impairs the overall development of the nation, undermines people's spiritual and material well-being, compromises human dignity, and creates a climate of fear and violence that erodes the quality of life (Sixth United Nations Congress, 1980). Crime prevention strategies should be based upon the elimination of causes and conditions whidh give rise to crime. It is this researcher's belief that "immigration" is not a cause of and not in itself a sociological explanation for immigrant criminality. It is the social, economic, demographic, and cultural conditions of immigrants that are to be blamed for immigrants' criminality. Taft (1956) summarizes possible causes of immigrant criminality by saying that there is an excess of men among immigrants. They include young adults, they suffer from maladjustment, they are ignorant in the laws of the host country, and they lack primary group control. In addition, many researchers found that the main causes of crime in many countries are social inequality, racial and national discrimination, low standards of living, unemployment, and illiteracy among broad sections of the population (United Nations Economic and Social Council, 1984). With this in mind, the purpose of this study is to investigate possible factors related to the high rate of 10 serious crime (felonies) among adult immigrants in Kuwait. The emphasis of this study will be to investi- gate the following variables: (a) age, (b) marital status, (c) level of education, (d) level of income, (e) length of stay, (f) area of residence, and (g) nationality. In addition, this study will focus on two other variables: social isolation and anomy. A rationale for selecting these variables will be provided in the hypotheses section in Chapter III. Need for the Study Davis (1981) argues that foreign workers in Kuwait are generally considered to be "guest workers" rather than permanent immigrants. The idea is that the workers will leave the country after they finish their work. But the fact is, "as the absolute size and relative proportion of the foreign population increases, this idea becomes increasingly unrealistic--not because the foreign workers cannot be sent back but because it is impossible to maintain the economy without them" (Davis, 1981, p. 44). Knowing that Kuwait will continue to depend on immigrants to run the country and knowing that imi- grants are the majority population in the country, it would be wise if such a study were conducted to assist government planners to best understand the real needs and problems of this segment of the Kuwaiti society. 11 This study will also help highlight the possible factors of crime among immigrants in an attempt to find a solution to the problem, which could lead to the prevention of some personal and familial suffering. Also, the results of such a study can be used to foster additional research in this important field. Limitations of the Study This study is faced with four major problems: 1. the scarcity of studies currently available on the subject of relationships between immigra- tion and crime in Kuwait, which forced the researcher to seek studies from other countries; the notion that criminal statistics sometimes reflect certain social biases. In some socie- ties, members of economically and socially disadvantaged groups (e.g., immigrants) and ethnic minorities are more likely to be arrested, prosecuted, and found guilty than members of more favored groups (United Nations Economic and Social Council, 1984); the study of crime and causes of crime in developing countries lacks appropriate theoretical models that are free from western ethnocentricism yet suited to diverse cultural, economic, and social realities of the Third fibrld (British Journal of Criminology. 1983, p. 3); and because data were collected from offenders only, there are some important questions regarding differences between Kuwaiti and non-Kuwaiti crime rates in the general population that cannot be answered. Definition For the purposes of this study, an immigrant is defined as a non-Kuwaiti. In older literature, 12 international migration was defined as the movement of a population across political boundaries with the intention of permanent resettlement in the receiving country (Taft & Robins, 1955; Fairchild, 1925). Recently, the United Nations Statistical Commission provided an operational definition which distinguishes between long-term immigrants (those who entered a country with the intention of remaining for more than one year) and short-term immigrants (those who entered a country with the intention of staying for one year or less)(United Nations Department of International Economic and Social Affairs, Statistical Office, 1980). In this study, every non-Kuwaiti will be treated as an immigrant, regardless of his/her length of stay in the country. This is because 1. the government of Kuwait classifies every person in the non-Kuwaiti segment as an immigrant, so all census data available are built on this classification; and 2. in reality, every non-Kuwaiti experiences the same rights regardless of length of stay; political, economic, and social rights are the same for all non-Kuwaitis. Accordingly, we will use the terms "non-Kuwaitis" and "immigrants", "Kuwaitis" and "natives" interchangeably. However, as a word of caution to the reader, the fact that immigrants cannot be assimilated legally into Kuwaiti society may make the results of this study not strictly comparable to other research findings where immigrants can be assimilated. CHAPTER II THEORIES AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Having discussed the purpose of this research and the statement of the problem to be studied, it is now appropriate to present theories that deal with our problem and review the relevant literature. This chapter will be divided into three sections. In the first section, we will present some theories of crime which we think can be utilized to explain our problem. The second section will discuss theories of international migration. The chapter will end in a third section where we will review the literature which exclusively deals with the relationship between crime and migration. Theories of Crime In this study, the researcher will present the major perspectives on crime that can be utilized to explain crime rates among immigrants in the state of Kuwait. Other perspectives on crime causation will also be mentioned to give the review a comprehensive form. Many theories have been developed in an attempt to explain the causes of crime and deviant behavior, but 13 14 these attempts have failed to formulate a comprehen- sive theory or "a grand theory" of the origins and determinants of criminality and deviant behavior. One major difficulty concerns the definition of criminality and deviant behavior. Shelley (1981a) states: No two societies or historical periods define crime in exactly the same way or single out the same forms of behavior as criminal. Legal definitions of crime are determined by the social values of society (Id. A.B.R.], and as its social values change, so do the acts characterized as criminal and the ways in which they are described under the law. (p. xxvi) In certain countries, for example, behavior may be labeled as anti-social and criminal which in another country would not be considered deviant at all. One clear-cut example is drinking alcohol. In the United States, it is legal to drink and sell alcohol, but in Kuwait, drinking alcohol is a misdemeanor and selling it is a felony. In general, most social theories of deviance suggest that certain social situations produce pressures toward deviance and crime. The following are some of the dominant theories in the field of crime. Anomy, the Structural Approach Durkheim (1947, 1951) believed that anomy was responsible for the genesis of certain kinds of social pathology and for dramatic changes in the rate 15 of crime. Anomy, in general, means a condition in which people feel isolated and rootless; values are conflicting, weak, or absent. Anomy describes a demoralized society in which norms are rapidly changing, uncertain, or conflicting. Durkheim felt that anomic suicide would occur in such societies where individuals feel lost and disaffected due to an absence of clear-cut rules and standards for behavior (Landis, 1971). In discussing Durkheim's concept of anomy, Merton (1938) suggests that deviance is likely to be the result of a strain between a society's culture and its social structure; between culturally prescribed goals and the socially approved ways of obtaining and achieving these goals. Members of the society believe in society's goals and believe that they can achieve them by following socially approved methods. However, in conditions of rapid societal change or social injustice and social inequality, the availability of opportunities of achieving them will be affected, and deviant behavior and crime will occur. In the immigrant situation, a relatively deprived immigrant with a desire to make good in the host society will find himself in the classic Mertonian situation (Bottoms, 1966). Immigrant groups, after their arrival in the host country, face formidable barriers to legitimate systems of opportunity and struggle to make l6 adjustments to the new society. Here there is frustration and social disorganization (Cloward, 1969). Cultural Conflict Theory Sellin's (1938) cultural conflict theory is another widely applied explanation of criminal behavior. In short, it argues that conflicts between the norms of different cultural codes may cause clashes on the borders of contiguous cultural areas when the laws of one cultural group are extended over the territory of another and when members of one cultural group migrate to mix with another culture. Sellin argues that different rates of crime among different immigrant groups are directly related to the clash between traditional values and norms with the new values and norms immigrants face in the new society. For example, making wine at home might be conceived a normal behavior in the immigrant society but considered illegal in the new society (Hartjen, 1974). Socio—Cultural Perspectives According to this perspective, deviant behavior is learned from interaction with one group. One of the most influential theories is Sutherland's (1939) theory of differential association. He links crime and deviance to an individual's primary or reference 17 group or subculture. He argues that criminal acts are not inherent in criminals; rather, they are a process learned through communication with other people, mostly intimate groups. In his book Delinquent Boys, Cohen (1955) states that delinquent subcultures are very distinct from society‘s culture. They have their own set of values and beliefs, which are often in conflict with the rest of society. The result is that individuals following the subculture will deviate from the society's culture. Treating the immigrant culture as a subculture will explain how conflict will occur between the society and the immigrant subculture. Other sociologists, such as Cloward and Ohlin (1960), argue that crime and delinquency may be more appropriately related to different opportunities people have to be involved in criminal activity because of their "social locations“ in social class or racial or ethnic groups. Ecological-Cultural Perspective Shaw (1929) reported that "delinquency and crime are more common in areas undergoing transition and characterized by physical deterioration, population change, and disintegration of the cultural and organizational neighborhood" (p. 204). He found that crime in the city of Chicago was concentrated in 18 particular ecological areas. Industrial and business areas had the highest crime rates, and residential communities had the lowest crime rates. In a later study, Shaw and McKay (1942) tried to explain crime and delinquency rates in American cities. They noted that high rate areas in 1900-1906 were also high rate areas in 1917-1923, although the ethnic makeup of these areas had changed. Shaw and McKay suggested that crtminality in these urban areas is transmitted from one generation to another despite basic ethnic, ecological, and demographic changes. Quinney (1964), Lander (1964), and Polk (1957) all indicate that the organizational pattern of the community may be related to the incidence of criminality exhibited by its members. Still other major theories of deviance include conflict-oriented theorists (Quinney, 1970; Taylor, Walton and Young, 1973), poverty and crime (Lewis, 1961), crime and social class (Reiss & Rhodes, 1961), labeling theory (Becker, 1963; Erikson, 1962; Kitsuse, 1962), psychological explanation (Dollard, Wood, Miller, Mowrer & Sears, 1939), frustration/ aggression theory, and, earliest, biological explanations (Lombroso, 1918). All of these theories tried to explain crime and delinquent behavior. These diverse explanations show how diverse the phenomenon of crime is. Thus, no one set of theories 19 or single level of analysis is adequate in and of itself as an explanation of crime. This conclusion is presented in a study done'by the United Nations Economic and Social Council (1984) on crime prevention. The report states the following: Yet the etiology of crime and delinquency is still not clearly understood, and no single factor or combination of factors has been identified that would in all circumstances be conducive to criminal behavior regardless of social, economic, political, and cultural differences. Crime is only understandable within the context of a given social system in all its uniqueness and embedded in the most diverse circumstances and even in the presence of material well-being and satisfactory oppor- tunities for self-advancement. Thus it appears that theoretical efforts often succeed only in the identification of tendencies and possibilities. (p. 12) After highlighting the theories of crime rates, it is important to discuss the theories of international migration to provide a complete understanding of the social and psychological conditions surrounding immigrants. Theories of International Migration No one theoretical formulation or framework of international migration has gained any kind of general acceptance (Heisel, 1981; Mangalam & Schwarzweller, 1970). Miro and Potter (1980) stated that, ”For the moment at least, no set of general propositions, say a theory of international migration transition, has acquired any meaning in the field." Nevertheless, one 20 of the earliest attempts to explain the causes of migration in general is by Ravenstein (1889), who derived what he called the seventh law of migration. He stated the following: Bad or oppressive laws, heavy taxation, an unattractive climate, uncongenial social surroundings, and even compulsion . . . all have produced and are still producing currents of migration, but none of these currents can compare in volume with that which arises from the desire inherent in most men to better themselves in material respects. (p. 32) This statement led contemporary demographers to develop the "push-pull" theory that explains most immigration activities in the state of Kuwait. According to this theory, migration is caused by socioeconomic imbalances between regions: certain factors pushing persons away from their areas of origin and others pulling them to their areas of destination (Jansen, 1969). The push factors can arise from many causes--demographic, economic, political, religious, geographical, and social factors. The pull factors are the reverse of these. In his famous article, "A Theory of Migration,“ Lee (1966) stated the factors which determine the decision to migrate: 1. factors combining economic, social, and other concerns: a. those associated with area of origin (push), and b. those associated with area of destination (pull); 2. factors inferring obstacles such as distance, actual physical barriers (e.g., the Berlin wall), immigration laws, etc.; and 21 3. personal factors such as age, health, marital status, number and age of children, and so on. In general, the focus of most research in this field gives economic factors the first priority that pushes or pulls people to migrate. Miro and Potter (1980) state that economic motivation seems to be the uppermost factor for people to migrate, and, in this author's research, that appears to be true. Al-Sabah (1978) stated that the initial decision to migrate to Kuwait is largely determined by wage factors and job opportunities (pull factors). Al-Sabah (1978) and Al-Essa (1981) mention other pull factors such as the availability of free social services, education, and health services as being important in the 19505 and '605. In the 19703, the government was pressured by the large numbers of immigrants to implement policies which gave priority to Kuwaitis for free government services. The availability of low- priced consumer goods was considered to be a significant pull factor in bringing people to Kuwait since the country has no taxes. A simple immigration policy during the 19505, when the demand was highest for labor, also attracted large numbers of people. This policy was changed to a very restrictive one, however, because the government saw that immigrants began outnumbering Kuwaitis. These legal restrictions caused many people to enter the country illegally. 22 Other factors shared by international migration theorists include the following: 1. demographic factors which view interna- tional migration in rather sweeping terms as a typical consequence of population growth in the context of technological and political changes (Kulischer, 1948; Jaffe, 1962; Heisel, 1981; Bouvier, Shryrock & Henderson, 1977); 2. political and religious factors which force people to migrate, such as what happened between India and Pakistan after their partition in 1947, or the Palestinian immigration after the creation of Israel in 1948 which pushed most Palestinians to immigrate outside their country. It is worth mentioning that most Palestinians immigrating to Kuwait are the victims of that political push factor (war); and 3. social factors', such as family and kin-group, influence on decisions of migration (ward, 1981; Kammeyer, 1971). This influences their selection of specific destination, remaining or returning to country of origin. Whatever the motive for migration to Kuwait or any other country, we see no inherent reason why immigrants, pulled or pushed, should be more prone to crime than other people. If the migration process does not result in a change or disruption of the social organization of the immigrant, we cannot expect much change in the immigrant's behavior. Thus it is the social organization of the immigrants (demographic, economic, cultural, and social characteristics) that is to be blamed for immigrant involvement in crime. That is why we think that adult immigrants to Kuwait do show higher crime rates than natives. In the next section we will 23 review studies which have dealt exclusively with immigration and crime in order to explore factors which possibly could contribute to immigrant criminality. Review of Literature Since the literature about the relationship between immigration (external migration) and crime rates in Kuwait is rare, research in the United States and other countries was reviewed. Concern for the impact of migrants on crime rate can be traced to the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Studies on the criminological significance of large-scale immigration has been studied, especially in the United States, Israel, England and European countries. It should be noted that there is a difference between internal and external migration. Studies on the criminal behavior related to international migration and foreign settlers show that these people have very different patterns of behavior from those of migrants who move within their own countries (as from countryside to urban areas)(Mannheim, 1955). The reasons why internal and external migration have different criminological consequences help explain the relationship between crime and society and the impact of societal conditions on individual offenders (Shelly, 1981c). Since we are dealing with international or external migration, internal migration will be excluded from this review, except in countries 24 such as the Soviet Union, which do not permit international migration. In the United States, during the years when immigration was at its height, many scholars argued that immigration was the chief cause of crime. The mechanisms by which immigration produces crime were the following: 1. immigrants come from inferior racial stock or there is a larger proportion of inferior individuals in the racial stock of immigrants than among native whites and these degenerates lead to criminality; 2. immigrants are not trained in the codes and ideals of America; therefore, they commit crimes out of ignorance; 3. immigrants are frequently poverty-stricken, and this condition and its resulting frustration create personal maladjustment of various kinds, including delinquency and criminality; and 4. immigrants are highly mobile and thus are isolated from inhibiting and restraining influences of primary groups (Sutherland & Cressey, 1978, p. 148). These explanations were accepted in a period when the United States was considering the adOption of a law limiting free immigration. Once the law was adopted and researchers could again study the same phenomenon, but in a less tense atmosphere, some of these conclusions were rejected (Drapkin, 1966). One of the best surveys of literature through 1938 is provided in Sellin's (1938) classic volume, Culture, Conflict and Crime, where he pointed out that ever since 1910, investigations have 25 shown that immigrants' crime rate is slightly lower than that of native white Americans. Taft (1956) explained this phenomenon by saying, "some immigrants have been protected against crime by life in the ghettos of our cities and in homogeneous immigrant colonies in rural areas. . . . The immigrant becomes assimilated more slowly, possibly, but much more effectively." Mannheim (1955) argued that organized crime is often run and staffed by individuals who are not native to the society in which they are living. He said that in the United States, different immigrant groups have successively assumed control over the structure of organized crime, a pattern that has been repeated in other societies. Another famous study of American juvenile gangs done by Thrasher (1965) stated that this phenomenon was, in Chicago at least, largely one of low income immigrant communities, mostly involving American- born children of immigrants. Generally, one finding about the American research on migration and crime should be mentioned; that is, the immigrant crime rate for the second generation is higher than the crime rate for the first generation, with some researchers suggest- ing that the immigrant second generation has a rate higher than that of the native-born (Taft, 1936; Van Vechten, 1941). Research done in Israel corroborates Thrasher's observations concerning the relationship between 26 immigration and crime. Shoham and Abd-el-Ruzek (1981) stated that the highest rates of delinquency are associated with children of immigrants or the first generation to be born in a new country. The greater the differences between the immigrants and the predominant resident pOpulation, the greater the recorded rates of criminality. In another study done by Shdham (1962), he examined immigrant criminality from the cultural- conflict perspective and found that the criminality and delinquency of new immigrants (immigrants who migrated after Israel's establishment in 1948) tended to be considerably higher than the criminality and delinquency of native-born persons and immigrants who migrated before 1948. He also found differences in crime rates between different immigrant groups: Oriental Jews had higher rates than European Jews. The crimes committed by these different immigrant groups were explained as being a result of the conflict of norms and values among individuals and groups in the community who have different cultural definitions due to different cultural traditions and backgrounds. After public opinion grew against foreign workers, Gravern (1965) studied immigrant criminality in Switzerland. His data show that the level of criminality of Austrians was the highest compared to other immigrant groups. His data rank the following 27 nationalities from the highest to the lowest: Austrians, Germans, Italians, Arabs, Turks and French. In a United Nations' study (1984) on the relationship between crime and some socioeconomic issues, the problem of foreign migrant workers was of particular interest. The report stated that foreign immigrant workers in general do not possess the same legal rights as the citizens of the country they are in. A temporary domicile makes them more vulnerable to exploitation and victimization. Also, the set of values of foreign immigrants may often be more radically at variance with the value structure of the host country, which makes them easy targets for stereotyping and hostility. The immigrant worker in a host country will face limited economic and advancement opportunities, discrimination, and prejudice. Such attitudes may make the immigrant worker more prone to commit delinquent acts which may lead to serious crimes (United Nations Economic and Social Council, 1984). Wenzky (1965), studying foreigners' criminality in West Germany, found that only 1.4 and 1.6 percent of foreigners committed crimes in the years 1962 and 1963, respectively. He also reported that 20 percent of the murders were committed by foreigners. Foreigners from the Mediterranean countries and Africa were most responsible for the violent crimes. 28 In Great Britain, the large-scale immigration of Irish laborers into certain parts of the country has, for many years, attracted attention as a social problem and occasionally has been blamed for the exceptionally high crime rate of Liverpool and the whole of Merseyside. The cause of this was, in some cases, attributed to unemployment (Mannheim, 1965). Bottoms (1967), studying the same Irish group, said that their main problem was excessive drinking. Their crime rate accounted for half of the increase in all crime between 1950 and 1957 for those born outside London. The same conclusion about Irish drinking problems was made by Francis (1972). However, Gibbens and Ahrenfeldt (1966) argue that the high level of crime among Irish immigrants in England was due to the weakening of the strong external control of the Irish society (the dominance of the church and overprotective mothers). These external controls were removed by migration to a more flexible society. The British Commonwealth migrants to Britain between 1950 and 1961 show a lower crime rate than natives, except for crimes of violence which are explained by domestic disputes. In the Soviet Union, research in this area concluded that regions with a high proportion of migrants are areas characterized by higher rates of crime. This was true when the migrants shared the ethnic affiliation of the resident population; the level 29 of criminality of migrants was even more dramatic when the migrants did not share the national affiliation of the resident population. This example of internal migration in the USSR is mentioned here because Russian migration to ethnically and culturally different regions is similar to that of the problem of migrant workers in Kuwait. This may be because the immigrants into both Kuwait and the Asian regions of the USSR are entering homogeneous, close-knit, and traditional societies that have had low rates of crime in the past (Shelley, 1981a). In addition to the adjustment problem Soviet migrants have with the new surroundings, Soviet scholars have noticed that the rise in crime is a result of the migrants' difficulties in finding suitable housing and employment (Shelley, 1981b). An interesting explanation of the psychological feelings of immigrant workers is given in a United Nations' report on crime and delinquency in Arab countries. It was emphasized that migrants become aware of their own deprivation when they see the wealthy members of a city's population, and this feeling of deprivation leads to antagonism toward the society, an antagonism kept alive by feelings of oppression and the absence of social justice, which was considered to be one of the major elements of delinquency among both adults and juveniles in these countries (Draft Report of Third United Nations Seminar, 1964). 30 From the previous review, it can be seen that the main factor influencing the involvement of immigrants in crime shared by nearly all scholars is the immigrants' inability to adjust to the new society because their values, norms, and cultures differ from those of the host country. It was also noticed that some studies blamed economic factors such as unemployment, poverty, and limited economic advancement as causes of immigrant involvement in crime. However, the relationship between economic factors and crime is still not clear. Some investigators have denied the existence of this relationship. Nevertheless, it seems that some evidence shows that economic factors such as unemployment may influence the commission of some particular offenses (Hakim, 1982). Other studies focused on the discrimination, prejudice, and exploitation that immigrants experience in the host country. Others explain the immigrant involvement in crime by the absence of the primary group controls. All of these factors may play an important part in immigrant criminality, but, unfortunately, most of the studies mentioned above are not corrected for factors such as age, marital status, sex, level of education, and period of residence in the host country; these factors might affect the rate of crime more so than the single factor of foreign birth. 31 Since the aim of this study is to find possible factors which contribute to the high rate of crime among immigrants in Kuwait, it would be wise to include such variables in our study. Also, most of the studies reviewed support the previously mentioned argument that immigration per se (the physical movement of people from one place to another without a change in social surrounding) is not an explanation for crime; rather it is the cultural, demographic, economic, and social variables that usually accompany the migration process which are to be blamed. Therefore, the researcher will select the following variables to be tested in this study: age and marital status in order to measure the affect of demographic variables on crime;1 level of education, and level of income to measure the effect of socioeconomic variables on crime; and nationality, length of stay in the host country, and homogeneity and heterogeneity of the area of residence in order to measure the effect of cultural variables on crime. Also two other variables were selected for testing, a social isolation variable and an anomy variable. In this study, we would argue that the high crime rate among immigrants in Kuwait is a response to the cultural maladjustment immigrants experience in Kuwaiti society. Further, the level of crime among immigrants is modified 1Sex was excluded from this study because there was not enough data on Kuwaiti female offenders. 32 by certain of their attributes and characteristics, such as age, marital status, level of education, level of income, length of residence in the country, nationality, and nature of their residence (homogeneous versus heterogeneous). CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Having described the problem being studied and the literature on the relationship between crime and immigration, it is the intention of this chapter to present the hypotheses and describe the methodology of the research conducted for this study. Because data were collected only from offenders, there are some hypotheses regarding differences between Kuwaiti and non-Kuwaiti crime rates in the general population that cannot be tested. Where available, data from the census that bear upon the hypotheses will be used. Some of the variables included in the study are more likely to influence the crime rates for non-Kuwaitis than for Kuwaitis; for these variables, hypotheses regarding differences between Kuwaiti and non-Kuwaiti offenders were tested. The chapter starts with stating each variable under study, then presents a rationale for selecting that variable. A brief review of some studies emphasizing the importance of such variables will be presented. Accordingly, we will posit our hypotheses. Secondly, we will discuss our measurement tedhniques for 33 34 each variable. Thirdly, we will present statistical tools and techniques that were used in analyzing our data. Hypotheses Age Age is a very important variable in all crime and immigration studies.1 A United Nations report on crime prevention (1984) states, "For reasons not yet clearly understood, youth, as criminal statistics consistently show, is one of the most crime-prone groups of society." It is also believed that immigrants include many young persons of a criminally dangerous age. Lynn A. Curtis (1975), in his book\liolence, Race and Culture, states the following: The age variable, in particular, is stressed by many. It has been shown that a significant part of the increased arrests for serious crimes of violence is statistically associated with an expansion of the relative proportion of the most crime-prone, younger population groups in the total population. (p. 36) Published criminal statistics in Kuwait do not show age groupings. criminals are classified into two categories according to age: adults (18 years of age and above) and juveniles (under 18 years of age). These statistics Show a lower number of crimes among juvenile immigrants 1For a comprehensive summary of studies on age and crime, see Thomas Gabor, "The Prediction of criminal Behavior," University of Toronto Press, 1986, Chapter 3. 35 and a higher one among juvenile Kuwaitis; in 1984, there were 70 felonies for Kuwaitis and 46 for juvenile immigrants (Ministry of the Interior, 1984). (Juveniles, however, are not the focus of this study.) Concerning adults, our expectations about the reason why non-Kuwaitis show higher crime rates than Kuwaitis was that they would have higher proportions of young male persons in the general population than the Kuwaitis. This assumption turns out to be not true. The average age of the non-Kuwaiti populations was 34 years compared to 32 years for the Kuwaiti population (1985 census data were used, source A.S.A., 1986). Therefore, no hypotheses regarding the differences between Kuwaiti and non-Kuwaiti offenders is offered. Given that, the following hypotheses related to the age variable will be tested: 1. The average age of offenders will be lower than the average age of the general male population over 18 years. la. The average age of those who have committed violent crimes will be lower than the average age of those who have committed nonviolent crimes. Marital Status The impact of marital status on criminal behavior is recognized by most of the research done on this relationship. Also, immigration studies recognize the influence of the family on migration decisions. Immigrants, even those who are married, are often 36 separated from their families. Among married non—Kuwaiti offenders, 68% do not have their wives with them in Kuwait. Literature on the relationship between crime and marital status, in general, shows that single persons are more involved in crime than are married persons. In the United States in 1960, court commitment records show that 44.8% of the 62,235 prisoners were single, 34% were married, 19.4% were divorced, and 1.7% were widowed (Lunden, 1967). In Canada in 1963—64, courts committed 3,886 offenders to jail, 51.5% of whom were single, 25% of whom were married, 1.5% of whom were widowed, and 7% of whom were separated, 2% of whom were divorced, and 3% of whom were in common law marriages. But in Belgium in 1962, courts convicted 27,443 male and female offenders, 31.1% of whom were single, 62.2% of whom were married, 1.9% of whom were widowed, and 4.4% of whom were divorced. Due to the fact that single persons and married persons not living with their family are free from family and marriage constraints and responsibility, and based on the previous review, the researcher will hypothesize the following: 2. The proportion of offenders who are married will be significantly lower than the proportion of the general male population over 18 years who are married. 2a. The proportion of non-Kuwaiti offenders who are single or married but not living with their wives will be greater than the proportion of Kuwaiti offenders with these characteristcs. 37 2b. Among both Kuwaitis and non-Kuwaitis, the proportion of single offenders will be higher than the proportion of non—single offenders among those guilty of sexual offenses. Education Most researchers report strong connections between level of education and crime rate. However, some researchers found no relationship between crime rate and level of education. Kim (1980) found a strong positive association between percentage of illiteracy and rate of crime and that correlations between theft and educa- tional level were higher than those between aggravated assault and indices of education. Cooper (1960) stated that: Educational status of offenders is inferior on the whole to that of the general population, tending to be slightly inferior in respect to illiteracy, somewhat inferior in respect to amount of schooling, decidedly inferior in respect to school progress, and clearly inferior in respect to educational achievements. (p. 207) On the other hand, Pressman and Arthur (1971), using the data for SMSAs with a population of 250,000 in the United States, found no relationship between level of education and rate of crime in two categories: crime against persons and crime against property. Our expectation was that the higher crime rate of non-Kuwaitis could be partly explained by their low level of education. However, the difference in education level is too small to support this explanation 38 (the average education level of non-Kuwaitis is 6.22 years in school compared to 6.54 years for the Kuwaiti population). No hypothesis regarding differences between Kuwaiti and non-Kuwaiti offenders is offered. However, the researcher will hypothesize the following: 3. The average educational level of offenders will be lower than that of the general male population over 18 years. Level of Income In addition to level of education, level of income was selected as a measure for socioeconomic status of the immigrants. The attempt to link economic conditions with crime can be traced to Plato's and Aristotle's speculation about the influence of poverty on criminal behavior (Messner, 1980; Hurwitz & Christiansen, 1983). However, recent research approaches the relationship between poverty and criminality in two ways: 1. Subsistence approach: According to this approadh, people are poor when their level of income is so low that they cannot buy the necessary things to live (Messner, 1982). Once the economic well-being of the individual or the family reaches that level, the probability of committing criminal acts increases (Bonger, 1969). 2. Rainwater (1969), Miller and Roby (1970), and Townsend (1974) advance an alternative conception of poverty. They argue that the essence of poverty is 39 relative deprivation. People are poor because they cannot live equally as well as others (Messner, 1980, 1982). In other words, those who are at the bottom rung of economic standards may feel deprived regardless of what they have, since they measure their situation by comparing their possessions or income with what others have. Following the same logic, we can view the relationship between wealthy people and crime. Those who live relatively comfortable lives often do not look downward; they compare themselves with those who have more rather than those who are deprived. Thus, crime can be linked to poverty in both its "subsistence" and "relative deprivation" conceptions (Messner, 1982). While most poor people (in both meanings of the word) never commit a crime, unfavorable economic conditions must be taken into consideration when discussing differential crime rates. In fact, major theoretical perspectives such as "anomy” (Merton, 1938; Cloward & Ohlin, 1960), the conflict perspective (Engels, 1968; Taylor, walton & Young, 1973), the ecological perspective (Shaw & McKay, 1942; Singh, Oelinski & Jayewardene, 1980), and others, despite their differences, all posit that greater economic deprivation or inequality produces higher crime rates (Krohn, 1976). To take only one example from the ecological perspective, Shaw and McKay (1942), Singh, Celinski and Jayewardene (1980), and Jarvis and Messinger (1974) all 40 found poverty to be the most important predictor of location of delinquency. In this study, the researcher expects this factor to affect the level of criminal involvement of immigrants mere so than other factors under consideration because: 1. Most immigrants who came to Kuwait are ”pulled" for economic betterment (see the review of international migration theories in this study); 2. A11 migrations are temporary, and all immigrants will have to leave the country at some time. The average stay in Kuwait for all nationalities is 5.7 years, with a range of 2.6 years for European nationalities to 7.9 years for Gulf State immigrants (Farah, Al-Salem & Al-Salem, 1980). 3. There is a large difference in income levels between the immigrants' country of origin and Kuwait. For example, “a guard in Kuwait earns more than a university professor in Egypt, and a maid in Kuwait can support a family of ten in India“ (Farah et al., 1980). However, the average income for Kuwaitis in the general pOpulation is higher than that of non-Kuwaitis. The 1 average income of the Kuwaiti population is 429.37 KD (approximately $1,289 U.S. per month), compared to 1For the average incomes of both Kuwaitis and non-Kuwaitis, 1983 data were used; source: Final results of labor force sample survey, April, 1983. 41 259.59 KD for the non-Kuwaiti population ($778.77 U.S.). Therefore, this might produce relative deprivation. Given these considerations, the researcher hypothesizes the following: 4. The average income of offenders will be lower than the average income of the general male population over 18 years. 4a. The average income of non-Kuwaiti offenders will be lower than the average income of Kuwaiti offenders. 4b. The average income of non-Kuwaiti offenders who have committed theft offenses will be lower than the average income of Kuwaiti offenders who have committed theft offenses. Length of Stay Nationality, the homogeneity and heterogeneity of the area of residence, and the immigrants' period of stay in the country were selected to test the culture- conflict hypothesis. As noted in the review of literature, despite-the importance of this variable in relation to immigrant criminality, it has been ignored in most of the studies. However, some studies do account for this variable. Francis and Taylor (1977) compared migrant crime rates in three jurisdictions in the country of New Zealand and the state of New South wales and Western Australia. They found a positive but not significant relationship between prison rates and percentage of those who spent less than five years in Australia, and a negative relationship for those who spent more than five years in the country. Another 42 study, mentioned in the literature review, conducted by Shoham (1962) to test the cultural conflict hypothesis, found that new immigrants show higher crime rates than immigrants with longer residencies. Accordingly, the researcher hypothesizes that: 5. The proportion of non-Kuwaiti offenders who have been in Kuwait less than four years will be higher than the proportion who have been in Kuwait four years or more. Area of Residence Shaw and McKay are pioneers in the United States in the ecological distribution theory of crime. In their study of the city of Chicago, they noticed that some areas of the city (urban centers) had higher crime rates. Many scholars support this idea (see previous review on theories of crime rates). A sociological explanation may cite social factors in these areas or districts such as a disproportion of males and females in the population, bad housing, number of immigrants, high population density, or a relatively large minority pOpulation (Hurwitz & Christiansen, 1983). As we saw in the review, Taft (1956) argues that low crime rates among immigrants in the United States were due to the fact that they live in homogeneous ”immigrant colonies;” the assimilation process is slower but more effective. The same rationale was used by Kurz (1965) when he analyzed the Italian guest workers in Germany. He argues that the work camps, where Italian workers live, 43 act as protective systems which result in their low involvement in crime. In Kuwait, immigrant groups live in isolated urban colonies; some of the colonies are homogeneous and some are heterogeneous with many nationalities. This research hypothesizes the following: 6. The proportion of non-Kuwaiti offenders who lived in areas inhabited by heterogeneous immigrant groups will be higher than those who lived in areas inhabited primarily by their countrymen. Nationality The selection of this variable in studying crime among immigrants in Kuwait is built on the strong evidence found in the United States, European countries, and Israel. Research in the United States found that some groups and nationalities seem to be dispropor- tionately involved in certain types of crime. Southern Europeans in general and Italians in particular are more often guilty of crimes of violence, kidnapping, rape, and blackmail than would be expected in terms of their proportion of the total population. The Irish and Scotch are inclined to drunkenness, while the French and the Russians are disproportionately involved in prostitution (Hurwitz, 1952). Neumann (1963) studied crimes among Swiss and Italian workers in Zuridh. The Italians showed a lower frequency of crime than did the Swiss, and the 44 violations committed.by Italians were less serious. Graven (1966) studied crime among immigrant workers in Switzerland in 1964 and showed that Austrians had the greatest crime rates, followed, in descending order, by Germans, Italians, Arabs, Turks, and the French. In Israel, Shoham (1962) found that incidence of criminal- ity (per 1000) was greatest among immigrants from Africa and Asia and least among those from Europe and North America. Shdham argued that the clue to high crime rates among African and Asian people can be found in the cultural conflict hypothesis. The causes rest in clashes between the culture-code-norms and values of these groups and the receiving communities. The low crime rate of American and European immigrants is because of their similarities in culture and standards of education with their receiving communities. From the above, the researcher will hypothesize the following: 7. Among non-Kuwaitis, the proportion of non- Arabic-speaking offenders will be higher than the proportion of non-Arabic speakers in the general population. In other words, the broader the cultural gap between the immigrant group and the host culture, the higher the rates of crime will be. 45 Social Isolation For this variable, offenders who experienced the following conditions and characteristics prior to their incarceration will be defined as socially isolated: l. Offenders who are married but not accompanied by their wives. 2. Offenders who are not from the Arabic nationalities. 3. Non-Muslim offenders. 4. Offenders who lived alone 5. Offenders who lived with other nationalities. A social isolation scale based on these conditions was constructed. Accordingly, the researcher hypothesizes that 8. Non-Kuwaiti offenders will score significantly higher than Kuwaiti offenders on a measure of social isolation. Am Most of the theoretical argument in this study uses anomy as an explanatory variable. Moreover, many of the relationships in the earlier hypotheses are based on the idea that certain social, economic, and cultural structures or conditions related to anomy produce pressures toward deviance and crime. McClosky and Schaar (1963) discuss the general idea of anomy presented in the American literature and argue that most of the work on anomy employs the 46 following rationale: ”A specified social-culture condi- tion gives rise to specified feelings in individuals which in turn results in specified behaviors“ (p. 14). In their study, McClosky and Schaar (1963) found that anomy was highest among “those who for whatever reason, are stranded in the backwaters of the symbolic and material mainstream, those whose lives are circumscribed by isolation, deprivation, and ignorance" (p. 19). Their findings concur with other work which uses Srole's anomy scale (1956). The analysis from employing both scales finds that anomy is highest among . . . the old people, the widowed, the divorced and separated, persons of low education, those with low income and low prestige occupations, peOple experiencing downward social mobility, Negroes, and foreign-born, farmers and other rural residents. From.the above, the researcher hypothesizes that: 9. Offenders who were more socially isolated prior to incarceration will have higher levels of anomy. 9a. The level of anomy will be higher for non-Kuwaiti offenders than for Kuwaiti offenders. Comparison with General Population Previous research indicates that those who commit criminal offenses tend to be younger, less educated, and less likely to be married than the general papulation. Also, previous research in immigration characteristics indicates that immigrant groups are mostly younger, less educated, less likely to be married, and have lower 47 levels of income than the native population. The fact that there are more immigrants than Kuwaitis who are criminal offenders could be explained therefore by their age, education, income, and marital status rather than their nationality,1 if in the general population there are more non-Kuwaitis than Kuwaitis who are younger, poorer, less-educated and other than married. As noted above, however, some of these differences do not exist in Kuwait. Table 5 shows that among the non-Kuwaiti population there were 71 percent who have 8 years or less of education compared to 76 percent of the Kuwaiti population. Of the non-Kuwaiti population, 36 percent were younger than 30 years of age compared to 53 percent of the Kuwaiti population. Of the non-Kuwaiti population, 72 percent were married compared to 59 percent of the Kuwaiti population. And 71 percent of the non-Kuwaiti population had an income under 300 K.D. compared to 21 percent of the Kuwaiti population. These data indicate that we cannot use these differences in the general population to explain the differences among offenders for three of the four variables. Contrary to expectations based on previous studies of immigra- tion, non-Kuwaitis compared to Kuwaitis are, on the average, older, better educated, and more likely to be 1We are limiting this analysis to these four variables because they are the only ones relevant to our study for which census data are available. Table 5--Percent Distribution of Kuwaiti and Non-Kuwaiti 48 Male Population by Level of Education, Age, Marital Status, and Level of Income. Kuwaiti Non-Kuwaiti Number % Number % Level of Education 8 years and less 129,837 76 337,113 71 More than 8 years 40,924 24 139,211 29 Total 170,761 100 476,324 100 Age From 15 years to less than 30 years 90,924 53 173,668 36 30 years and above 79,837 47 302,656 64 Total 170,761 100 476,324 100 Marital Status Married 100,605 56 342,540 72 Other 70,156 41 133,784 28 Total 170,761 100 476,324 100 Level of Income Less than 300 K.D. 18,722 21 189,551 71 300 K.D. or more 68,598 79 77,837 29 Total 87,320 100 267,388 100 Sources: For level of education, age, and marital status, the source is A.S.A. (1986); for income, the latest available data is from a 1983 Final results of labor-force sample survey, April 1983. 49 married. However, for the income variable we found a difference and it is in the expected direction. If income differences in the general population explain differences in crime rates, then the distribution of Kuwaiti and non-Kuwaiti offenders with regard to income should approximate their distribution with regard to income in the general population. Accordingly, we hypothesize that: 10. The distribution of offenders in terms of their level of income will not be signifi- cantly different from the distribution of the general population for both Kuwaitis and non-Kuwaitis. Population and Sampling The population of this study constitutes all adult male prisoners who committed and were convicted of any of the six crimes under study, i.e., theft, assault and threat, sexual offenses, murder and attempted murder, trading in liquor and narcotics, and forgery, fraud and bribery. The total population under study consists of 597 prisoners, which is the total number of persons incarcerated for felonies in Kuwait.1 The number of respondents was 471, which is equivalent to 78.8 percent of the total population. Table 6 shows the response rate and the distribution of offenders by nationality. Out of a total of 178 Kuwaiti offenders, 162 completed 1Excluding political prisoners, traffic viola- tors, and check fraud offenses. 50 Table 6-—Percent and Frequency Distribution of Offenders by Nationality Prison Sample Nationality Population of Study % Kuwaiti 178 162 91 non-Kuwaiti Arab 215 182 84 non-Kuwaiti non-Arabic 204 127 62 Total 597 471 79 the questionnaire (91%). There were 215 non-Kuwaiti Arabs, 182 of whom responded to the questionnaire (85%), and 204 non-Kuwaiti non-Arabs, of whom 127 completed thequestionnaire (62%). Generally speaking, this overall response rate is considered to be a satisfactory one. The distribution of responses according to their nationality shows that the highest response rate was for the Kuwaiti offenders, followed by non-Kuwaiti Arabs, and finally non-Kuwaiti non-Arabs.1 Many reasons could influence and lead to this response distribution. Although every effort was made to maximize response rate for all offenders, there may still be more non-response bias especially among the non-Kuwaiti, non-Arabic offenders. 1One reason for this response distribution is that some of the offenders were caught at the borders while attempting to enter the country. These offenders were excluded from the sample study because many of the questionnaire items are not applicable to them (questions such as those connected with time spent in the country, level of income, heterogeneity and homogeneity of area of residence, and so on). There were 23 such cases—-6 non-Kuwaiti non-Arabs, and the rest non-Kuwaiti Arabs. 51 Data Sources and Analysis The purpose of this study is to investigate factors and causes related to the high crime rate in serious crimes among the adult male immigrant population in Kuwait. The following are the methods and techniques used in collecting the data and the prOblems faced during the data collection process. Data Sources Data for this research were collected, for the most part, from responses to a self-administered questionnaire. Before administering the questionnaire to the study participants, the questionnaire was presented to some of the police officers and university professors to have their input on the questionnaire items. Concerning the last part of the questionnaire. the anomy scale, the researcher first translated the scale from English to Arabic, then had two other professors (specialists in Arabic and English) translate the Arabic version to English. An almost equivalent Arabic version of the English items was obtained. After reaching the final stage of the questionnaire, and before administering it to the study sample, a small sample (20 cases) from the offenders was selected to pretest the questionnaire. Requests were made to the selected sample to write down any comments, suggestions, or difficulties in the questionnaire's items. No major 52 changes were made as a result of the pretest, except for some additions on question 23, option no. 5; question 24, option no. 7; and question 30, option no. 7 (see questionnaire in the appendix). The questionnaire was then administered to as many as possible of the population (597) of male felony prisoners in the central jail of the state of Kuwait. Offenders were gathered into groups, each group consisting of 20 offenders or less, depending upon their availability and willingless to participate at that particular time. A large room designed for social work activities was chosen to use as a place for adminis- tering the questionnaire. Offenders who could not read or write and those who could not speak Arabic were interviewed by the researcher and other interviewers who were trained by the researcher. Data were collected from approximately half of the respondents in this way. Since most of our questionnaire items are straight- forward, differences in data collection procedures should not affect the results. The researcher spent 15 days in the central jail to finish administering the questionnaire and interviews. The researcher collected information regarding the seven variables under study: (a) age, (b) marital status, (c) level of education, (d) level of income, (e) length of stay, (f) area of residence, and (g) nationality. In addition, data for the anomy and social isolation scales were collected. 53 After collecting the data, the data were coded and recorded on computer data sheets and then entered into the computer for further analysis. After the first output, the data were examined to discover any mistakes which may have occurred during the coding process. Accordingly, all necessary corrections were made and the corrections were re-entered in the computer for final analysis. Data concerning the general population were obtained from the Annual Statistical Abstract (1986) published by the Kuwaiti government. Problems in Data Collection The data collection process encountered many diffi- culties and problems. The following are the problems encountered and how the researcher dealt with them: 1. The first problem was that the prisoners (subjects of the study) have many activities and programs occurring daily. They are distributed in many activities and places, such as the school, the library, sports, agriculture, workshops, hospital, etc. The researcher found it inappropriate to interrupt these ongoing programs. It was decided to bring prisoners, during their break time, into a large room designated for social work activities. The plan went smoothly until the end. However, some of the prisoners could not 54 come to the room.1 The questionnaires were taken to them in their places by cell block representatives. Some, however, were still unavailable for these reasons. Those who refused to participate out of fear, laziness or any other reason were approached in the following manner. During the 15 days spent in the central prison, the researcher succeeded in establishing a good friendly relationship with cell representatives and many other prisoners. Those offenders were instructed and used to encourage the refusals and those who were hesitant to participate. While additional participation was achieved in this way, there were still some refusals. 2. The second problem had to do with language. Many prisoners speak neither Arabic nor English. Some speak Philippino; others can speak only Persian, or Hindi, etc. Fortunately, the researcher found several persons among the prisoners who could act as interpreters. The researcher trained them to fill out the questionnaire, and used them as interviewers. This method helped greatly in creating a secure climate for the respondents to freely answer the questionnaire, under less tension and pressure, since the interviewer was a prisoner whom they knew well. 1Some of the prisoners were in the hospital; others were under penalty and were jailed in their cells. 55 Measurement The following classifications and categories were used to analyze the variables: (a) Egg. Juveniles under age 18 were excluded from the study. The study only includes offenders 18 years old and over. Respondents were asked to specify their actual age. (b) Marital Status. Respondents were classified as married, single, divorced, widowed or separated. (c) Education. Respondents were classified into three groups: (1) illiterate; (2) read and write; (3) educated. The educated respondents were then asked to specify the number of years spent in school. (d) Level of Income. Respondents were classifed into eight categories in terms of their income level prior to being sent to jail. They were also asked about the extent to which they are satisfied with their income level, the number of people dependent on it, etc. (e) Length of Stay. The respondents were asked about the period of time they spent in the country before committing their first crime. (f) Area of Residence. The respondents were asked about the locality they lived in before being sent to jail. They were then asked to give their opinion about the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the neighborhood where they lived. 56 (g) Nationality. The respondents were asked to specify their nationality. In addition to these variables, our instrument includes two other scales: (h) Social Isolation Scale. Items 4, 5, 8, 25, and 26 in the questionnaire were used to construct the social isolation scale. Item 4 [Nationality] was categorized into Arabs and non-Arabs. The first group was given a "1" while the second group was given a "2" score, assuming that those who cannot speak Arabic will be more isolated. Item 5 [religion] was recoded to Muslims = l and others = 2. Item 8 [place of spouse] was recoded to those who have their wife present in Kuwait = l and those who do not = 2. Item 25 asks if the offender lived with his family prior to imprison— ment. Those who used to live with their families were given a score of "l" and others were given a score of "2". Item 26 asks about the nationality of persons the offender used to live with at home prior to imprison- ment. Those who report that they lived with persons from their nationality were given a "1" rating, and those who lived with mixed or nationality other than their own were given a score of "2". Thus the highest score one might get on this scale would be 10 and the lowest score would be 5. The higher the score, the more socially isolated the offender is likely to be. The measure of reliability utilized was Cronbach's alpha; 57 the alpha level obtained was .60, which is moderately reliable. (i). Anomy Scale. McClosky and Schaar's (1963) anomy scale was utilized in this study. This scale is constructed from nine items designed to measure anomic feeling. Anomy is defined as a sense of normlessness. Items 44 through 55 in our instrument represent this scale.1 Point values were assigned to the responses to these items according to the following: "strongly agree" = 5 points; "agree" = 4 points; "neither agree or disagree" = 3 points; "disagree" = 2 points; and "strongly disagree" = 1 point. Thus, the higher the score the higher the anomic feeling. The highest score possible is 40 and the lowest score possible is 8. The scale was subjected to examination for internal consistency. The measure of reliability utilized was Cronbach's alpha and the alpha level obtained was .70. Compared to the original [English] version's reliability of .76, our level is of approximately equal reliability, although both are only moderately high. This implies that some caution should be exercised in interpreting the results of both the anomy and social isolation scales. In this study, the researcher has selected the following categories for the types of crimes committed: 1 level. Item 55 was deleted to obtain a higher alpha 58 (a) theft; (b) sexual offenses; (c) murder and attempted murder; (d) forgery, fraud and bribery; (e) trading in liquor and narcotics; and (f) assault and threat. The selection of these categories was in large part due to the use of the same classifications in official statistics. General descriptive statistics (such as frequencies, proportions, and cross-tabulation) were used to describe each variable involved in the study. Since the nature of most of the variables under study is categorical, the chi-square test was utilized to determine the relationship between the categorical variables (Hopkins & Glass, 1978). Z-tests and t-tests were used to test significance of differences between proportions and means of the sample. To check the relationship between the anomy scale and social isolation scale, Pearson's correlation coefficient technique was utilized. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to investigate the relationship between the continuous and the categorical variables. Given the descriptive nature of our study and data, complex multivariate analysis may be inappropriate for this study. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to carry out this analysis. CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS This chapter will present the research analysis and findings obtained from the study. In terms of organization, each variable will be presented with hypotheses related to it. Analysis and descriptive examination of the findings pertaining to each hypothesis will be discussed accordingly. Age The following are the hypotheses related to the age variable: 1. The average age of offenders will be lower than the average age of the general male population over 18 years. la. The average age of those who have committed violent crimes will be lower than the average age of those who have committed nonviolent crimes. Table 7 presents the age distribution of the population under study. It shows that 77.3 percent of the crimes were committed by offenders under 36 years of age. The mean age for all crimes was 30.7 years and the mode was 25 years. The results show that more crimes were committed by young offenders than by older offenders. Tables 8 and 9 show the 59 60 Table 7—-Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Offenders by Age Age Frequency Percentage Cumulative Percentage 18 5 1.1 1.1 19 12 2.5 3.6 20 9 1.9 5.5 21 25 5.3 10.8 22 24 5.1 15.9 23 31 6.6 22.5 24 17 3.6 26.1 25 34 7.2 33.3 26 17 3.6 36.9 27 29 6.2 43.1 28 18 3.8 46.9 29 24 5.1 52.0 30 28 5.9 58.0 31 19 4.0 62.0 32 21 4.5 66.5 33 18 3.8 70.3 34 16 3.4 73.7 35 17 3.6 77.3 36 11 2.3 79.6 37 12 2.5 82.2 38 8 1.7 83.9 39 6 1.3 85.1 40 15 3.2 88.3 41 7 1.5 89.8 42 3 .6 90.4 43 4 .8 91.3 44 l .2 91.5 45 3 .6 92.1 46 4 .8 93.0 47 3 .6 93.6 48 6 1.3 94.9 49 l .2 95.1 50 5 1.1 96.2 51 3 .6 96.8 53 2 .4 97.2 54 3 .6 97.9 55 3 .6 98.5 56 2 .4 98.9 58 1 .2 99.2 62 2 .4 99.6 66 1 .2 99.8 70 l .2 100.0 Total 471 100.0 mean = 30.682 mode = 25 median = 29.000 61 Table 8--Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Kuwaiti Offenders by Age Age Frequency Percentage Cumulative Percentage 18 2 1.2 1.2 19 l 0.6 1.9 20 3 1.9 3.7 21 16 9.9 13.6 22 19 6.2 19.8 23 7 4.3 24.1 24 8 4.9 29.0 25 12 7.4 36.4 26 7 4.3 40.7 27 12 7.4 48.1 28 8 4.9 53.1 29 12 7.4 60.5 30 4 2.5 63.0 31 9 5.6 68.5 32 12 7.4 75.9 33 2 1.2 77.2 34 3 1.9 79.0 35 6 3.7 82.7 36 3 1.9 84.6 37 3 1.9 86.4 38 3 1.9 88.3 39 2 1.2 89.5 40 2 1.2 90.7 41 4 2.5 93.2 43 2 1.2 94.4 45 l .6 95.1 46 2 1.2 96.3 47 l .6 96.9 51 1 .6 97.5 55 l .6 98.1 56 l .6 98.8 62 l .6 99.4 70 1 .6 100.0 Total 162 100.0 mean = 29.62 mode = 21 median = 28 62 Table 9--Frequency and Percentage Distribution of non-Kuwaiti Offenders by Age Age Frequency Percentage Cumulative Percentage 18 3 1.0 1.0 19 11 3.6 4.5 20 6 1.9 6.5 21 9 2.9 9.4 22 14 4.5 13.9 23 24 7.8 21.7 24 9 2.9 24.6 25 22 7.1 31.7 26 10 3.2 35.0 27 17 5.5 40.5 28 10 3.2 43.7 29 12 3.9 47.6 30 24 7.8 55.3 31 10 3.2 58.6 32 9 2.9 61.5 33 16 5.2 66.7 34 13 4.2 70.9 35 11 3.6 74.4 36 8 2.6 77.0 37 9 2.9 79.9 38 5 1.6 81.6 39 4 1.3 82.8 40 13 4.2 87.1 41 3 1.0 88.0 42 3 1.0 89.0 43 2 .6 89.6 44 l .3 90.0 45 2 .6 90.6 46 2 .6 91.3 47 2 .6 91.9 48 6 1.9 93.9 49 l .3 94.2 50 5 1.6 95.8 51 2 .6 96.4 53 2 .6 97.1 54 3 1.0 98.1 55 2 .6 98.7 56 l .3 99.0 58 1 .3 99.4 62 l .3 99.7 66 l .3 99.8 70 1 .2 100.0 Total 309 100.0 mean 8 31.29 mode = 23, 30 median = 30 63 percentage age distribution of the Kuwaiti and non-Kuwaiti offenders, respectively. The mean age of Kuwaiti offenders was 29.62 years and the mean age of non-Kuwaiti offenders was 31.29 years. To investigate the relationship posited in Hypothesis 1, Table 10 is examined. Table 10 shows that the mean age of the total population was 33.6 years and the mean age of the offenders was 30.66 years. As indicated in the table, a significant difference was found between the offenders and the general population. This difference is represented by a t value of -7.3102. This result supports our prediction that the average age of the offenders would be younger than the average age of the general population. Table 11 shows which type of offender is the youngest. It is clear from the results presented in Table 11 that the youngest mean age is for theft (27.9 years), followed by assault and threat (28.0), sexual offenses (28.7), forgery, fraud and bribery (30.5), trading in liquor and narcotics (32.9), and, finally, murder and attempted murder, with a mean age of 34.4 years. To investigate the relationship in Hypothesis 1a, we examine Table 12. Table 12 shows that the mean age for those who committed violent crimes (32 years) was higher than for those who committed nonviolent crimes 64 Table 10--Resu1t of t-test Comparison Between Mean Ages of the Offenders and the General Population. Population Offenders t value sig. number of cases 647,085* 471 —7.310211 .000 mean age 33.644 30.660 std. dev. 11.565 8.859 *15 years and over (Source: A.S.A., 1986, p. 34) Table ll--Results of Means and Standard Deviations for Types of Crimes. Type of Crime Mean Age Std. Dev. # of Cases Theft 27.9 8.7782 83 Assault and Threat 28.0 10.1932 32 Sexual Offenses 28.7 8.4139 98 Forgery, Fraud & Bribery 30.5 7.9410 68 Trading in Alcohol & Narcotics 32.9 7.6922 133 Murder & Attempted Murder 34.4 9.8432 57 Total 30.6815 471 Table 12--Results of Mean Ages and Standard Deviations for Violent and Nonviolent Crimes. Type of Crime Sum Mean Age Std. Dev. Sum Sq. # Cases Violent* 285.00 32.1124 10.3796 9478.8764 89 Nonviolent 11593.00 30.3482 8.3924 26834.6937 382 Total 14451.00 30.6815 8.7993 36313.5701 471 *Violent crimes are murder & attempted murder, and assault & threat. w x L ' D. I x 65 (30 years). In Table 13 it can be seen that the F ratio of 2.9015 indicates there was no significant difference between age and whether the crime was violent or nonviolent. Table l3--Results of Analysis of Variance Comparing Violent and Nonviolent Crimes by Age. Source Sum of Sq. D.F. Mean 3.0. F Sig. Between groups 224.6592 1 224.6592 2.9015 .0892 Within groups 36313.5701 469 77.4277 This result does not support Hypothesis 1a, which was that violent crimes would be committed by younger offenders. However, when we compare violent and nonviolent crimes with nationality, different results are obtained, as shown in Table 14. Table 14 indicates that the mean age of Kuwaitis who committed violent crimes was 28.58 years compared to 29.74 years for nonviolent crimes. For the non-Kuwaiti group, the mean age for violent crimes was 34 years whereas the mean age for nonviolent crimes was 30.66 years. Table 15 shows that there is an F ratio of .4876 for the Kuwaiti offenders, which is not significant, and an F ratio of .0110 for the non-Kuwaiti offenders, which is significant atcx = .05. While the direction of the association predicted in Hypothesis la was not true generally or for non-Kuwaiti offenders, it was true for 66 Table l4--Comparisons of Means and Standard Deviations Between Kuwaitis and Non-Kuwaitis by Type of Crime. Kuwaitis Non-Kuwaitis Type of Crime # Cases Mean Age SD # Cases Mean Age SD Violent 31 28.5806 9.5141 58 34.0 10.4041 Nonviolent 131 29.7405 8.0140 251 30.6653 8.5818 Within Group Total 162 29.5185 8.3159 309 31.2913 8.9483 Table 15--Results of Analysis of Variance Test for Age and Type of Crime for Kuwaitis and Non-Kuwaitis. Kuwaitis Source Sum Sq. D.F. Mean Sq. F Sig. Between Groups 33.7205 1 33.7205 .4876 .4860 Within Groups 11064.7240 160 69.1545 NOn-Kuwaitis Source Sum Sq. D.F. Mean Sq. F Sig. Between Groups 523.8980 1 523.8980 6.5429 .0110 Within Groups 24581.8884 307 80.0713 67 Kuwaiti offenders, although the difference was not statistically significant. Marital Status The following are the hypotheses related to the marital status variable: 2. The proportion of offenders who are married will be significantly lower than the proportion of the general male population over 18 years who are married. 2a. The proportion of non-Kuwaiti offenders who are single or married but not living with their wives will be greater than the proportion of Kuwaiti offenders with these characteristics. 2b. Among both Kuwaitis and non—Kuwaitis, the proportion of single offenders will be higher than the proportion of non-single offenders among those guilty of sexual offenses. Table 16 indicates that 44.4 percent of the Kuwaitis were single compared to 42 percent who were married and 13.6 percent who were divorced. There were no Kuwaiti offenders in the widowed or separated categories. Among the non-Kuwaiti group, 57.3 percent were married, 36.9 percent were single, 5.2 percent were divorced, 0.2 percent were widowed, and 0.2 percent were separated. To investigate the relationship posited in Hypothe- sis 2, the results of Table 17 are examined. The result of the z-test, shown in Table 17, indicates that there is a significant difference between the proportion of offenders who are married and the proportion of married 68 Table 16--Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Offenders by Nationality and Marital Status. Kuwaiti Non-Kuwaiti Total Marital Status # % t % t % Married 68 42.0 177 57.3 245 52.0 Single 72 44.4 114 36.9 186 39.5 Divorced 22 13.6 16 5.2 38 8.1 Widowed - - 1 0.2 1 0.2 Total 162 34.4 309 65.6 471 100 Table l7--Results of z-test Comparing Married Offenders and General Population. Population Offenders Marital Status # Proportion # Proportion z-value Sig. Married 443,145* .685 245 .52 ' —7.708 .0000 Total population 647,085 471 *15 years and older (Source: A.S.A., 1986, p. 62) persons in the general male population. This difference is represented by a 2 value of -7.708, which is signifi— cant beyond the .001 level. This result supports what we predicted in Hypothesis 2, namely, that the proportion of offenders who are married will be significantly lower than that of the general total population. The data in Table 18 examine the relationship predicted in Hypothesis 2a. A significant relationship was found between the marital status of the offender and his nationality. A higher percentage (44.4 percent) of Kuwaiti offenders were single compared to the non-Kuwaiti 69 offenders (37.5 percent). This means that there are more married offenders in the non-Kuwaiti group. This result does not support the prediction of Hypothesis 2a. However, in our questionnaire we asked whether the offender had his wife with him or not. When the same analysis is repeated and a correction is made for place of spouse, the results are different, as shown in Table 19. Table 19 shows the marital status of the offenders, adding those married offenders who did not have their wives with them in Kuwait to the "single" category. Table 18-—Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Offenders by Nationality and Marital Status Nationality Marital Kuwaiti Non-Kuwaiti Total 2 Status # % # % t X DF Sig. Married 68 42.0 177 57.3 245 15.3559 2 .0005 Single 72 44.4 116* 37.5 188 Divorced 22 13.6 16 5.2 38 Total 162 100 309 100 471 *Widowed and separated added The data in Table 19 indicate a higher percentage of single (or married but the wife is not in Kuwait) offenders for both Kuwaiti and non-Kuwaiti groups but the percentage is much higher for non-Kuwaitis. If the data in Table 19 are compared with the data in Table 18, it can be seen that there are 120 cases of the non-Kuwaiti 70 Table l9--Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Offenders by Nationality, Marital Status, and Place of Spouse Nationality Marital Kuwaiti Non-Kuwaiti Total 2 Status # % t % # % X DF Sig. Married 67 41.4 57 18.4 127 26.3 46.3703 2 .0000 Single 73* 45.1 236* 76.4 309 65.6 Divorced 22 13.6 16 5.2 38 8.1 Total 162 100 309 100 471 100 *Adding those who are married and did not have their wives with them in Kuwait. married offenders who did not have their wives with them in Kuwait, compared to only one case for the Kuwaiti group. Therefore we can conclude that Hypothesis 2a is supported. As an additional test of the relationship in Table 19, a chi-square test was performed comparing the Kuwaitis and non—Kuwaitis with wives present in Kuwait. Table 20 shows the results of the chi-square test. According to these results, there were no significant differences between Kuwaiti and non-Kuwaiti married offenders with wives present in Kuwait. The important difference is among those whose wives are not present. Concerning Hypothesis 2b, the data in Table 21 show the marital status of Kuwaiti and non-Kuwaiti 71 Table 20--Chi-square Test by Nationality of Married Offenders with Wives Present in Kuwait. . . Cases . 2 . Nationality Observed Expected Residual X D.F. Sig. Kuwaiti 67 61.00 6.00 1.180 1 .277 Non-Kuwaiti 55 61.00 —6.00 Total 122 Table 21—-Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Sexual Offenses by Nationality and Marital Status Nationality Marital Kuwaiti Non-Kuwaiti Total 2 Status 4 % # % t 8 X D.F. Sig. Married 10 26.3 31 51.7 41 41.8 6.846 2 .0326 Divorced 5 13.2 3 5.0 8 8.2 Single 23 60.5 26 43.3 49 50.0 Total 38 100 60 100 98 100 offenders who have committed sexual offenses. The table shows that 60.5 percent of the Kuwaiti sexual offenders were single, 13.2 percent were divorced, and 26.3 pecrent were married, compared to 43.3 percent single, 5.0 percent divorced, and 51.7 percent married for the non-Kuwaiti group. Because a majority of the non- Kuwaiti offenders are married, it appears that the relationship predicted in Hypothesis 2b is incorrect. However, when the same analysis is repeated correcting for the location of the wife, different results are obtained, as shown in Table 22. According to Table 22, 72 13.3 percent of the married non—Kuwaiti group committed sexual offenses compared to 81.7 percent who are single or married but did not have their wives with them in Kuwait. The status of the Kuwaiti group did not change because all of the Kuwaiti sexual offenders had their wives with them in Kuwait. Thus the relationship predicted in Hypothesis 2b is supported. Table 22--Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Sexual Offenses by Nationality and Marital Status Nationality Marital Kuwaiti Non-Kuwaiti Total 2 Status # % 4 % t % X DF Sig. Married 10 26.3 8 13.3 18 18.4 5.4464 2 .0656 Single 23 60.5 49* 81.7 72 73.5 Divorced 5 13.2 3 5.0 8 8.2 Total 38 100 60 100 98 100 *Represents single offenders and those who are married but do not have their wives with them in Kuwait. Also, the data in Table 23 show no significant difference between the married Kuwaiti and non-Kuwaiti sexual offenders with wives present with them in Kuwait. Education The following hypothesis was related to the education variable: 3. The average educational level of offenders will be lower than that of the general male population over 18 years. 73 Table 23--Chi-square Test Results by Nationality of Married Sexual Offenders with Wives Present in Kuwait. . . cases . 2 . Nationality Observed Expected ReSidual x D.F. Sig. Kuwaiti 10 9.00 1.00 0.222 1 .637 Non-Kuwaiti 8 9.00 -l.00 Total 18 The data in Table 24 show the level of education of the total offenders. The level of education of the offenders is generally low: 35% of the offenders have no education, and 91.5% have less than 13 years of school. The mean of years in school is 6.35 years. However, the result of the t—test statistics shown in Table 25 V indicates no significant differences between the mean of education of the offenders and that of the total population. Thus these results do not support what was predicted in Hypothesis 3. Table 26 shows the cross-tabulation of level of education by nationality and indicates a significant relationship between the level of education and the offender's nationality. According to Table 26, Kuwaiti offenders have a higher level of education than the Arab non-Kuwaiti offenders who, in turn, have a higher level of education than the non-Arab non-Kuwaiti offenders. Among Kuwaiti offenders, more than 80 percent have 5 or more years of education compared to 57 percent for 74 Table 24--Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Offenders by Level of Education Level of Education Cumulative (Years) Frequency Percentage Percentage 0 165 35.0 35.0 2 3 0.6 35.7 3 3 0.6 36.3 4 18 3.8 40.1 5 6 1.3 41.4 6 21 4.5 45.9 7 12 2.5 48.4 8 60 12.7 61.1 9 22 4.7 65.8 10 29 6.2 72.0 11 15 3.2 75.2 12 77 16.3 91.5 13 3 0.6 92.1 14 12 2.5 94.7 15 6 1.3 96.0 16 15 3.2 99.2 17 2 0.4 99.6 18 2 0.4 100.0 Total 471 100.0 Table 25--Result of t-test Comparison Between Mean Level of Education of the Offenders and the General Population. Population Offenders t value sig. number of cases 647,085 471 .1643361 N.S.* mean of education 6.30937 6.350 std. dev. 5.7356 5.365 *not significant at 04: .05 75 Table 26--Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Offenders by Level of Education and Nationality Nationality Level of Kuwaiti Arab Non- Non-Arab, Tbtal Education Kuwaiti Non-Kuwaiti #%#%#%#%x2D.F.Sig. No years in school 19 11.7 72 39.6 74 58.3 165 35.0 81.075 8 .0000 5-8 years 51 31.5 27 14.8 21 16.5 99 21.0 9-12 years 58 35.8 65 35.7 20 15.7 143 30.4 13 or more years 21 13.0 12 6.6 7 5.5 40 8.5 TOtal 162 100 182 100 127 100 471 100 non-Kuwaiti Arabs, and 37.7 percent for the non-Kuwaiti non-Arab group. For those who have no education, the non-Kuwaiti non-Arab group accounts for 58.3 percent compared to 39.6 percent for non-Kuwaiti Arabs and 11.7 percent for Kuwaitis. Since there is no significant difference between the nationality distribution of offenders and of the general population, this finding suggests that education level has a more important effect on the crime rate of non-Arab, non-Kuwaitis than on the crime rate of Kuwaitis or Arab non-Kuwaitis. 76 Level of Income The following are the hypotheses related to the level of income variable: 4. The average income of offenders will be lower than the average income of the general male population over 18 years. 4a The average income of non-Kuwaiti offenders will be lower than the average income of Kuwaiti offenders. 4b. The average income of non-Kuwaiti offenders who have committed theft offenses will be lower than the average income of Kuwaiti offenders who have committed theft offenses. The data in Table 27 show that 60.5 percent of the offenders have an income of less than 300 K.D. ($900) per month. The data in Table 28 show a significant relationship between the level of income of the offenders and the offender's nationality. According to Table 28, 35.9 percent of the Kuwaiti offenders have an income of less than 300 K.D. per month, compared to 67 percent of the non—Kuwaiti Arab group and 82.7 percent of the non—Kuwaiti noneArab group. This approximates the distribution of income by nationality in the general population. This difference is discussed in the analysis of Hypothesis 10. To investigate the relationship predicted in Hypothesis 4, Table 29 is examined. The data in Table 29 show a t-value of .0554, which indicates that there is no significant difference between the offenders and Table 27--Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Offenders by Level of Income 77 Ievel of Cumulative Income (K.D.) Frequency Percentage Percentage no income 34 7.2 7.2 100 or less 69 14.6 21.9 100-199 104 22.1 43.9 200-299 78 16.6 60.5 300-399 74 15.7 76.2 400-499 43 9.1 85.4 500-599 25 5.3 90.7 600—699 18 3.8 94.5 700 or more 26 5.5 100.0 Total 471 100.0 Table 28--Frequen:y ani Percentage Distribution of Offenders by Level of Income and Nationality Nationality Level of Kuwaiti Arab Non- Non-Arab, Tbtal Income Kuwaiti Non-Kuwaiti # % t a. 4 % t % x2 D.F. Sig. no income 21 13.0 13 7.1 0 0 34 7.2 131.89 16 .0000 100 or less 3 1.9 33 18.1 33 26.0 69 14.6 100-199 9 5.6 46 25.3 49 38.6 104 22.1 200-299 25 15.4 30 16.5 23 18.1 78 16.6 300-399 44 27.2 25 13.7 S 3.9 74 15.7 400-499 21 13.0 14 7.7 8 6.3 43 9.1 500—599 14 8.6 9 4.9 2 1.6 25 5.3 600-699 9 5.6 7 3.8 2 1.6 18 3.8 700 or more 16 9.9 5 2.7 5 3.9 26 5.5 Total 162 100 182 100 127 100 471 100 78 Table 29--Result of t-test Comparison Between Average Income of the Offenders and the General POpulation. Population Offenders t value sig. number of cases 354,608* 471 -.0554 N.S.** mean income 296.944 276.96391 std. dev. 194.423 7813.8418 *15 years and over (Source: Central Statistical Office, Final Result on Labor-Force Research, 1983). **not significant attx z .05 the general pOpulation in terms of income. This result does not support what was predicted in Hypothesis 4. As shown in Table 30, a significant difference was found. The average income of the Kuwaiti offenders was 365.43 KD ($987.96 U.S.), compared to 230.5 KD ($691.5 U.S.) for the non-Kuwaiti offenders. This result supports the prediction of Hypothesis 4a. Table 30--Result of T-test Comparison Between Average Income of Offenders by Nationality. Nationality Number Average Income t value sig. Kuwaiti 162 365.43 6.45 .000 Non—Kuwaiti 309 230.5 Total 471 As shown in Table 31, there were significant differences in the level of income of theft offenders of different nationality and language groups. Among those who committed theft crimes and were Kuwaitis, 46.2 79 Table 31--Frequency and Percentage Distribution of 'lheft Offenses by Level of Income and Nationality Nationality Level of . Kuwaiti Arab Non- Non-Arab, Total Income Kuwaiti Inn-Kuwaiti #25:: #15:: X2D.F.Sig. less than 300 K.D. 12 46.2 34 72.3 9 90.0 55 66.3 8.00 2 .0183 300 K.D. or ‘more 14 53.8 13 27.7 1 10.0 28 33.7 ¥ TOtal 26 100 47 100 10 100 83 100 percent report an income of less than 300 KD compared to 72.3 percent for the Arab non-Kuwaiti group and 90 percent for the non-Arab non-Kuwaiti group. These results support the prediction of Hypothesis 4b. Length of Stay The following hypothesis was related to the length of stay variable: 5. The proportion of non-Kuwaiti offenders who have been in Kuwait less than four years will be higher than the proportion who have been in Kuwait four or more years. To investigate the relationship predicted in Hypothesis 5, Table 32 is examined. The results in Table 32 show a z-value of .623, which indicates no significant difference between those who spent less than four years and those who spent four or more years. This result does not support the hypothesis that the proportion of the offenders who spent less than four 80 Table 32--Results of z-test Cbmparing Non-Kuwaiti Offenders on Duration of Time went in the Country. Duration Population Offenders 2 value sig. of time 4 Proportion 1: Proportion Iesstimn 4 years 214891 .34 78 .32 .623 N.S.** 4 years or ‘more 411610 .66 164 .68 Total 626501* 100 242 100 *Data for offenders are for 18 years and over; data for the general population includes all age groups. **Not significant at o(= .05 Source: A.S.A., 1987 (data for 1985) years in the country will be higher than the proportion who spent four or more years. As shown in Table 33, there were no significant differences between time spent in Kuwait and types of crime. The data in Table 33 indicate that 32.2 percent of the crimes were committed by offenders who had spent less than four years in Kuwait compared to 67.8 percent who had spent four or more years in Kuwait. The relationship shown in Table 33 suggests that the more time spent in the country, the more likely the immigrant will commit a crime. Many possibilities might account for this result. First, while the question asked in the questionnaire (question #30) asks for time spent in the country before committing the first crime, some of the offenders might 81 uwmzsx on anon mum: 0:3 whoa» memosaoxMu OOH «Nvm m.¢ Ha o.Hm ms m.va mm h.mH mm o.mH we m.vH mm Hmuos m.ww «on m.m¢ m m.ms mm m.wm Hm m.sm Nu h.Hh mm m.hb mm duos no name» v mama. m mNth.w N.~m we m.vm m h.mN ON h.H¢ ma H.N¢ ma m.w~ ma N.NN m mumwh v can» name .mam .m.o nx n n n a n n a n n n n n n n mango own names unease mowuooumz humbaum moons: moewuo pawns muommm one a accounm a comma moumeouum Hmsxmm Dawson on unsmmmm weapons .aummuom a woman: ucmmm mews .oefiuo mo mama pom unease on ucmmm wens mo commence no muoocwuuo wufimzsxlcoz mo cowusnwuumwo mmmucwoumm pom aocmsooumlumm manna 82 have reported time spent in Kuwait before they entered prison, not before committing the first crime. Second, theoretically speaking, the probability of a person committing a crime increases with the time available. Third, the time duration variable was selected [with the nationality variable, and homogeneity and heterogeneity of area of residence] to test the cultural conflict argument. However, the absence of time duration effects on immigrant criminality might be a result of the fact that each new immigrant to the country will be received by a large number of old imigrants of his nationality, which helps to minimize the cultural conflict that he might experience. Also the strength of the family ties characterizes Eastern families, especially Arabic families, which seems to have a preventive value. However, to test this last possibility, a test comparing those who spent less than 4 years and those who had spent more than four years on the social isolation variable. The results of that test are presented in Tables 34 and 35. Table 34--Resu1ts of Analysis of Variance Comparing the Duration of Tune Spent in Kuwait on the Social Isolation Scale. Source Sum of sq. D.F. Mean Sq. F value Sig. Between groups 11.0172 1 11.0172 7.8956 .0054 Within groups 334.8877 240 1.3954 83 Table 35--Results of Analysis of variance, Means and Standard Deviations Comparing the Duration of Time Spent in Kuwait with the Social Isolation Scale. Time Spent Sum of iraCountry Sum Mean Std.Dev. Sq. Cases less than 4 years 613.000 7.8590 1.0285 81.4487 78 4 years or more 1214.000 7.4024 1.2469 253.4390 164 within group total 1827.000 7.5496 1.1813 334.8877 242 Table 34 shows the analysis of variance data. The results show an F ratio of 7.8956 which is significant at