They found that cultural factors were far more correlated with criminality than socioeconomic status.

I don’t speak Swedish and it appears that the full report is only available in Swedish.

From the end of their English summary:

Research questions

The presentation of results is based on the following central question: According to the published research, what is the significance of socioeconomic family background during childhood for explaining individual differences in offending?

Sub-questions include: What do studies from Sweden and other countries say about the correlation between socioeconomic background during childhood and involvement in crime? Are there differences between men and women? How strong is this correlation, and how does this compare with the strength of the correlations found for various factors described in the research as established risk factors for offending? How do researchers explain the links between socioeconomic background factors and participation in crime?

I also don’t trust an automated translation to accurately convey a full report and any nuance it may contain. It sounds like they are analyzing socioeconomic background and not socioeconomic status, is that correct?

There is a substantial difference between “I grew up poor” and “I’m currently unable to afford a dignified life.” Yes, statistically you are more likely to continue to be poor, but you background does not define your current status.

I stated: Most crime is a direct result of poverty.

I’m not arguing that crime is the direct result of growing up in poverty. I’m arguing that the goal of most crime (and I’m focusing specifically on what you might call “economic crime”) is the manifestation of someone’s need or desire for something that someone not living paycheck to paycheck would take for granted.

Sadly many people have an ideological aversion to prison

The aversion I’m aware of is Punishment vs. Rehabilitation vs. Isolation.

Most crime is a direct result of poverty. Society should do it’s best to make sure we don’t have to weigh the moralality of stealing something you or your family need in order to survive and live a life of dignity. Those things should be provided.

Right now we basically just let those in poverty suffer and punish any of them that extract wealth from others (more accurately those not in poverty) in an “uncivilized” manner (stealing)… while simultaneously revering those who extract wealth from others in a “civilized” manner (wage theft, poverty wages, fraud, deceptive marketing, rent seeking, anticompetitive practices, frivolous lawsuits, etc).

Genuine dangers to society do need to be isolated. However, it’s important to at least try rehabilitation and addressing their needs before determining that someone is a genuine danger to society.

There is also the free will argument - arguing that people are who they are, free will is an illusion, and punishment is pointless - but it honestly just comes to the same general conclusions. If you can modify the behavior of a person so that they are able to coexist in society then work to do so. If rehabilitation is not possible, keep the public safe from that person and deal with that person as humanely as possible.

Police said … Checklick “intentionally accelerated his vehicle into the dispersing crowd.” … faces a charge of reckless driving…

Dude intentionally accelerated his SUV into a crowd and gets charged with reckless driving. I sincerely hope it’s a felony at least.