So all of a sudden, his socio-economic background makes it fine? People are actually defending him? If he'd turned into an 18 year old pickpocket because of his "socio-economic background" would that be fine? What if he wasn't such a fine bowler? He's not the first person to play cricket from a humble background.. Perhaps his village needs a generator, but what about the thousands of fans who paid hard earned money to watch games he has possibly tainted?
Whilst not wishing to condone Amir's actions, let's not compare the needs of wealthy cricket spectators to those of poor 3rd world villagers. The latter group are infinitely more disadvantaged.
That aside, the possible defences for Amir seem credible.
1. He is an uneducated 18 year old thrust into the public limelight. The best of people, with the best education and guidance often succumb to the pressures and opportunities associated with fame. Case in point the hundreds of young western celebrities who get caught doing something stupid on a regular basis.
2. He bowled a fantastic spell after the no-ball, which suggests that he was in no way trying to alter the outcome of the match by underperforming.
3. He is an international cricketer, but he earns less money than most UK graduates.
4. He has grown up in a country where this type of thing is endemic; from low-level police bribes, to presidential kick-backs. He is a product of a terribly corrupt environment where this type of thing is the norm; despite this, he is being made a scapegoat for the sins of a nation. One cant help but have some sympathy.
---
BUT...he should still be banned. Not permanently though. People commit far worse crimes and get off after a few years in jail.