The assumption that understanding criminal behaviour is the most important tool we have to combat the incidence of crime has prompted many philosophers, jurists, psychologists, psychiatrists, socialists and others to seek a plausible explanation for the commission of crimes. Their methods are diverse, some employing scientific means and others using empirical evidence to explore why people engage in “deviant” activity. The most convincing of these theories are those which explain criminal behaviour by reference to the individual, such as the classical theory, which views criminal behaviour as being the free and rational choice of the individual. The theory then offers proportionate punishment as a means to discourage people from reoffending or to deter others from acting criminally. Whilst the theory is not without it flaws, it is difficult to disprove such a theory in the absence of establishing the offender was not capable of rational thought at the time of committing the offence. On the other hand, social theories of crime provide clarity for social factors which may drive the commission of the offence but fail to offer the root cause for criminal behaviour because of the inherent breadth and generality of these theories. For example the strain theory, explains criminal behaviour by reference to external factors outside the individual’s control causing strain which leads to the commission of the offence. The theory does not adequately address the issue of why those undergoing the same stress do not turn to crime and so is not a true explanation of criminal behaviour – there must be more to it. Instead of viewing these theories as contradictory, preferring the one and ignoring the other, it is contended that Gabriel Tarde’s (Wil...
... middle of paper ...
...ponse to their situation to support their view.
There is a valid place for social theories such as the strain theory because, through understanding social factors which may put people at risk of committing crimes, actions directed towards alleviating the strain will result in prevention of crimes by removing some reasons the offender may have to commit the crime. The classical view of criminal behaviour which states criminal behaviour is a rational decision made by the criminal is, provided that the offender is capable of rational thought, indisputable and is the most convincing explanation of criminal behaviour. As a society then, we need to work towards making crime a more unattractive option. Relieving the strain is one way. Punishment is another. Punishment however is of dubious value if criminals believe the chances of being caught and or punished are minimal.
There are many criminological theories that attempt to explain criminal behavior or crime patterns. For instance, Agnew’s General Strain Theory can be applied to explain why the criminal John Dillinger committed various crimes. Agnew’s General Strain Theory assumes that all individuals experience strain, which, in turn, causes negative emotions that can result in legitimate or illegitimate coping, depending on an individual’s constraints or dispositions. Thus, the continuous criminal behavior throughout John Dillinger’s life can be explained using Agnew’s General Strain Theory in relation to strain, negative emotions, and dispositions.
The proposal of Robert Agnew’s General Strain Theory in explaining criminal deviance is based on three concepts. The first concept is that people are not naturally inclined to commit crimes. Rather, their transition towards deviant behavior begins when they experience strain. The second concept is that once strain is present, depending on the severity of the stain, a person becomes victim to their own negative emotions like anger, jealousy, and frustration. Their response to those negative emotions may expedite their transition. The third concept looks at a person’s ability to cope with the strain and negative emotions. If a person has poor coping abilities they tend to become overwhelmed by the strain and the negative emotions they are feeling as a result of strain. Poor coping abilities may cause someone to commit crime in hopes of rectifying their situation. (Agnew, 2011)
In criminology there are numerous theories as to the causes of different types of crime. These theories are extremely important in the continuous debate of the ways in which crime should be managed and prevented. Many theories have surfaced over the years. These theories continue to be explored individually and in combination, as criminologists search for the best solutions in ultimately reducing types and levels of crime. These theories include rational choice theory, social learning theory, and biology amongst many others. In this case study strain theory will be used to describe the reasons behind the white collar crimes of Charles Ponzi.
Criminological theories interpret the competing paradigms of Human Nature, Social Order, Definition of Crime, Extent and Distribution of Crime, Causes of Crime, and Policy, differently. Even though these theories have added to societies understanding of criminal behaviour, all have been unable to explain why punishment or treatment of offenders is unable to prevent deviancy, and thus are ineffective methods of control. The new penology is a contemporary response that favours the management of criminals by predicting future harm on society. However, all criminological theories are linked as they are a product of the historical time and place, and because of their contextual history, they will continue to reappear depending on the current state of the world, and may even be reinvented.
In conclusion, both strain/anomie and social disorganization theories are both very important theories in explaining the causation of crime and deviance. Many theorists today often rely heavily on these theories. As crime and society continue to change, these theories will continue to provide a solid foundation for future theories created.
General Strain Theory was discussed by Robert Agnew, and first published in 1992. According to General Strain Theory individuals engage in crime because of strains or stressors which produce anger and anxiety (Agnew, 1992). Crimes become the outlet that the individual uses to cope with or remedy the strains or stressors. Agnew states that there are three different types of deviance producing strains.
This article examines the general strain theory by examining how undesirable interactions with others can result in criminal behaviors. The negative treatment that one receives from another person is what is being looked at by the strain theory. Strain theory is a sociological theory by the fact it looks at the criminal behavior and compares it to one’s interactions with others. Differential association and social learning theory also compares the same interactions but what makes the strain theory different from these previous theories is that it focuses on how pressure during these interactions result in criminal behaviors. Social learning theory and differential association tend to examine criminal behaviors and interactions with others by
There are multiple crime television shows that are based on a true story or fiction. A well known television show is Law and Order Special Victims Unit, which deals with rape and assault cases. This particular episode deals with a domestic violence case between a retired football star, AJ Martin, and his girlfriend, Paula Bryant. I will be using the National Crime Victimization Survey, which is an interview with the members in a household about reported and unreported crime that occurred within the last six months. “NVCS provides information of characteristics of victims, including age, race, ethnicity, gender, marital status and household income” (Truman and Morgan). Official statistics like the NCVS would be used for comparing its demographics
General Strain Theory was reinvented by Robert Agnew in 1992 and contributed a new perception to the present strain theory that was popularized a couple eras ago (Agnew, 1992). Classic strain theory is connected; first with Merton’s (1938), Cohen’s (1955) and Cloward and Ohlin’s (1960). Founded on Durkheim’s theory of anomie (1893), Merton industrialized his theory of deviancy inside a societal fundamental context. Merton’s interpretation on the topic is that goal-expectation inconsistencies, composed with social stratification generates strain between underprivileged societies in turn leading them to use any means necessary, such as criminal, in order to accomplish socially defined goals (Merton, 1938). Merton specified that deviance was a creation of inconsistency amongst social goals and the genuine means to attain these goals (Smith & Bohm, 2008). Merton shaped a typology of deviance contingent on how diverse human beings adjust to ethnically persuaded strain. Conferring to Merton, crime can be elucidated by the predictable socially acknowledged goals and the conceivable genuine means of accomplishing them.
The first case, State of North Dakota vs. Justin Lee Nagel, involved a man who had been on probation after being convicted of possession of heroin and drug paraphernalia in February of 2015. He was in court for violating his petition of probation from that felony drug case.
Crime exists everywhere. It is exists in our country, in the big cities, the small towns, schools, and even in homes. Crime is defined as “any action that is a violation of law”. These violations may be pending, but in order to at least lower the crime rate, an understanding of why the crimes are committed must first be sought. There are many theories that are able to explain crimes, but three very important ones are rational choice theory, social disorganization theory and strain theory.
An integrated theory is a combination of 2 or 3 theories that offers many explanations on why crime is occurring, compared to a traditional criminal theory that just focus on one type of aspect (Lilly et al.2010). The purpose of integrated theories is to help explain many aspects into what causes criminal behavior and why one becomes delinquent. From this an argument arises can integrated theories be used to explain all criminal behavior. Integrated theories are successful in explaining certain aspects of crime on what causes one to become deviant; however one theory alone cannot explain why an individual engages in crime. This paper will examine three integrated theories and look in-depth how these theories can explain different aspects on why criminal behavior occurs and the weakness of each theory. The three integrated theories that will be discussed in this paper are Cloward and Ohlin Differential Opportunity theory, Robert Agnew General Strain theory, and lastly Travis Hirschi’s Social Bond theory.
Strain theories of criminal behaviour have been amongst the most important and influential in the field of criminology. Taking a societal approach, strain theories have sought to explain deficiencies in social structure that lead individuals to commit crime (Williams and McShane 2010). Strain theories operate under the premise that there is a societal consensus of values, beliefs, and goals with legitimate methods for achieving success. When individuals are denied access to legitimate methods for achieving success, the result is anomie or social strain. This often leads an individual to resort to deviant or criminal means to obtain the level of success that they are socialized to pursue. This is the basic premise of strain theory. This paper will explore the evolution of strain theories by first examining their intellectual foundations which laid the foundation for Robert Merton’s theories of anomie and strain. Merton’s strain theory will be discussed in detail including the modes of adaptation that people use when faced with societal strain. Finally, the paper will conclude with the strengths and weaknesses of Merton’s strain theory and an examination of the criminological theories and social policies it has influenced.
This could explain the effect of strains on crime by taken this theory into account. Once strain causes bonds to weaken amongst conventional groups and institutions such as family, school, and peer networks will open up doors to delinquent behaviors, because by being in these social roles causes the person to regulate by role expectations.
Different schools of thought propose varying theoretical models of criminality. It is agreeable that criminal behaviour is deep rooted in societies and screams for attention. Biological, Social ecological and psychological model theories are key to helping researchers gain deeper comprehension of criminal behaviour and ways to avert them before they become a menace to society. All these theories put forward a multitude of factors on the outlooks on crime. All these theories have valid relevancy to continuous research on criminal behaviour.