Exploring the Intricacies of Criminology and Crime Theories

Introduction: Criminology is a scientific approach to the study of crime and why it occurs. Criminologists examine this both on the individual and on the societal level. Meaning, why do individuals commit crime, and how society reacts to those crimes. As we look at the root causes of crime, we begin to notice certain aspects of people’s lives that causes them to offend - like a poor social standing, or perhaps an individual’s peer group who may allow or even support negative influences. We can also try to understand why some individuals choose NOT to offend and live pro-social lives despite negative external influences. These concepts and ideas are known as crime theories. There are many and they are wide-ranging.

Summary of two Theories:

Why is it when I walk into my favorite clothing store, I don’t take something I want and just walk out without paying for it? Is it because I am worried about being arrested and charged with theft of property? What is it exactly that makes me choose to pay the clerk – is it the parenting I received, my own internal moral values? Deterrence Theory involves a commonly held belief about human nature and is at the heart of classical criminology. Essentially, it is the prevention of criminal acts through the use or threat of punishment” (Walsh and Hemmens). Let’s face it, if punishments were not imposed on those who break the law, there would arguably be a significant group of the population who would freely offend. Deterrence is enforced through fines, penalties, probation, community service, jail time, and, at the most extreme level, capital punishment. In criminology, we also look at the reason(s) why people choose to offend.
Strain Theory assumes that some people, in lower class society, envy the wealthy and believe they should have access to or have the same material possessions, but either do not possess the means or desire to put forth the effort in achieving them. Because this group of individuals believes they lack the means or the same opportunities as the wealthy, they often resort to crime as an alternative method of reaching that status.
Theory A: Jeremy Bentham expanded on Becarria’s Rational Choice Theory when he developed the Theory of Deterrence. We already said that deterrence is the act of preventing crime through threats of punishment. So what exactly goes on inside a potential offenders mind before he/she offends? Why do people choose to offend knowing there exists consequences to their actions? Rational Choice theory explains that before any criminal act is committed, an offender will calculate the potential gains and risks of their actions. As an example, a juvenile offender might not risk being arrested for stealing alcohol in order to have fun with his friends, but a homeless person who may be starving might consider the risk of stealing food in order to eat after weighing the cost vs benefit. In the homeless man’s scenario, the potential gain of having some food vastly outweighed the risk of being arrested. In his case, deterrence played little role and therefore was not effective.
A significant attribute of Deterrence theory involves the some important variables in the punishment aspect. It states that punishment must be 1) severe – meaning, to prevent crime, criminal law must emphasize the consequences to encourage individuals to obey the law, it also must be 2) certain – meaning that punishment actually takes place whenever a crime occurs. Finally, it must be 3) swift – meaning the punishment must take place in close proximity in time to the offense.
Theory B: Strain Theory suggests that crime is a result of hardships brought on by different factors such as poverty, unemployment, homelessness, etc.

Robert Merton explains that because there is such a large emphasis on financial success and achieving the “American Dream”, these societies that suffer from strain are put under enormous pressures to obtain these goals. The only issue is that the lower class does not always have the means of obtaining that success. This problem instills frustration and anger into people and so one response is to turn to crime as an alternate pathway to achieving success. For example, an individual who has been unemployed for a long period of time might commit robbery or theft in need of fast money to pay bills or put food on the table. Therefor we can conclude that certain stressors can increase the likely hood into social behavior and therefor decrease the fear of the punishments of those actions.

Robert Agnew proposes another aspect of strain known as General Strain Theory. This theory suggest that other sources of strain exist besides financial stressors. Strain may also result from other aspects of life such as loss of a significant other or other traumatic or life altering events. It’s these events that trigger reactions in some individuals who may have displayed a history of pro-social behavior to consider criminal activity as an outlet from the pressures of these external

forces.
Critiquing the Two: These two theories are not too far disconnected, and can be linked together in many ways. In my opinion, strain decreases the positive effects of deterrence; perhaps even at the same rate. Meaning, as strain increases upon the average pro-social citizen, the threat or fear of punishment from wrongdoing might decrease equally. I don’t; however, see this “cause and effect” relationship reversed. As an example, if a state decided to enact the death penalty for murder where it previously only cited “life in prison”. I don’t believe this change in policy would have the same impact on those experiencing strain and their decisions to offend. Obviously, there are weaknesses to deterrence theory as there are to strain. Firstly, deterrence theory is limited to the mentally sane. Because “deterrence theory” involves some aspect of “rational choice”, this theory has no effect on those are mentally incapacitated. Another downfall of these ideas is that the law gives too much credit to the concept of deterrence. The whole premise of the theory is that people will weigh the pros and cons of their actions. In my personal opinion; however, we are putting too much faith in an individual’s decision making process.
Conclusion: Overall, the success of deterrence is not always constant.

We can only tell the amount of offenders that are not deterred because of the amount of criminals caught by the police. There is no way to know the amount of people who are actually deterred from crime because they never end up offending. So we can assume that most people refrain from offending because of deterrence, but we cannot exclude other factors which keep people away from crime. Moral values is one example; individualized personality traits which most people pick up from their parents or develop on their own can have a huge impact on whether or not people choose to offend. Strain theory may involve some assumptions of demographics about those offending that might not be true. During my research, I noted the theory refers to primarily the economically challenged. In my opinion, this theory could apply just as easily to the wealthy to commit some white-collar crime. So I conclude that strain can and will exist everywhere, wherever there are people enduring hardships there will be those who choose criminal activity as a method to attain goals otherwise achieved through legitimate

means.