General Strain 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

This breakdown of organization and culture within a community leads to a lack of informal social control which in turn leads to higher crime rates especially in the juvenile population (Simons, Simons, Burt, Brody, & Cutrona, 2005). Social disorganization theory asserts that strong levels of connection within a community along with a sense of civic pride motivate individuals to take a more active role in the community therefore acting as a deterrent to crime.

Social Strain Theory and criminal offending are seen by most theorist as a way of understanding what could be the causes of youth committing crimes. Theorist are very concern if social strain theory really does have the answer to why this is happening, but they also believe that the result may be inconclusive, because of all the different variables and independent variables that could be used in their research. We will take a look at this theory, and see if they and ask our participants from the state of Georgia inner-city neighborhoods a few question that they will supply their own answer to, and then ask them an open-ending question face to face and ask them to choose the answer that best state why they might commit a crime or not. If we are able to understand the results then we hope we can implement it into policy. And by incorporating it into policy, then we might be able to design a strategy that will help LEOs or other agencies to reduce youth offending, deter criminal acts and future crimes. Lastly, so with the implementation of social strain theory into the policy and the evaluation of the data, discussion and the questions we can create a foundation for further research studies to build on our results.

Those that side with Social Disorganization Theory state that this disparity exists because minorities tend to live in communities that lack organization therefore are likelihood to turn to crime. Studies like those conducted by Clear et al. state that Social Disorganization can be used to explain the overrepresentation of African Americans and Hispanics in the criminal justice system because links have been found between residential mobility and minorities (Clear et al., 2003, p.37) (Rose & Clear, 1998, p.448). Social Disorganization also explains the effect of single parent homes on delinquency stating that as incarceration rates increase chances of moving out of a troublesome neighborhood decreases because more costs are thrown on the shoulders of the single parent out of jail (Clear et al., 2003, 38). Clear et al. also hypothesized that high-incarceration can spread easily which would in turn damage informal social control (1998, p.39) (Rose &Clear, 1998,

Researchers are constantly looking for explanations for criminal patterns and crime rates among juveniles. They have presented many theories to serve as such explanations with strain theory being one of them; however, like many other theories, strain theory was pushed aside decades ago. It was not until recently that this theory was given new life by criminologist, Robert Agnew. Robert Agnew introduced this new development as the general strain theory. GST was the first supposition that was not tied to social class or cultural variables as it was in previous implications of Émile Durkheim’s anomie theory. Instead, Agnew’s theory refocused on societal norms that affect juveniles.

654-656). Another part of GST (General Strain Theory) is the behaviors that are prevalent once the strains are introduced, generally anger, fear and depression are the ones that manifest most frequently. These behaviors are reactions to coping mechanisms, or lack thereof, provided to the individual either by themselves, their families, teachers or peers. Different kinds of strains relate to different criminal behaviors as reactions to them. There is also not a definite strain to crime situation that is predictable. Human nature, regardless of disorders and strains, is not a predictable culmination of factors and that is why it is so fascinating for humans to study ourselves. Within the strain theory studies the one emotion that seems to give the most violent reactions is

Out of all the theories in Criminal Justice, I think that the Strain Theory best explains juvenile delinquency. Why is that? Well the Strain Theory explains how there is a gap between culturally goals that causes frustration that leads to criminal acts. Most juveniles get in trouble with the law, because of shoplifting or some type of robbery. This comes from the conclusion of your economic status like higher, middle and lower class. It’s most common to find frustration in lower class because of lack of norms. For example a kid in a lower class area would most likely take something that’s not theirs, because they see others with something they like, but can’t afford it. Don’t get me wrong, this theory can go in place with the middle and upper

In the 1980’s, Criminologist, Robert Agnew, presented his theory of general strain, in which he covers a range of negative behaviors, especially how adolescents deal with stresses of strain. General strain theory focuses on the source, such as anything that changes in the individual’s life that causes strain. His theory provides a different outlook on social control and social learning theory for two reasons: the type of social relationship that leads to delinquency and the motivation for the delinquency (Agnew, 1992). He states that certain strains and stresses increase the likelihood for crime such as economic deprivation, child abuse, and discrimination. These factors can cause an increase of crime through a range of negative emotions. For some people it can take a lot of willpower to take a corrective action and try to deter away from committing crime in a way that they can relieve these negative emotions. When people cannot cope with the stresses of the strain, they turn to crime as a coping mechanism. Agnew also states, that not all people that experience the stresses of strain will go forward to committing crime and live a deviant life.

The social disorganization theory is directed towards social conditions. This theory argues that crime is due to social conflicts, change, and lack of consensus in the group.

It allows theorists to not only know the category of the strain, but how individuals cope with them. Most individuals use crime a back-up when they lack some skills and resources to cope with the strain. The strain arises from negative emotions from negative relationships with others. Individual characteristics helps them to cope poorly or well with strain. Now, the theory reminds us that strain is multifaceted and how we cope is more important than the strain’s existence. But, it fails to elaborate on structural origins of strain. It is extremely broad to the point that researchers have little direction as to the exact types of strain to examine. There are many different types of strain that fall underneath the categories of major strains. Agnew treated theses strains equal in terms of their impact on crime. According to the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, the broadness makes it hard to falsify. “If strain can be defined in so many ways, then the strain theory is virtually unfalsifiable. There is always a new measure that might salvage the theory” (Jensen, 1995). It is critical that general strain theory is clearer on the types of strain that most likely leads to crime and delinquency. The power control theory helps us understand that through the upraising of child it correlates to the children’s deviant behavior. It allows us to understand that they are different types of families and each one are based off a different set of morals and values. According to Ball et al., (2011) Hagan’s theory did not evaluate other situations besides power balance in the household that might influence delinquency. An example of this would be a single mother living in a depleted neighborhood. Ball et al., also points out that the theory only explained general delinquent behavior. The gender differences within delinquent behavior have little to do with

Frank Schmalleger explains the theory of social disorganization as one that depicts both social change as well as conflict, and lack of any agreement as the origin of its cause for both criminal behavior as well as nonconformity to society and closed associated with the ecological school of criminology (Schmalleger, 2012, p. 152). The philosophy behind the organization and structure of a society and how that contributes to criminal behavior within society is by stressing poverty, economic conditions, lack of education, lack of skills, are not sought-after in the work place, and divergent cultural values. Criminal behavior is the result of the person’s assignment of location within the structure of society.

Social disorganization theory was established by Shaw and Mckay (1942) in their famous work “Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas”. The main argument of the social disorganization theory is that, the place where people live will influence the individual’s behavior, and this may lead them to crimes. More precisely, certain characteristics of the neighborhood/community will strengthen or weaken the informal social control within the community, and this has mediating effect on crimes.

Social Disorganization theory has its roots in urban ecology and Burgess’s concentric model. As part of the positivist paradigm of criminology, it poses a scientific examination of the connection of social disorganization and crime mediated by structural factors. The macro-level research concludes that a weakening of social bonds between an individual and institutions of socialization will lead to delinquency. Over time, there has been much empirical support for the theory and extensions have been made to include more reliable measures of social disorganization within a community. This paper will discuss the origins of the theory developed by Shaw and McKay, then move forward to prominent empirical support, social disorganization research on suburban areas and lead up to valid criticism of the theory. Finally, there will be an examination of the policy implications originally posed and a proposal towards a more integrated approach addressing causes for social disorganization through the critical paradigm of criminology.

Social disorganization theory is defined as “an inability of community members to achieve shared values or to solve jointly experienced problems” (Bursik, ’06), therefor creating a direct linkage to violent crime. The Shaw and McKay model of social disorganization explains the relationship between disorganization and crime the best, stating violent crime, is the normal response, by normal individuals, to abnormal conditions (Bellair). The current state of many inner-city neighborhoods exhibit only disorganization, which is helping to contribute to the growing crime rates of these communities. Low economic status, easy mobility between residents, broken families and large groupings of the same ethnicities are all hypotheses that are

In 1942, Clifford Shaw and Henry D. McKay produced Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas, which aimed to explain crime in urban communities using social disorganization theory. Elliot and Merrill (1934) define social disorganization as “a breakdown in the equilibrium of forces, a decay in the social structure, so that old habits and forms of social control no longer function effectively” (p.20). Using this definition and the ecological approach, Shaw and McKay argue that low economic status, ethnic heterogeneity, and residential mobility led to the disruption of community social organization (Shaw and McKay 1942). This disruption is what essentially leads to delinquency and further crime. Numerous empirical studies and tests were conducted in order to determine the validity of the theory. Studies done in the United States and in other countries have also shown support for the theory. In addition, the theory has been extended and revised by multiple scholars and applied to nonmetropolitan areas. The numerous studies and tests of social disorganization theory will prove whether the theory is applicable to other metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas and whether the theory is still applicable to the modern era.