Labeling Theory And Strain Theory

All individuals have the ability to conform to the rules and norms of society. Merton’s Strain Theory suggests people feel strain when they are unable to attain society’s goals and/or beliefs. Then, because they are not able to appropriately achieve these goals in the way society says to, some will do so by committing criminal behaviors. This theory also explains, in society there are

General strain theory was first developed in 1992 by sociologist Robert Agnew. The theory states that criminality stems from a combination of being placed in situations which cause strain and the negative emotions which stem from it. Agnew outlines four categories of strain-inducing situations; the addition of negative stimuli, the removal of positive stimuli, disjunction between expectations and reality, and failure to achieve goals (Agnew et. al, 2001). The impact of these situations is then largely affected by the magnitude, recency and duration of the situation, as well as how many negative situations are occurring in the individual’s life at the same time (clustering). Ultimately, these situations lead to negative emotions, such as anger, frustration, depression or disappointment. These negative emotions, when combined with ineffective coping mechanisms, prompt the individual to turn to criminality. This definition gains specificity when looking at white collar crime, defining economic blockage in particular as the leading cause of white collar crime (Simpson et. al, 2009). The previous four categories transform when looking at white collar crime, shifting the focus towards the individuals economic and financial issues and

There are several theories that are used to explain why people commit crimes. These theories cover a range of scientific studies that still continue to be used in crime studies today. By using these theories and information gathered, an explanation of the criminal behaviours will be examined and explained relating to each supporting theories. The traditional explanations for crime are nature vs. nurture debate and the ideas relating to any possible biological reasons that turns someone into a criminal. Are some people really just ‘born bad?’ or are there other, social reasons for criminal behaviour? In this essay I will look at both sides of the argument, and offer an insight into the reasons behind such criminal behaviours. The Classical

The social control theory suggests that “people engage in criminal activity when their bond to society has weakened” (Ortiz, 2011). This theory

Over the course of time crime rates have fluctuated heavily throughout the United States, raising concerns for the general public. With that in mind many Criminologists have come together attempting to explain why, as well as how crime occurs. Dr. Robert Agnew has lead the charge in this field in regards to his affiliation with something called: The Strain Theory. The word, “Strain” in this instance can be defined simply as, “anger or frustration that results from negative relationships or experiences” (Hackworth 3). Now when making the correlation between criminology and this particular theory one must consider all aspects of a criminal’s life. Agnew explains this ideal further in his article, “Building on the Foundation of General Strain

Many criminological theories have the capacity to explain street crimes and violent crimes, including strain theory and biological positivism. The two theories have contrasting views that both attempt to explain why individuals commit unlawful activity, and highlights the certain characteristics that is believed by the theorists to be the initiators of criminals engaging in deviant behaviour. Although both theories have their own strengths and weaknesses, however in this essay, a critical analysis as to why strain theory, as a social explanation of crime, endorses a more powerful effect in producing a thorough understanding of criminal activity as opposed to biological positivism. Furthermore, within this essay, official statistics and case

Many individuals in today’s society wonder what pushes people past a breaking point in which they become involved in actions not accepted by society, such as stripping, prostitution, drug use, alcoholism and more. The reasoning behind this is deviance. Deviance can be either positive (over conforming) or negative (under conforming). When applying the subject of crime to a type of deviance, it falls under the negative category because those who under conform in society have a tendency to reach their goals with non-accepted means. Considering the crime of drunk driving, many factors add up to develop a reason why so many people do it. Merton’s strain theory perspective explains the deviance behind drunk driving very well, using its’ assumptions, key focuses, and root of deviant acts to support it. Before focusing on Merton’s theory relating to the crime of drunk driving, we first have to recognize how sociologists understand the concept of deviance.

Crime and deviance are seemingly effortlessly defined by the Oxford dictionary. However sociological prospectives have differing views on crime and the explanations for it.

In Merton’s (1938) strain theory social structures account for the criminal tendencies found in offenders. Individuals adjust to societal pressures in five distinct ways. Adaptation I, which entails conforming to both culture norms and means, is the most common. The popularity of this adaptation allows a society to function effectively. In contrast, adaptation IV is the least common and gives rise to the rejection of both cultural goals and means. Those that adopt this culture pattern are societal misfits and usually include some such persons as psychotics, psychoneurotics, chronic autists, vagrants, and chronic drunkards or drug addicts.

The motivation of criminals encompasses more than one common denominator, however, the degree of culpability and causation are within close proximity of one another. People every day engage in illicit acts for a myriad of reasons that run the gamut from white-collar crimes such as embezzling large sums of money to retail thefts. Gang related and drug-crimes that result in violence have plagued metropolitan areas throughout American. There is never any justification for taking someone’s life unless it is in self-defense, but people kill indescribably for material goods or money. Is it the Americans’ insatiable appetite and relentless pursuit of obtaining wealth and prosperity in achieving the American dream? Yes and no. For some people, this is the underlining-motivator for committing criminal acts regardless of the consequences. The perception of wealth in America as a viable solution for resolving problems is a mirage not a remedy. Even though this is a common known cliché that “money doesn’t buy happiness,” people continue to risk their freedom and commit criminal acts for such a dream. These are just a few irrational explanations of why people under the general strain theory, whether first offenders, or career criminals commit crimes. There are many exceptions, such as domestic violence, sexual assault, mental health problems, drug and alcohol addiction that contribute to criminal behavior as well.

Drug use is on the rise worldwide, and Canada is not immune to this travesty, according to the Health Officer’s Council of British Columbia 2016 report a staggering 47,000 Canadians died due to substance abuse throughout the previous year. It is widely believed that drug use is the result of one’s own personal choice in a circumstance they decide to live in. Although concept’s such as Howard Becker’s Labelling theory and Robert Agnew ’s General Strain Theory presents ideas on how the sociological environment plays a factor in shaping individuals and leading them to resort to choices such as drug use. The Labelling theory is a concept in which the stigmatization of placing identity markers through pre-conceived notions and

In 1991 a hospital nurse named Beverley Allitt killed four children and attempted to take the lives of nine others, but was unsuccessful (“Beverley Allitt, n.d., para 1). Beverley committed all of these murders while she was working at the Grantham and Kesteven Hospital as a part of a six-month work arrangement (para. 5). Beverley’s actions and why she acted in this manner can be explained from the psychiatric, sociological and psychological perspective. Psychiatry viewpoints explore the motivation behind an individual’s criminal behaviour. Factitious disorder and multiple personality disorder can explain the reasons behind Beverly’s choice to kill four children under her care, and the reasons behind these horrendous acts. The sociological perceptive looks at factors including level of education, a persons social setting and positive or negative role models in a their life (Pozzulo, Bennell & Fourth, 2015, p. 338-341). Labeling theory and strain theory can help explain why Beverley killed four children and acted the way she did. Lastly, the psychological perspective looks at “mental process” of an individual, also the reasoning behind an individual’s behaviour and actions (Rao, 2007, p. 9). Addiction theory can be used in this situation and can help explain why Beverley killed four children and what lead her up to it.

Merton’s Anomie Theory believes that society shapes the cultural norms and values of people and also their aspirations and the approved methods of achieving such aspirations. Merton considers that there is a link between anomie in society and the difference between the levels of emphasis placed on aspirations and those placed on the means of realizing these aspirations in society; the smaller the difference the less likely anomie will occur. Merton also believes that crime is caused by society although he believes it is not useful to society; Merton believes that crime is a representation of the poor organization of society. In American culture, monetary success is the predominant cultural goal, but not everyone has the same access to attain it. Some people respond to this disjunction in criminal ways. Components of adaptation to strain include conformity which is when people embrace conventional social goals and also have the means to attain them, they can choose to conform. They remain law-abiding.

What makes people want to commit crimes? Are criminals any different than us? Does committing a crime mean there is something wrong with you, such as a psychological problem? Do all criminals have the same kind of personality? Is a criminal born or made? Questions like this and many more will be elaborated on throughout this paper.

Criminologists and sociologist have long been in debate for century's to explain criminal behaviour. The two main paradigms of thought are between 'nature' and 'nurture'. Nature is in reference to a learnt behaviour where a multitude of characteristics, in society influence whether a person becomes deviant such as poverty, physical abuse or neglect. Nurture defines biological features which could inevitability lead to a individuals deviant or criminal behaviour, because criminality is believed by biological positivist to be inherited from a persons parents. However, I believe that criminal behaviour is a mixture of characteristics that lead to deviant acts such as psychological illness & Environmental factors. Therefore, this essay