Crime has been a pressing issue in society for many years and criminologists have been aspired to discover ways in which to explain people’s action, specifically criminal activity. To try and find a solution criminological theories are created and applied to individual experiences/situations. In this essay I’m going to explore, evaluate and critique sociological explanations of crime. According to Downes & Rock (1982, p194) people commit crime for material gain and the “cost-benefit-ratio aspects” are considered before committing the crime. They like to know and feel it’s worth it. The Structural Strain theory, developed by Robert Merton in the 1930’s, attempts to explain why somebody will steal a television set by referring to their personal and financial circumstances. Over time society has told us what we should be doing. From what clothes to wear, to how much we should be earning, to what car we should be driving, to our status, to what size TV we should have and everything in between. Modern advertisers would also like us to buy a new big TV. Living in poverty however, means that realistically people may not have the means to be able to afford it, so why not steal one? One of the strengths of the Structural Strain theory is that it helps highlight the areas that are in most need of attention when it comes to targeting crime. For example, where extra CCTV is needed around shops, especially those situated in areas of poverty (as the media have reported
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
By applying both classical and strain theory to the crime problem of drug trafficking we can identify and compare their strengths to evaluate which theory is more useful in explaining this crime. Starting with Classical theory, this theory holds some strengths in relation to this crime problem, namely, it’s easy applicability/transferability and the clear definiteness of their answers. Classical theory is able to provide definite answers and solutions to drug trafficking (i.e. it was individual A who committed the crime, the law violated in response to this crime is this, and the violation of this law carries the pre-determined punishment of this) without having to apply consideration for such variables as mitigating circumstances since the
Another important theory of deviance is the structural strain theory. The structural strain theory is defined as when the goals in which society sets for an individual are not met, that individual will defer to deviance. A perfect example is throughout the entire movie of the images of the streets, the hopelessness in each frame express what the strain theory is based upon. It is the idea that crime and violence are an immediate result between people's goals and the means to accessibly achieve them. They cannot overcome their deviant behavior because it is necessary to survive. Another example is in the beginning of the film Doughboy had said he was going to store. Ricky asked him why, as he did not have any money. Doughboy yelled, "aww I don't care."(Singleton) Instead of conforming to how Middle American youths obtain money, such as chores, Doughboy has to find alternate methods of achieving. Doughboy robs a store and is arrested. In a society where economic status is held on a pedestal, change is very difficult. This shows there is an unequal distribution of wealth which is a major cause of violence and robbery. A common theory among Americans is that society wants what it cannot have. It there was an equal distribution of wealth the strain theory would not exist as people would be satisfied with what society gave them, there would not be selfish ambition to obtain all you can. Another
Sociological theories of crime contain a great deal of useful information in the understanding of criminal behavior. Sociological theories are very useful in the study of criminal behavior because unlike psychological and biological theories they are mostly macro level theories which attempt to explain rates of crime for a group or an area rather than explaining why an individual committed a crime. (Kubrin, 2012). There is however some micro level sociological theories of crime that attempts to explain the individual’s motivation for criminal behavior (Kubrin, 2012). Of the contemporary
This “strain” can take on two forms: individual or structural. Individual strain is a reference to one’s own needs and the pains that a person has to endure when trying to gain them. Structural strain is a reference to the pains felt to both fit and achieve on a certain level within specific contexts. All of this information points to strain theory fitting into the category of the Postmodernist School of Criminology. This school of thought teaches of how criminal behaviors are in fact used to correct inequality that is caused by society.
Burglary has an undeniably large presence in society. Consequently, there is significant discourse surrounding the major criminogenic forces that motivate burglars. As a result, this essay asserts that to a large extent, strain theory provides the most effective explanation for burglary. However, this essay recognises the limitations of strain theory, thus the essay acknowledges the smaller, albeit still significant roles that theories like Seduction of Crime theory and Conflict theory play in explaining burglary. To develop this hypothesis, a number of factors are explored. First however, a definition of burglary must be established; for the purposes of this essay, the Common Law definition shall be used. Additionally, strain theory’s fundamental
This particular work will consist of a critical theoretical review and a comparative analysis on two criminological theories. For the comparison I have chosen Marx’s theory of crime and Merton’s strain theory of deviance. My critical comparison analysis will emphasise the central concepts and arguments within both theories and how each theory explains crime. The analysis will then explore modern day studies in which have stemmed from these theories as well as explore the many similarities and differences between these two theories. Exploring the strengths and weaknesses in both approaches and concluding that although both theories are
Furthermore it states that humans, being conformists readily buy into these notions. However, access to the means for achieving these goals is not equally available to everyone. Some have the education, social network and family influence to attain these goals. The socially and economically disadvantaged do not have the opportunity, education or necessary social network for attaining material wealth and economic or political power. Thus the strain theory predicts that crime occurs when there is a perceived discrepancy between these goals and the legitimate means for reaching them. Individuals who experience a high level of this strain are forced to decide whether to violate laws to achieve these goals, to give up on the goals pushed upon them by society, or to withdraw or rebel.
The second theory I would like to discuss is the Strain theory. The strain theory basically states that crime breeds in the gap, imbalance, or disjunction between culturally induced aspirations for economic success and structurally distributed possibilities of achievement. The theory assumes fairly uniform economic success aspirations across social class and the theory attempts to explain why crime is concentrated among the lower classes that have the least legitimate opportunities for achievement. It is the combination of the cultural emphasis and the social structure which produces intense pressure for
Crime is the product of the social structure; it is embedded in the very fibres of society. In this essay, I aim to explore different theories as to why crime exists within society and how we as a society therefore construct it. Crime is a social construct; it is always in society and is on the increase. It is inevitable. Where does it come from? It comes from legislation, from the making of laws.
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.
Strain theory and New Deviancy Theory (NDT) are mirror images of those above. Strain theory understands human nature to be socially constructed, where, committing a crime is produced by society not from individual instincts, favouring a deterministic perspective but also recognising that individuals rationalise from inside their determined position to achieve their aspirations. However, methods of innovation, ritualism, retreatism, or rebellion are not included under human rationality. Combining voluntaristic and determinacy is a main feature in NDT, although, they argue that while individuals are born free, they lose their agency in societal frameworks that manage behaviour; the state. The problem with this is that it ignores class conflict and therefore denies the basic causes of crime.
"When a man is denied the right to live the life he believes in, he has no choice but to become an outlaw," (Kazi, 2017). The modern societies around the world put a high importance on preventing criminal activity and rectifying behavior that leads to crime. In an ongoing struggle against corruption, many sociologists, and psychologists have done in-depth research to understand what is the cause of crime in our society. Initially, in 1893, Emile Durkheim first came up with the idea called Anomie Theory to explain why offenses take place in our communities. Durkheim reported that crimes took place in our society because there was a lack of ethical norms and social standards within our communities (Walsh, 2018).However, almost half a century later, Robert K. Merton developed Merton's Strain Theory to thoroughly explain why some people in our society are more likely to commit crimes than the others who don’t. Merton’s Strain Theory argues that corruption not only occurs in our communities because we lack norms in our society, but are also caused by the strains that are present among us as individuals which influence people to commit the crime. In his explanation, people will resort to achieving success through illegitimate means when they are blocked from acquiring success through legitimate means (Walsh, 2018). After studying the classical strain theories, I think that Merton’s Strain Theory explains street crimes such as robbery, theft, assault, and drug dealing better than
What is crime? What makes people commit crimes and how can we stop it? These, and many other questions similar to these, are asked by criminologists everyday. Criminology is an ever growing field, mainly because there is more and more research occurring and new theories linking people and crime coming out everyday. Below the main field of criminology there are many subfields that have different theories and philosophies on what they believe link criminal behavior. Two of the main criminology perspectives are Classical Criminology and Positivist Criminology. Although these two are both studied in the criminology field, their views are distinctly contradictory from each other. These two theories and many
This essay will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of sociological explanations of crimes with links to Durkheim’s anomie theory, Merton’s strain theory and the Labelling theory which will draw upon different academics that will highlight these specific areas of research. In sociological terms, crime is a social concept as it does not exist as an autonomous entity, but it is socially constructed by people. It can be analysed that sociological explanations of crime attribute deviance to various aspects of the social environment. For example, crime is strongly related to modern city life where this type of social environment creates cultural enclaves which results in producing criminal or deviant behaviour (Carrabine et al, 2014).