Merton's Strain Theory : The Cause Of Crime

Strain theory points out that certain societal structures push individuals to commit crimes (Agnew, Robert, Brezina, Wright, Cullen, 2002). For example, when individuals are not able to successfully attain their goals through legitimate means they resort to illegitimate means to attain them. Strain theory is divided into three major categories: The first category is “ (1) prevent individuals from achieving their positively valued goals, including monetary, status, and autonomy goals; (2) remove or threaten to remove positively valued stimuli that individuals possess; and (3) present or threaten to present individuals with noxious or negative value stimuli” (Agnew et al . , 2002). These three categories of strains can ultimately drive individuals into deviant subcultures. Growing up, Guzman Loera faced some of these strains, therefore strain theory will be used to explain his engagement in criminal

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

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

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.

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.

Causes of crime are arguably criminology’s most important and largest research topic. In this process of research, criminologists and academics have used numerous theories in attempts to explain how and why people resort to crime (Ellis, Beaver, Wright, 2009). The purpose of this paper is to examine a case study first with the use of strain theories (ST), followed by social learning theory (SLT). The first section will involve a summary of the case of R v Mark Andrew HUGHES (2009) NSWDC 404 involving an outline of the offender’s personal life, of his crimes, and his punishment handed down by

What causes people to commit crime? This million dollar questions has place many criminologists and researchers searching for answers. In the past decades, people have tried to explain crime by referring to the earliest literature of criminal’s atavistic features to human biology. Recent studies have shows that crime is described in the social environment. While, no one theory can prove the causes of crime, strain theory has gain support in academic research for its five mode of adaptation.

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 proposal of Robert Agnew’s General Strain Theory in explaining criminal deviance is based on three concepts. The first concept is that people

Anomie theory posits that US society focus heavily upon monetary success, but places little emphasis upon how this success is obtained. Strain theory proposals a very similar concept, but focus upon smaller units within society. It argues that while everyone aims to reach the middle class standard of success, people in some groups will be unable to achieve it via legitimate channels. These theories suggest that people how commit crime are trying to accomplish the

Merton established other forms that an individual might respond such as conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism and rebellion these explained an individual goal and the access to the means. This can either present a negative or positive outcome. For Merton these responses to deviance show how society strains people hence the name of the strain theory. The strain theory can lead to the triggers of feeling s that can become rage and defeat by society which can lead to a result in crime. The prodigious of society can caused an individual to engage in deviant behavior. These deviant behaviors are not society real and norms. This can explain why people engage in cat fishing.

The strain theory, developed by Robert K. Merton in 1957 is not only a criminology theory but it is a sociology theory as well stating that individuals do indulge in crimes because the society exerts pressure and puts a lot of strain on them while they are on the process of achieving socially acceptable goals. A good example of this socially acceptable goal is the American Dream whereas examples of crimes committed under strain theory include

Merton’s anomie/strain theory was a very popular explanation for crime and deviance during the 1950’s and 1960’s. (Paternoster, Bachman 2001) Its popularity began to diminish in the late 1960’s due to the theories lack of empirical evidence. The theory did

Introduction: Throughout history there have always been many different theories of crime and why people commit crimes. In the late 1930s a new theory rose to the forefront; this theory was called the anomie theory. Anomie means a lack of ethical standards. The anomie theory was proposed by Roberton Merton. It stated that society, as a whole, generally shares the same goals relating to having success in life; whether that is having a family, wealth, power, or just happiness. Society generally agrees that these are things that are to be sought after. Furthermore, Merton proposed that society, as a whole, also has a list of generally accepted ways to achieve such goals (Merton, 1938). Criminal activity, such as robbery, murder, and corruption, are among the things that are not accepted by society as appropriate means to achieve these goals. Merton’s anomie theory was built upon in 1992 by Robert Agnew who developed the general strain theory. General strain theory argues that when members of society are unable to achieve the general goals that society has set forth, they will, in order to avoid further rejection, further alienate themselves from society. Agnew also argued that if these individuals feel as if their shortcomings were a result of their environment failing them they will likely develop very negative feelings towards society, causing them to

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.