Social Strain Theory

Abraham Maslow is a psychologist who had developed the Hierarchy of needs model in 1940-50s, and the Hierarchy needs theory is still being used to day and for understanding the human motivation. In his hierarchy he believes that people are motivated to achieve certain needs. And when a human had fulfilled a person would seek to fulfil the next one. Maslow’s hierarchy needs is concerning the responsibility of service providers to provide a

An abundance of research has been conducted on how Robert Agnew’s strain theory can help better understand why crime is committed. However, limitations to this to theory have come to the surface. Some suggest that

There are numerous researches about social strain theory and criminal offending. Robert “Merton states that the study of social strain believes that individual tend to respond to the gap between society’s values and their own

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

When considering why criminal law is important in achieving justice for Indigenous Australians it is pertinent to recognise that Indigenous people are grossly over-represented in the criminal justice system. Recent data suggests that Indigenous Australians aged 10 and over are 7.5 times

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 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.

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.

To identify the extent in which Indigenous people are disadvantaged in Australia and critically evaluate whether this disadvantage warrants special consideration when sentencing Aboriginal offenders.

The over-representation of Indigenous people in the criminal justice system is a large problem in society and reasons as to why this may be occurring need to be examined (Walker & McDonald, 1995; AIC, 2013). Indigenous Australians make up less than three per cent of the overall Australian population, however Indigenous people are over-represented in Australian prison populations, with imprisonment rates that are around 12 times those of the rest of the Australian population (AIC, 2013). Rates of over-representation are even higher in juvenile detention, with a 10-17 year old Indigenous person being around 24 times more likely to be in detention than a non-Indigenous person of the same age (AIC, 2013; Cunneen & White, 2011). Indigenous Australians overrepresentation in the criminal justice system is usually due to offences pertaining to violence and public disorder (ABS, 2010; Hogg & Carrignton, 2006). This is endorsed by the fact that Indigenous Australians currently make up 40 per cent of those imprisoned for assault offences (AIC, 2013). The over representation of Indigenous Australians in the criminal justice system may be attributed to a variety of reasons, known as risk factors (AIC, 2013).

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is widely accepted in many social disciplines. However, it still has some weaknesses. Firstly, it is difficult to measure how people are satisfied in every level. There is no methods to measure precisely how satisfied one need is before the next higher need become operative. Secondly, in reality, people may seek different needs simultaneously, for instance, consumer would like to buy the car can offer safety and esteem needs. Thirdly, this theory doesn’t take account of age group consideration. Some old age people concern highest level of security,

Personal benefits are important to take into consideration because people need to understand the valuable changes that they are making, the new person that they are becoming. Recovery will change a person if they want to be changed. Family members will get their mothers/fathers back, parents will get their children back; forgive but never forget because they can always become the person that they once were. The reasons to thinking about life after recovery refers back to the beginning when they’re asked why they wanted to go through recovery in the first place. All of those reasons that they started, will be a reality for most people. If they put in one hundred percent of their efforts, the benefits of their recovery will be outstanding.

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).