The General Strain Theory, And General Integrated Theory

Akers & Sellers (2013) noted that there are various common theories that are pertinent to the study of crime as the extents of crime explanations range from the genetic/biological through to the economic and social perspective. Howitt (2012) divided these theories into four categories: macro-level or societal theories; locality or community level theories; group and socialisation influence theories; and individual level theories. This essay first describes the major theories of crime in the discussion section, which also discusses the impacts of crime at the individual and societal level, followed by conclusion based on the previous discussion.

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

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 essay will outline how crime theories are able to assist in recognizing the causes of criminal activity, as well as demonstrating two criminological theories to two particular crimes. Overviews of trends, dimensions and victim/offenders characteristics of both crime groups will be specified. The two particular crimes that will be demonstrated throughout this essay are; Violent Crime (focusing on Assault) being linked with social learning theory and White Collar crime (focusing on terrorism) being linked to General Strain theory. In criminology, determining the motive of why people commit crimes is crucial. Over the years, many theories have been developed and they continue to be studied as criminologists pursue the best answers in eventually diminishing certain types of crime including assaults and terrorism, which will be focused on.

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

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

Exploring the role of negative emotions among murderers in a population of federal offenders: the General Strain Theory

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 two theories I have decided to merge are Agnew’s General Strain Theory and Hirschi’s Social Bond Theory. I picked General Strain Theory because it does a good job at discussing some of the things that can trigger the release of a person’s negative emotions which in turn may lead to deviant behavior. I also decided to write about Social Bond Theory because it describes some of the factors that keep people from committing crime. Both of the theories have strengths and weaknesses individually, but when merged they help fill in each other’s gaps. (Agnew, 2011; Hirschi, 2011) +1 (888) 295-7904

Control theory, Anomie theory and Strain theory provide very different explanations of why people commit crimes based upon assumptions about how humans function. Control theory suggests that humans are naturally drawn to breaking the law. Humans are driven to fulfill their needs and desires. Crime provides one method by which humans can reach their goals. Control theorists would thus ask why everyone does not turn to crime to meet their wants and needs. The question shifts from the typical why do people commit crime to why do people not commit crime (Cullen and Agnew, 2011). Hirschi suggest that crime and social bonds are linked, such that crime occurs in absence of a strong social bond. The four elements of the social bonds are

Trying to understand why crime happens if a very important concept. Throughout history, criminologist have debated on which theory of crime is most accurate. Currently, social bond and social learning theory are two of the leading theories in the criminological world. Between these two theories there are a variety of differences and similarities. In addition to these theories Gottfredson and Hirschi have published a book where they use the concept of self control to describe crime. Analyzing these three theories can be important to understanding the current criminological world.

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

Two theorist and theories that have been recognized by many involved in the criminal justice field are Ross L. Matsueda's Theory of Differential Social Control, and, Charles R. Tittle's Control Balance Theory. Matsueda's theory, (1) identifies a broader range of individual-level mechanisms of social control, (2) specifying group and organizational processes for controlling delinquency, (3) conceptualizing classical criminological theories as special cases of a general interactionist framework, and (4) testing the interactionist model empirically against specific hypotheses drawn from competing theories. Tittle's theory believes deviance results from the convergence of four variables: (1)

Some experts have speculated that integration is a valuable means to developing better explanations of crime or delinquent behavior. Others believed that theories need to compete against each other in order to rise in status. Integrated theories reveal a strong reliance on control theories and learning. It confirms a weaker reliance on strain theory, followed by subcultural, conflict, and Marxist theories. These sociological prejudices in integration criminological have traditionally disregarded theories and models of biology, history, evolution, gender, law, communication, and economics. In contrast, the eclectically-based constructivism and postmodern stances toward integration can be compared sociologically and psychologically in positivist and modern