Introduction
Theories play a significant role in defining key elements in criminal law. On the one hand, the strain theory surmises that specific stressors precipitate criminal behavior (Nguyen & Ngo, 2021). Affected individuals experience negative emotions as a result of the frustration and anger caused by a specific challenge. Proponents of the theory argue that criminal activity is the direct result of the emotional burden an individual in distress must bear (Nguyen & Ngo, 2021). On the other hand, the social disorganization theory surmises that a person’s surroundings determine the degree to which he or she will be involved in crime.
Discussion
The strain theory states that the incongruence between available opportunities and cultural goals that prioritize monetary gain results in criminal activity. It differs from the social disorganization theory, which highlights the fact that a society’s ability to develop strong and dependable systems of social interaction is deponent on key factors. These include economic forces, family disruption, diversity, and the population’s size. In essence, members of a community lack the capacity to develop shared values or address common problems together. The strain theory and the social disorganization theory are the basis upon which important legal perspectives are based (Lilly et al., 2018). While the train theory places emphasis on culturally constructed ideas, the social disorganization theory focuses on the lack of cohesion within a community as the primary cause of criminal behavior.
Many strain theorists present differing views on the manner in which the theory should be applied to property-level crime. It should be pointed out that while all the theorists agree that only a few individuals resort to crime, each presents a varying interpretation of the theory. Robert Merton, who is credited with postulating the social strain theory asserts that the variation of deviance rates in different contexts serves as an affirmation of the impact of strain on individual behavior. Merton was of the view that the United States exemplified a society whose high rate of deviance resulted in an elevated level of crime (Merton, 1938). He surmised that societal pressure often forces people to adopt ideologies that are deemed essential for success (Merton, 1938). Merton concludes that the degree of property-level crime in any society is directly proportional to the degree of deviance it experiences.
Robert Agnew has a slightly different view on the implications of the strain theory on property-level crime. His perspective lacks the influence of cultural variables and social elements that characterize Merton’s version of the theory (Agnew & Brezina, 2019). Instead, he argues that an individual’s willingness to engage in crime is dependent on their emotional state and personality traits. Agnew’s argument is based on the assertion that there is no direct correlation between property crime and cultural experiences (Agnew, 1992). He, however, agrees that there are specific social factors that influence a person’s state of mind. The failure to achieve specific goals and objectives may drive an individual to commit crimes on account of the anger and frustration precipitated by disappointment.
Messner and Rosenfield are of the view that the American dream is the biggest contributor to the prevalence of property crimes in the United States. It is their position that economic development facilitates the spread and adoption of culturally generated social pressure that forces people to resort to illegal means to acquire material resources (Chamlin & Cochran, 2007). The authors argue that structural and cultural constructs heighten the desire to gain material rewards, while the non-existent controls from social institutions result in a high incidence of crime. It is Messner and Rosenfield’s position that economic success strengthens society’s preoccupation with goals linked to the achievement of monetary success, thus increasing the degree of anomie experienced within society.
Social institutions play a critical role in shaping people’s behavior. Stephen is one of the individuals interviewed in the book. He is a killer who was exposed to guns at a young age (Garbarino, 2015). The social structure of the environment in which he grew up supported gun ownership. The objects were revered as proof of masculinity and a demonstration of a man’s ability to protect his property and honor. The institutional anomie theory proposes that criminal activity can be explicated by a close examination of society. The excessive emphasis on the economic success that permeates certain cultures pressures individuals into seeking alternative means of achieving material gains.
Conclusion
Stephen’s early exposure to guns and the societal pressure to achieve material gains prompted him to seek an alternative means of experiencing the elusive American dream. The challenges he faced while growing up, many of which were the direct result of the quest for material gain, had an immensely negative impact on his psyche. The transition from a desperate individual to a remorseless killer was easy because he already owned a gun, which in his rational mind, was an acceptable trait. If society denied him access to his heart’s desire, he would use the gun to bend society to his will. He was willing to commit crimes to achieve his objectives.
References
Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology 30(1), 47-88. Web.
Agnew, R., & Brezina, T. (2019). General strain theory. In M.D. Krohn, N. Hendrix, & G. P. Hall (Eds.), Handbook on crime and deviance (pp. 145-165). Springer.
Chamlin, M. B. & Cochran, J. K. (2007). An evaluation of the assumptions that underlie institutional anomie theory. Theoretical Criminology 11(1), 39-61. Web.
Garbarino, J. (2015). Listening to killers: Lessons learned from my twenty years as a psychological expert witness in murder cases. University of California Press.
Lilly, R. J., Cullen, F. T., & Ball, R. A. (2018). Criminological theory: Context and consequences. SAGE.
Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review 3(5), 672-682. Web.
Nguyen, Q. H. & Ngo, H. V. (2021). Strain theories and labeling theories: A critical examination through an anti-oppressive lens. Critical Social Work 22(1), 76-95. Web.