Criminology Delinquency and crime the general strain theory

Criminology Delinquency and detestation the prevalent line opening habitual contort Theory (GST), introduced by sociologist Robert Agnew in 1992 (Cernkovich, Giordano, Rudolph, 2000), focuses on the individual effects of tonal pattern, and how it is that that var. accordingly leads a person towards delinquency and offense.This essay looks at the patroniseground of strain speculation, its explanation of umbrage and deviance, evaluates the possible action and ends with the writers tactual sensation of frequent strain hypothesis. full popular Strain Theory is more individualised than the first Anomie and Strain conjecture that was introduced by Emile Durkheim and Robert Merton. Agnew, Brezina, Wright, Cullen (2002) suggest that it is personality traits within the individual that resultant mapping in their reaction to strain, and it is therefore these certain traits that end up in the individual turning towards delinquency and crime as a way to relieve the stress th at the strain has brought into their lifetime. The major traits associated with individual strain argon those traits of simpleness and detrimental emotionalism (Agnew et al., 2002), which when provoked by strain, lead the individual to such emotions as anger and to delinquency and crime to relieve this anger. Also known as interdict affect produces (Seigel, 2003), these adverse emotions of anger and frustration crapper be controlled by many individuals, but coupled with those traits of low simplicity and steep controvert emotionality in an individual, other individuals have trouble with controlling these prejudicious affect bows and delinquency is often the result when strain is added to their lives.General strain theory does do the good deed per se of informing both crime and deviance as a theory, as most individuals who react proscribely to strain do so mainly in a neglectful way, but non always in a shepherds crook way. If the reaction is in a roughshod way thou gh, it is only to the extent of income-generating criminality, and rarely results in crimes of a hurtful nature (Cernkovich, et al., 2000). Many researchers have demonstrate that the main type of strain that results in crime occurring is the strain of an individuals scotch situation (Cernkovich et al., 2000), and thus most crime and delinquency to relieve this strain tension is ways in which income green goddess be obtained. part some individuals only go as remote as delinquency (such as acting out against someone) to relieve their tension from strain pressures, others do go the extra distance and grade a crime, such as robbing a nonher individual. The difference between vestting a delinquent act and pull outting a criminal act is explained by familiar strain theory as a direct result of the level of constraint and proscribe emotionality that individual deliveres (Agnew et al., 2002).In erect of general strain theory, Agnew et al. (2002) looked at 2300 children between t he ages of 7 and 11 in 1976, and again five years later on in 1981, measuring their individual strains (both at home and at school), and comparing it with their level of constraint and negative emotionality. T individu all toldyer and parental survey reports for each child were also used at each time period. Agnew et al. (2002) believed that it was mainly juveniles who reacted negatively to strain, and thus the researchers wanted to test whether the children with low constraint and high negative emotionality in 1976 were more likely in 1981 to act criminally and/or delinquently, if their levels of constraint and negative emotionality were the same or worse as preceding. In response to their surveys, Agnew et al. did find that those juveniles with low constraint and high negative emotionality in 1981 were more likely to act in a delinquent or criminal manner as a reaction to parental and educational strain that occurred in their lives.Cernkovich et al.(2000) took a different appro ach in testing general strain theory, kind of looking at race and the so-called American Dream and the effect that these factors had on certain individuals. Two specimens were used in the design the first a sample of individuals living in private households, and the second a sample of previously institutionalised offenders. As in the previous study by Agnew et al. (2002), the samples were interviewed as adolescents in 1982 and hence again in 1992 (household sample) and 1995 (institutionalised sample) (Cernkovich et al., 2000). When conceptualised in career and materialistic terms, the African-American handment to the American dream was strong, although high levels of unemployment and low incomes were unflurried common incidents. While lacking access to money and materialistic objects, the splendor of the American dream to many African-Americans was still quite high, resulting in the occurrence of delinquency and criminality in an trial to improve their chances of achieving t he American dream (Cernkovich et al., 2000).Thus it would seem that racial factors do play a role in general strain theory, in addition to those trait factors of low constraint and high negative emotionality. Either way it is looked at, general strain theory explains how it is that delinquency and criminality can both occur. In one case it is because of the extent of traits within an individual, in another case it is based on the importance one race holds towards materialism and status quo.EvaluationWhile it is unfeigned that general strain theory does do the job of explaining both crime and deviance, at the same time general strain theory does include some shortcomings as a criminology theory overall.General strain theory has done a job of explaining wherefore it is that those races other than Caucasian (or White) do hallow crime and delinquent acts, but past wherefore is it that Caucasians swear many of the delinquent and criminal acts in the world? General strain theory has no real explanation for this, other than the fact that they might possess the traits of low constraint and negative emotionality. But what about those volume who commit crimes and delinquent acts and do not possess these traits? wherefore is it because that they are doing what they are doing? General strain theory has no explanation for this occurrence. Agnew et al. (2002) stated that it was mainly juveniles who have the traits of low constraint and negative emotionality, and thus were the ones to react negatively to strain, but what about those who are not juveniles? Obviously these individuals must possess these traits as well, but what if they do not? What is it indeed that has made them commit the act that they did? Seigel (2003) writes that negative affective states such as anger and frustration result in criminal and delinquent acts, but what about those psychopaths and sociopaths who do not have these feelings at the time of their crime, or those individuals who commit crime just because and not as a result of a negative state? General strain theory, while on the small level, may be too much on the micro level, for it is not only those individual issues, but the larger macro societal issues as well that move for an individual to commit a delinquent or criminal act. some other issue that general strain theory does not take into account, when explaining crime and deviance, is the crimes committed by those who have already achieved the American Dream. With their economic situation already high, why is it that some people choose to risk it all for a few more dollars? General strain theory does not explain why many of the so-called skilled crimes occur. And in keeping with the American dream, what about those individuals who do not adhere to the American dream? wherefore is it that people in little villages halfway around the world commit crimes? They have no former to adhere to the American dream of the Western world, so what is their resolve f or committing crime? It can not be a racial issue, for they are the only race that is around in their part of the world, wherever that may be. And low constraint and high negative emotionality are not issues to them as traits, so why is it then that they have committed their crime? General strain theory has no explanation.According to general strain theory, those who commit crime should be non-white, poor, with low constraint and high negative emotionality. So why it is that poorer people are not committing crime? What about those who are okay being poor? Should they not be adhering to the American dream? What about trying to strike it rich by any core possible?General strain theory states that juveniles commit crimes and delinquent acts because they do not have the center by which to properly deal with their low constraint and high negative emotionality (Agnew et al., 2002). This explains why desistance occurs later in life for these juveniles, but what about for those who do not desist from crime as they devil older? They have the means now of coping with their educational and parental strains, or those strains have at rest(p) away, so why are they still committing criminal and delinquent acts? And what about those individuals who do not commit these such acts as juveniles but begin to do so later on in life? wherefore is it that with the means to cope with life strains some people choose to ignore their coping mechanisms and instead turn to a delinquent and criminal life? A general strain theorist would solicit that the individual has the coping mechanisms to deal with life strains that they did not possess as juveniles and so should be up to(p) to desist from crime and delinquency, but what if they do not? General strain theory has no reason as to why this occurs.It is a statement of fact that crime does occur in the slum areas, and this coincides with the views express in general strains theory, but what about those crimes that are not committed i n the slum areas? Why are these crimes occurring? General strain theory would say that it is because that person has low constraint and high negative emotionality, but what if the individual is not a juvenile? Should they not have grown out of these traits by now? Another issue not explained by general strain theory is why nauseate crimes occur. Why is it that gays, lesbians, transvestites, transsexuals are discriminated against? Why does discrimination occur at all? Why is it that terrorism occurs? Why is it that wars occur? General strain theory has no real solid explanation for any of these occurrences of crime. It can be explained why those who are discriminated against would feel strain and commit a crime or a delinquent act, but why is it exactly that they were discriminated against in the first place? In many instances those people who are non-white are not further ahead in the American dream than are whites, and piercing against someone does not further an individuals chan ces of achieving the American dream, so why is it that discrimination occurs at all?Another shortcoming of general strain theory is in concordance with achieving the American dream. General strain theorists state that crimes are committed to improve an individuals economic situation. What about the crime that is violent and non-monetary? Why does it occur? Yes, it is align that it could be a result of negative affective states, but once monetary gain is achieved, then the negative affective state that an individual is in is supposed to dissipate without the occurrence of violence. But what if this does not occur?General strain theory also does not explain why it is that females commit crimes. Agnew et al. (2002) found that more males than females were prone to having the traits of low constraint and high negative emotionality, and Cernkovich et al. (2000) found the same to be true in their looking at race and adherence to the American dream, so why is it that some females still do commit crime? According to general strain theory, females are highly unlikely to possess high negative emotionality and low constraint, and do not put much importance on the American dream, so why do some not conform to these factors? What is it that makes some people commit delinquent and criminal acts under the same circumstances that others will not? General strain theory has no answer to these questions.Overall, general strain theory does have its shortcomings, and only further research in more diversified areas such as those mentioned above will be able to improve on the shortcomings of the theory, as is the case with any theory that has inadequacies. Once these many questions have answers backed by research, then and only then will general strain theory be able to comme il fautly explain all areas of crime and deviance as they occur in society.OpinionI believe that general strain theory does a fairly adequate job of explaining crime and deviance. While mentioned in the previo us few pages that general strain theory does have a few shortcomings in explaining crime and deviance, I believe these shortcomings to be minor in the overall picture of things.General strain theory does what many other theories have trouble doing, and that is explaining both crime and deviance. Many theories only explain one or the other, but general strain theory does the job of explaining both. Depending on the level of constraint and negative emotionality an individual possesses, coupled with the amount of strain that individual then faces, will result in whether or not their way of relieving that strain is criminal or delinquent.Another thing that general strain theory does do is that it explains why both instrumental crimes and expressive crimes occur. One is for monetary reasons, and has the achieving of the American dream to back it the other is for lack of coping mechanisms to deal otherwise, and has low constraint and negative emotionality as argumentation behind it.Gener al strain theory explains why some classes and races are more likely to commit crimes and delinquent acts than are other classes and races, even if it does not entirely explain why it is that white terzetto crime occurs, or why some people of the lower class do not commit crime. Maybe they have stronger coping mechanisms than other people, maybe other factors are involved. This issue of other factors is where I think many theories go wrong, and why it is that I think general strain theory does an adequate job of explaining crime and deviance. No criminology theory ever really takes into account those outside factors that may transmute things on a day-to-day basis. Extenuating factors and circumstances are hard to control for when testing if a theory really works or not, and in accordance with this, allowances must be made for all theories when deciding if they really do their job or not.It is for the above-mentioned reason that I think general strain theory does do what a theory is supposed to do it offers an explanation as to why something is occurring or happening. General strain theory can be applied to crime and deviance, and most crimes are found to be the result of strain or monetary issues, and it is for these reasons that I think general strain theory does an adequate job of explaining crime and deviance. With the use of emotions and money as the background on which general strain theory is based, the occurrence of crime and/or deviance in todays society is fully explained.The occurrence of terrorism and hate crimes are definite reasons as to why general strain theory does not do its job of explaining crime and deviance, but again allowances must be made. No theory completely explains everything that is supposed to everything cannot be completely explained. General strain theory does its best and integrates a number of things into explaining why it is that one thing (crime) occurs in the world. It does not just deal with one issue as an explanation, as some theories are prone to do, but focuses on a few different things instead.Overall, general strain theory is found to be a fairly sufficient theory when used to explain why it is that crime and deviance occur in todays society, and in the societies of the past. Money makes the world go round and it is because of this that many crimes in the world do occur. General strain theory just takes this into account with emotions added to the equation to state why it is exactly that some people commit criminal and delinquent acts while others do not.While it is true that the theory has its faults and shortcomings, this can be found to be true of any theory no theory is perfect, and that is something to be taken into account.