Theories of Criminal Behavior

When evaluating the dynamics of both the strain and control theories one must factor into their analysis the sub-cat egories of each theory and how they contri stille to the overall spectrum of crime, punishment, and affable control. The following evaluation consists of those evaluations that consist of the varying forms of both the strain and control theories of crime including the strengths and weaknesses of each standpoint, the empirical validity of each, and the overall ramifications for crime prevention. Strain Theories Frustration.This is the launching for the plethora of strain theories that encompass the criminological and theoretical world (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 110). The staple premise of the theory traces its roots back to Robert K. Merton. Frustration to meet societies expectations in legal injury of success, (Specifically, monetary wealth), is a primary contributor to guilty behavior. Furthermore, the unequal balance between the goals of acquiring this wealth, and the substance by which one seeks to achieve this end is exposit by Merton as an anomie. Simply put, it is not so much how one gains wealth it is merely of primary importance that one does in fact achieve it, by whatever means possible (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 112). Merton believed that Americas fascination with acquiring wealth at any cost is a direct link to the strain theory. However, Merton also believed that each individual experienced strain differently. He reasoned that each person experiencing the strain, dealt with it within the concept of pentad variations.The five variations or adaptions to strain consist of conformity, ritualism, innovators, retreatism, and rebellion (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 112-113). Adaptations to strain- Five variations Conformity, in relation to the strain theory, refers to people who utilize traditional means by which to gain their goals of material acquisition (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 112). Ritualists, the second adaption to the strain theory, refers to those do no t wish to gain monetary abundance or riches. However, like conformists, they do structure their lives in a manner that is conventional.They enjoy their occupations, and their normal everyday lives, but they do not aggressively seek to enter into a higher echelon of economic emplacement (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 113). Innovators are thought to be the most likely to seek out and live a life of crime (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 113). Innovators wish to achieve money and riches, but want no part of the conventional or traditional methods of achieving this end. They do not desire to work hard to achieve their goals. Instead, they look for ways to besiege the normal or traditional processes of education and hard work.This does not always include crime, as one might initially think. Many inventors and entrepreneurs fit the course of study of innovator. For example, the establishers of Google, Yahoo, and other internet search engine web sites are innovators. Athletes who sign lucrative contracts ar e also considered innovators. These individuals are not part of the criminal population- they scarce seek to find different ways to achieve the same goals of the traditional groups. Alternatively, there are innovators who engage in activities such as dealing drugs, robbing banks, thievery cars, etc. Tibbetts, 2012, p. 112). These individuals represent the other end of the innovator equation. Finally, retreatism and rebellion round out the final two classifications of the adaptations to the strain theory. Retreatists, like innovators, do not stick with the normal concepts of hard work and education neither do they wish to achieve the end of monetary wealth. All forms of reteatists seek to disappear from society completely- not buying into its goals or methods (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 113). Lastly, rebellion is usually thought of as the most intriguing of the five adaptations to strain.The difference that pertains to this category of individuals is how they view societys goals and the me ans by which one accomplishes them. While they buy into the concept of goals and methods of society, they do not buy into the CURRENT social structure and its associative ideas of goals and means. Instead, they seek to create their get social structure by overthrowing the current structure and replacing it with one in that adapts to their ideas and values (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 113). Evidence and Criticisms of the Strain TheorySince the foundation of the strain theory was set(p) by Merton, many a(prenominal) criticisms have surfaced, as well as supporting evidence. The strength of the theory lies primarily within the fact that the Mertons work provided a structure whereby societal groups in general are evaluated-not individual groups (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 114). There is also the existence of scattered amounts of evidence based support that poverty connect directly to crime (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 114). Support for the theory appears to derive from macrolevel rates (Group rates) of the rela tion between crime and poverty (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 12). Critics of the strain theory cite various reasons wherefore the theory of strain is not valid, or at the very least, flawed. One such reason is the variation of occupations in which people engage, as well as the wide variety of expectations these people possess in terms of what a certain life course might take. While there are many theories, both for and against and everywhere in between Mertons strain theory, one cannot argue against the strength of its basic premise of expectations vs. the means to achieve those expectations, and the varying degrees of wardrobe this places upon individuals.Social Control Theory Control theories operate under the premise that all individuals would subscribe to anti-social behavior save for restrictions that are put in place to defy against their own deviant tendencies (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 152). Basically, control theories stem from the idea that all mankind is evil in terms of base character - man must be contained via laws, guidelines, and restraints. Although not easily tested, the idea of natural criminal inclinations receives a strong supporting cast via recent empirical evidence.Research has found that most people are bent towards criminal actions at an early age. An example of the natural tendency towards criminal behavior is indicated by a reported study by Tremblay and LeMarquand (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 153). This study found that most childrens antisocial behavior peaked at the age of 27 months-particularly boys behavior (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 153). Other likeminded studies have surfaced that also result rise to this evidence pertaining to antisocial tendencies Tibbetts, 2012, p. 153). Several other control theories present themselves within the realm of criminal behavior.For example, Reisss control theory states that criminal tendencies were a byproduct of a weak ego or superego controls among incarcerated youth (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 157). However, Reiss believed tha t strong family bonds served to act as a counterbalance to these weak ego and super ego controls (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 112). Additionally, traits that a person either possessed or did not possess weighed heavily within the framework of Reisss control theory. Examples of personal traits include, but are not limited to, impulse restraint, and the ability to delay gratification (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 12). Control perspectives are the most archaic, yet most respected indications and reasons for criminal actions by individuals. The basic position is that mankind is selfish and seeks its own gratification at any cost. The counteracting barriers to this behavior is put into place by social policies and controls that combat and react to criminal activity and the theory that mankind is evil and selfish. References Tibbetts, S. G. (2012) Criminological theory The essentials. SAGE publications, Inc.