Application of Strain Theory to Explain Causation of Crime - Research Paper Example

Strain Theory to Explain Causation of Crime Abstract This discussion shall focus on two major questions. The first question shall describe Strain and Social Learning theories as the most suitable theories that have been used to explain the essence of sex offenses in the contemporary society. However, the assertions regarding the points of discussion shall be based on ideas that have been explicated by Flora and Koehane, in their discussions. The second section of this report shall focus on the question two, which attempts to explore and analyze the relationship between theoretical developments that have been exhibited in forensic criminology and broad socio-economic facets that are currently experienced. In order to provide more detailed information, the second sections shall begin by providing a brief explanation of forensic criminology and different kinds of relationship that it has exhibited with socio-economic facets overtime. Key Words: Social learning theory, strain theory, forensic criminology and socio-economic dimensions. Discussion One Application of Strain Theory to Explain Causation of Crime In social as well as criminal studies, strain theory alludes that there are certain social facets and dimensions that compel individuals to commit certain offenses (Angew, 2006). In order to provide proper information in regard to this theory, pioneers like Emile Durkheim and Robert Merton, divided this theory into two categories: The first category explicates certain societal structures that facilitate or compel individuals to commit criminal activities (Merton, 1967). Specifically, the social structure as a component of the strain theory denotes that: There are certain structures, also referred as process at various levels of the society, which affects individuals’ perception on different social factors thus affecting their judgment for instance: A society with poor law enforcement structures may create a proper environment for committing criminal activities. Moreover, the other dimensions strain theory is based on individual factors: This dimension is based on the fact that individuals may experience certain challenges as they strive to achieve their goals (Merton. 1967). Thus, affecting their perceptions regarding the means through, which they apply to attain the goals. That is, individuals may experience extreme and tremendous challenges as they strive to achieve their goals, in this case, they may opt to pursue their goals through means considered unethical within the society. This has also been discussed in details by Robert Merton, who asserts that the society is structured in a way that there are specific cultural dimensions that have been used to regulate human behavior. In addition, Merton alludes that apart from the cultural facets, there are certain cultural accepted means of achieving individual or societal goals. According to Merton, cultural norms and goals are in balance only if they are acceptable by the society. However, when the means used to achieve some desires do not conform to the culturally accepted means; a situation of imbalance may occur, usually referred as defiance. In order to provide more clear issues ascribed to Strain theory, Flora and Keohane assert that the existence of certain social norms and certain strain behavior have facilitated the occurrence of categorization of individuals on the basis of their interests, actions as well as perception. Taking an analysis of the various facets of strain theory, it is prudent to conclude that it is one of the best theories that can be used to explicate causation of different crimes, specifically sexual offenses (Flora & Keohane, 2013). To begin with, taking the individual dimension of Strain Theory, which explains how individuals may experience challenges in relation to the means they apply to achieve their goals and how they may opt to apply unethical means, one can clearly understand the essence of committing sexual offense in this regard. Assuming an individual does not have the capacity to serenade a woman, or even resources, which are currently preferred by a large number of women, and he decides to use rape or defile a minor, as a means to satisfy his sexual desire, then strain theory would be a perfect theoretical perspective of explaining the causation of sexual offenses (Flora & Keohane, 2013). Another essence of Strain theory that makes it a perfect theory for providing explanations for committing crimes, and sexual offenses in this case is its structural dimension of explanation social behaviors (Angew, 2006). As discussed earlier on, the structural dimension of Strain theory asserts that there are social structures at various levels that may create platforms for committing criminal offenses for instance: A society without proper law enforcement structures may create a perfect condition for committing crime owing to the fact that people may not feel threatened by legal structures. The weak legal enforcement structures facilitate the change of people’s perception on how they might want to achieve certain goals. In the case that a society is free, free in the sense that police and government authorities are not interested in sex offenders but, rather ‘major’ criminal activities i.e. terrorism et cetera, people may apply unethical means of committing sexual offenses, majorly because of the fact that they may not be punished by their governments. The application of Strain Theory to explain incidences of crime causation may also be explicated by Merton’s expansion of the theory, which categorizes individuals within a society into five classes. The first class of these people are rebels; according to Merton, rebels are a specific group of people within a society, who reject culturally accepted goals and socially accepted means of acquiring such goals, while creating their own means of achieving desires or personal goals, he gives examples of the Skinhead and the Ku Klux Klan. This classification, can be used to explain the tendency of individuals to commit crimes or undertake actions that are considered unethical Another basis for considering the application of strain theory as one of the most appropriate theories for describing causation of crimes is Merton’s classification of some members of the society as innovators. According to Merton 1967, this group of individuals accepts the occurrence of culturally accepted goals while rejecting the means that have been universally formulated to achieve such goals. In most cases, they usually rejected modern or conventional methodologies that have been formulated to facilitate the achievement of culturally accepted goals, while focusing on creating their personal means, societies have regarded or referred to these people as criminals. Taking a case of the United Kingdom, there are various rules and regulations that have been stipulated to guide various human activities for instance Occupational Health and Safety Rules that protect the health of workers and employers at their working places (Benett, 2004). However, there are cases where employers may create their own means of protecting the health of workers, in a manner that does not confirm with the UK OSHA rules, such individuals are usually regarded as criminals and may be charged with criminal offenses (Benett, 2004). Flora and Keohane 2013, also allude that there are certain strain behaviors with the society that may affect how human beings behave. They assert that the existence of strain behavior or the challenges people face as they strive to achieve their goals, have facilitate the occurrence of various actors within the society with different interest and different dimensions of actions. This is another imperative explanation that is directly related to Strain Theory, thus making it a suitable theoretical perspective of explaining crime causation, specifically sex offenses that may be committed among persons exhibiting stress with regard to getting a desirable sex partner. Application of Social Learning theory to Explain Causation of Crime There is also the social Learning theory, it alludes that the essence of human learning occurs purely in the social dimension through a process of observing incidences within their environments (Bandura, 1977). In addition, the theory asserts that the process of human learning in the complex social environment can also occur through imitating of other people’s acts i.e. children imitating their parents et cetera. According to Albert Bandura 1977, the pioneer of this theory, modeling is another method through, which one can learn in the society, by specifically undergoing behavior manipulation by influential organs or persons. Social learning theory is a crucial theoretical perspective that has can be effectively used to explain causation of criminal activities in various parts of the world. Specifically, social learning indicates that an individual’s actions are usually a depiction of what he has learnt from his environment (Arkers & Jensen, 2003). Individuals tend to learn through observing what other people are doing for instance: Their behaviors and attitudes and the ultimate goals or outcomes of such behaviors. Albert Bandura posits that the learned behavior is coded cognitively and later act as a guideline on how one undertakes his/her own actions. That is, one learns from people surrounding them i.e. their parents and the information learnt is retained in their minds and later applied while undertaking actions. Therefore, in the case that child is raised in a neighborhood characterized by criminal acts i.e. rape and pick pocketing; he/she may apply such actions later in life especially when the means of achieving his/her goals are quite ineffective. The other concept of social learning that can assist in providing explanations in relation to crime causation is learning the imitation. The society is characterized by individuals with high levels of capacity to imitate other people’s behavior; that is behaving in exact manner as those individuals they admire (Arkers & Jensen, 2003). However, in the course of imitating these individuals, they tend to commit crimes of exhibit characters that are considered socially unethical. These incidences are common in the current generation where; individuals may imitate the behaviors of certain public gang leaders, probably those watched in movies and other media channels. Moreover, children raised with parents that apply violence to solve disputes may also exhibit similar behaviors later in life; thus facilitating the occurrence of criminal activities. Consequently, there is also modeling as concept of social learning theory. It is an important facet of social learning theory that makes the theory among the suitable perspectives of providing explanations to causation of criminal activities (Arkers & Jensen, 2003). Modeling basically involves the manipulation of one’s modes of operation or behavior by certain influential persons i.e. parents, peers, et cetera. This can influence one’s actions even through leading to causation of criminal activities i.e. a scenario where one constantly interacts with criminal groups and later begin acting in the same manner. Social learning theory also posits that the state of an individual’s mental facets are also crucial to learning processes and is a determinant of whether or not they engage in criminal activities (Bandura, 1977). According to Bandura, external factors of reinforcement are not the only factors that can affect the learning capacity of an individual, but also the occurrence of intrinsic facets of reinforcement for instance: The feeling of accomplishment, which determines whether or not an individual is satisfied with certain actions thus determining his next actions; pride, this is another intrinsic factor that determines the engagement of an individual in criminal activities. In as much as an individual may be compelled by external or extrinsic forces to engage in criminal activities, his/her ultimate decision may be affected by pride i.e. refusing to commit crime such as rape simply because of their pride. Satisfaction is also noted as an intrinsic cognitive factor that determines whether or not an individual commits crime or not (Arkers & Jensen, 2003). Some people may possess adequate social and economic resources, but may not feel satisfied; this is a common behavior among the contemporary society that is driven by levels of greed. In this regard, such individuals may be compelled to engage in unethical acts majorly to accomplish a sense of satisfaction. However, Albert Bandura concludes that the essence of social learning may not affect other people’s behaviors. In most cases, individuals may not necessarily apply what they have learned from others, but would rather apply concepts learned through other processes i.e. modeling and imitation. This is also another concept that may explicate causation of criminal activities for instance: The current generation is characterized by a scenario whereby children and taught ethical modes of acting in social places like churches, mosques, and schools among other places; however, through processes of modeling, the children may opt to apply actions considered criminal or unethical. Some may also prefer applying imitated acts of their roles models i.e. those watched from Televisions, social media and other modern modes of information dissemination. Discussion Two Theoretical development in forensic criminology Not all human beings approve anti social behavior such as violence, robbery, rape etc. Therefore, people differ in type, age, social status as well as the circumstances under which people participate in anti social behavior (Bass & Jefferson, 2007). There are a number of forensic criminology theories by different scholars to try and help solve criminal cases. The theories also try to explain why crimes are committed. Philip Zimbardos, who is a professor of psychology at New York University, was the pioneer of the 'broken windows' theorem. In 1969, he positioned one 1959 Oldsmobile auto on a street near to the Bronx campus of New York University which is considered a crime hub(a ‘ghetto’ area), and one in the more affluent areas of Palo Alto, California near the Stanford University campus. Not before long, the license plates of both cars were removed as well as the bonnets opened to prove what Zimbardos referred to as the necessary releaser signals. Within three days, the car in the Bronx was completely vandalized but the car in Palo Alto remained untouched for over a week. Therefore, Zimbardos smashed part of the car with a sledgehammer and after a few hours later, the car had been turned upside down and destroyed, Philips theory of broken windows can be termed as what is known as the social disorganization Henry McKay and Clifford R. Shaw of the Chicago School developed this theory. The social disorganization theory explains that in neighborhoods where the l rate of poverty is high there is high tendency of violence and crime (Benett, 2004). This is because most of them struggle to make ends meet. While areas populated by the affluent and rich there are no cases of crime or violence. This is termed as social organization. An American sociologist known as Robert Merton who is well known for his strain theory suggests that if people struggle while others are not struggling, the ones who struggle become defiant and end up causing chaos in the society. The strain theory also draws ideas from Edwin Sutherland that people who associate in small gangs or groups think to think on the same note and behave alike. They come up with their own definition of success as well as how to live life. The affluent in the society will define success based on material gains such as good cars, big houses, good education for their children and so forth. Therefore, those who would not have attained what is define, as success will end up in delinquent behavior. Mostly youths from poorer backgrounds where they have fewer opportunities to develop economically end up in criminal activities. Most of them develop their own rules on how to become tough in order to retaliate the affluent who at times take advantage of them. Social control theory is another theoretical forensic development. The approach mainly focused on why people commit crime (Travis, 2007). Travis Hirsch acknowledged four main characteristics in his research. They include, participating in unadventurous activities, obligation to accomplish something, having close relationships and acceptance that rules and regulations exist. If a person, posses the mentioned characteristics then there is no way they will be tempted to be criminals. He explained that people who have self-control do not commit crimes. He gives an example of someone who does not have or neither owns a yatch, the most honorable thing he or she can do is to buy the yatch. This is a display of someone who has self-control. He or she will not steal the yatch because they are aware it is wrong. If such traits exist in a family setting and are passed, on to the children by teaching them and being role models to them then crime rates reduce or they do not exist totally. Unlike in families where if one lacks a pen, the next thing they do is take another person’s pen without borrowing. Therefore, the children who end in delinquent behavior do not have self control because it has not be instilled on them. That is difference between them and those that have self-control. There is a high tendency of excluding women from crimes and focusing on men as the biggest criminals. In the 1970’s criminologists had all their focus on men and ruled out that women were the weaker sex and therefore could not be accused of any crimes whatsoever. Shockingly, studies show that women are more into crime a lot more than men themselves yet men are viewed as the biggest offenders. Statistics’ also showed that women who committed any sort of crimes were viewed to be worse than men (Kuo & Sullivan, 2001). The stereotype thinking of women should be seen and not heard. Those women were always the victims and not offenders. This is because women are always put into their ‘place ‘by men and oppressed by men. Feminism has also caused many ripples when it comes to case ruling because at times they are sentenced lightly because they are believed to have family responsibilities (Kuo & Sullivan, 2001). The above-mentioned theories have been used wrongly to convict suspects of crime. However, with the development of forensic criminology technology, there has been fairness and justice in most concluded crimes. Forensic criminology has been able to use scientific evidence to convict criminals, explain the crime and as well as valid reasons why crimes have happened (Travis, 2007). Use of forensic criminology in courts The official use of forensic criminology in the court settings in the United Kingdom was in 1086. A murder suspect in the English Midlands had confessed that he was responsible for two murder as well as rape cases (Saferstein, 2009). The police therefore decided to verify that the suspect was indeed guilty by asking Dr Alec J. Jeffrey is who is believed to be the pioneer of DNA fingerprints. He carefully conducted seven tests and they all proved that the suspect was not guilty. After the proof by the DNA test of fingerprints the suspect was innocent, the police collected blood samples of all the males in the area in order to find a new suspect for their case. Robert Melias in 1987 was the first convict in England to be jailed of rape after a successful proof by the prosecution using DNA that he was guilty. Another instance where forensic criminology has been of great use was when Ghanaian boy was denied entry into the United Kingdom. The immigration department claimed that the woman, who was a citizen of United Kingdom, could be the auntie to the boy. Therefore, the courts demanded forensic proof that indeed the woman was the mother of the son (Saferstein, 2009). The DNA test showed there could be a possibility that the boy was indeed the woman’s son. The DNA testing therefore made the United Kingdom immigration authorities to accept the boy’s entrance into the country. In summary, forensic criminology has been used in courts to give evidence in order to prove set the innocent free and convict the guilty justly. Another important essence of using forensic criminology is to speed up judicial cases as well as conclude them. A Ghanaian boy was refused entry into the United Kingdom (U.K.) for lack of proof that he was the son of a woman who had the right of settlement in the U.K. Immigration authorities contended that the boy could be the nephew of the woman, not her son. DNA testing showed a high probability of a mother-son relationship. The U.K. Government accepted the test findings and admitted the boy. Forensic criminology has been used in courts to help avoid abuse of individual rights as well as giving of discriminatory judgments based on races or police assumptions that certain groups of people are always criminals. Aviation investigations During a plane crash, it is usually very hard to say the real cause of the accident. Therefore, the use of forensic criminology is usually very important in assessing the accident and proof the cause of the plane crash (Morgan, 2000). Therefore the plane crash investigators usually take samples from the scene of the accident which usually includes the box, body parts as well as anything visible that could help in investigations. The human body parts are usually taken to pathologists for autopsy to verify if at all there were any chemicals present in the plane at the time of the crash (Morgan, 2000). On the other hand the plane box is usually assessed to listen to the last conversation the pilot had with the control tower. All these investigations using the forensic criminology methods are aimed at proving whether the accident was indeed accidental or a foul play. Before the use of forensic criminology, plane crash were assumed to be happen because of bad weather conditions or at times the pilots would be blamed by the airlines in order to cover up a planned assassination , hijack or even faulty purchased planes (Morgan, 2000). With the forensic criminology investigations people who die in plane crash are also able to be identified for the families to know what happened to their family kin . Terrorism Terrorism has become a worldwide threat now. Therefore, whenever there is a suspected terror attack in an area, bomb specialists are usually called to identify the type of the weapon that was used. Forensic chemists usually do the test. They analyze the chemicals, solutions as well as various objects quality as well as their quantity. The forensic chemists also examine the remains of the explosives used (Newburn, 2007). The forensic chemists are also able to test for the presence of radioactive materials i.e. chemical weapons, nuclear weapons as well as biological weapons. In case the plants are polluted, the chemist can as well use them to tell the origin of the compounds used in the attack. During a terror attack, people usually die, their body parts scattered, and this makes it hard to identify the individuals. Therefore, fingerprints, footprints as well as handprints or hairs are used in body identification. DNA analysis can also be used to identify individuals who have died in a terror attack. There are times the terrorists use fire accelerators’ such as gasoline or kerosene .therefore the forensic chemist use debris they get from the scene thereafter they are analyzed to find out the type of hydrocarbon used (Newburn, 2007). Murder cases Many murder cases have not been able to be solved for various reasons. However, in cases where forensic criminology has been used there has been a lot of success reported in solving the cases (Pertherick, Turgey & Ferguson, 2010). For instance, the murder of Leanne, who mysteriously disappeared from home and not found several months later even after the police, launched a thorough search for her. The body of Leanne Tiernan was found buried in a shallow grave ten miles from her home. Leanne left her home Landseer mount, Brimley, Leeds with her best friend for the upcoming Christmas trip shopping. Sadly, she never returned home. The man who found her was walking his dog in the woods. He said her head was covered by a plastic bag and had a scarf tied around her neck while cables tied both her hands. Police for pathological investigations took the body. The forensic Pathologists found hairs on the scarf around her neck. The forensic pathologist used mitochondrial DNA and the hairs matched those of Taylor. It was further found out that she had been strangled and then her body stored in low temperatures before finally being buried to where it was found (Pertherick, Turgey & Ferguson, 2010). The cables were also found to be for the company that Taylor worked for. He was therefore, charged with murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In this scenario, forensic criminology has been used to trace the murderer and charge him. Firearms Identification Owning a firearm is not an illegal act. However, there are times when the owners misuse the firearms. Benett 2004 gives a case study of a man who was shot by a gun while walking on the streets and was badly injured. He was rushed to the hospital for treatment however; he could not afford proper treatment. The man went to the police in order to be assisted in getting the person who shot him to pay for his medical bills. The police asked the doctors to remove the bullets that shot the man from his body. They took the bullets to firearms examiners who examined the bullets and found out from which specific gun they came from. The firearm examiner looked at the characteristics of bullets and used them to discern of class they were from, the brand, as well as the uniqueness the owner could be possessing. They were able to get the owner and were charged in a court of law with the forensic criminology evidence garnered by the police. He was found guilty of shooting the man and was ordered to pay for his medical bills and his firearm was confiscated. Conclusion The discussion has focused on two major questions. The first question described Strain and Social Learning theories as the most suitable theories that have been used to explain the essence of sex offenses in the contemporary society. The second section has mainly focused on the relationship between theoretical developments that have been exhibited in forensic criminology and broad socio-economic facets that are currently experienced. What can be concluded from the two major questions is that the theories developed by different scholars have tried to explain crime the reasons why people commit crime mostly in a social setting. However in the second section, the use of forensic criminology has helped improve the theories as well as disqualify some theories with scientific tested and proven facts. Bibliography Agnew, R. (2006). Pressured into crime: an overview of general strain theory. Los Angeles, Calif.: Roxbury Pub.. Akers, R. L., & Jensen, G. F. (2003). Social learning theory and the explanation of crime: a guide for the new century. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Bass, W. M., & Jefferson, J. (2007). Beyond the body farm: a legendary bone detective explores murders, mysteries, and the revolution in forensic science. New York: William Morrow. Bennett, T. (2004). Gang Membership, Drugs and Crime in the UK. British Journal of Criminology, 44(3), 305-323. Bennett, T. (2004). Gang Membership, Drugs And Crime In The UK. British Journal of Criminology, 44(3), 305-323. Travis, H. (2007). Forensic science (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Court, D. (2003). Direct Work with Racially Motivated Offenders. Probation Journal, 50(1), 52-58. Flora, R., & Keohane, M. L. (2013). How to work with sex offenders: a handbook for criminal justice, human service, and mental health professionals (Second ed.). Boston, Mass.: Haworth Press. Flora, R. (2013). How to work with sex offenders a handbook for criminal justice, human service, and mental health professionals (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Kuo, F., & Sullivan, W. (2001). Environment and Crime in the Inner City: Does Vegetation Reduce Crime?. Environment & Behavior, 33(3), 343-367. Merton, R. (1967). Strain gauges: theory and application. London: Iliffe Books. Morgan, M. (2000). Careers in criminology. Los Angeles: Lowell House. Newburn, T. (2007). Criminology. Cullompton: Willan Pub.. Petherick, W., Turvey, B. E., & Ferguson, C. E. (2010). Forensic criminology. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press. Saferstein, R. (2009). Forensic science handbook. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Seddon, A. (2009). Forensic science. Pasadena, Calif.: Salem Press. Terry, K. J. (2001). Motivation and Sex Offender Treatment Efficacy: Leading a Horse to Water and Making It Drink?. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45(6), 663-672. Thorwald, J. (1967). Crime and science; the new frontier in criminology. ([1st American ed.). New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. . Read More