When evaluating the dynamics of both the strain and control theories one must factor into their analysis the sub-categories of each theory and how they contribute to the overall spectrum of crime, punishment, and social 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 foundation for the plethora of strain theories that encompass the criminological and theoretical world (Tibbetts, 2012, p.110). The basic premise of the theory traces its roots back to Robert K. Merton. Frustration to meet societies expectations in terms of success, (Specifically, monetary wealth), is a primary contributor to criminal behavior. Furthermore, the unequal balance between the goals of acquiring this “wealth,” and the means by which one seeks to achieve this end is described by Merton as an “anomie. “Simply put, it is not so much how one gain’s 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 America’s 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 five 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 accomplish their goals of material acquisition (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 112). Ritualists, the second adaption to the strain theory, refers to those do not...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document