Theories of Criminal Behavior

When evaluating the dynamics of some(prenominal) the rail line and control theories unrivaled must(prenominal) f compriseor into their analysis the sub-catswelled headries of each surmisal and how they contri unlesse to the over any spectrum of crime, punishment, and genial control. The following evaluation consists of those evaluations that consist of the varying forms of both the inventory and control theories of crime including the strengths and weaknesses of each standpoint, the empirical rigorousness of each, and the over entirely ramifications for crime prevention. Strain Theories Frustration.This is the foundation for the plethora of cast theories that cross the criminological and theoretical world (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 110). The basic premise of the surmise traces its root back to Robert K. Merton. Frustration to meet societies expectations in terms of success, (Specifically, fiscal wealth), is a primary contributor to poisonous behavior. Furthermore, the unequal b alance between the goals of getting this wealth, and the means by which one researchs to carry through this terminate is described by Merton as an anomie. Simply put, it is not so much how one produces 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 the Statess fascination with acquiring wealth at any court is a direct link to the neckcloth conjecture. However, Merton also believed that each respective(prenominal) experienced strain differently. He reasoned that each person experiencing the strain, dealt with it inwardly the concept of quintette var.s.The five variations or adaptions to strain consist of conformity, ritualism, innovators, retreatism, and rising (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 112-113). Adaptations to strain- Five variations Conformity, in relation to the strain theory, refers to people who utilize traditionalistic means by which to accomplish their goals of materi al acquisition (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 112). Ritualists, the second adaption to the strain theory, refers to those do not wish to gain monetary abundance or riches. However, like conformists, they do structure their lives in a manner that is conventional.They do it their occupations, and their normal everyday lives, but they do not aggressively seek to enter into a higher echelon of economic status (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 113). Innovators argon purview to be the closely likely to seek out and live a biography of crime (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 113). Innovators wish to achieve money and riches, but wish no break-dance of the conventional or traditional methods of achieving this end. They do not desire to dissemble hard to achieve their goals. Instead, they look for ways to trounce the normal or traditional processes of education and hard work.This does not ceaselessly include crime, as one might initially think. Many inventors and entrepreneurs suffer the category of innovator. For co ngresswoman, the founders of Google, Yahoo, and other internet search engine web sites are innovators. Athletes who sign lucrative contracts are also considered innovators. These individuals are not part of the criminal population- they simply seek to find different ways to achieve the same goals of the traditional groups. Alternatively, there are innovators who engage in activities such(prenominal) as dealing drugs, robbing banks, stealing 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 adopt 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 bargaining 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 means 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 witness 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 laid by Merton, many criticisms have surfaced, as well as supporting march. 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 base support that poverty li nks directly to crime (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 114). Support for the theory appears to derive from macrolevel rates (Group rates) of the relation between crime and poverty (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 12). Critics of the strain theory cite various reasons why 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 configuration of expectations these people take in 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 entreat against the strength of its basic premise of expectations vs. the means to achieve those expectations, and the varying degrees of compact this dwelling houses 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 guard against thei r own deviant tendencies (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 152). Basically, control theories stem from the idea that all mankind is horror 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 inform study by Tremblay and LeMarquand (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 153). This study found that most childrens unsociable behavior peaked at the age of 27 months-particularly boys behavior (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 153). Other likeminded studies have surfaced that also give rise to this evidence pertaining to antisocial tendencies Tibbetts, 2012, p. 153). Several other control theories present themselves within the res publica of criminal behavior.For example, Reisss control theory states that criminal tendencies were a spin-off of a weak ego or superego controls among incarcerated youth (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 157). However, Reiss believed that 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 comfort (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 blessedness 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) Criminologica l theory The essentials. SAGE publications, Inc.