A new criminal theory perhaps

The two theories I have decided to merge are Agnew’s General Strain Theory and Hirschi’s Social Bond Theory. I picked General Strain Theory because it does a good job at discussing some of the things that can trigger the release of a person’s negative emotions which in turn may lead to deviant behavior. I also decided to write about Social Bond Theory because it describes some of the factors that keep people from committing crime. Both of the theories have strengths and weaknesses individually, but when merged they help fill in each other’s gaps. (Agnew, 2011; Hirschi, 2011) 

            The proposal of Robert Agnew’s General Strain Theory in explaining criminal deviance is based on three concepts. The first concept is that people are not naturally inclined to commit crimes. Rather, their transition towards deviant behavior begins when they experience strain. The second concept is that once strain is present, depending on the severity of the strain, a person becomes victim to their own negative emotions like anger, jealousy, and frustration.  Their response to those negative emotions may expedite their transition. The third concept looks at a person’s ability to cope with the strain and negative emotions. If a person has poor coping abilities they tend to become overwhelmed by the strain and the negative emotions they are feeling as a result of strain. Poor coping abilities may cause someone to commit crime in hopes of rectifying their situation. (Agnew, 2011)

            General Strain Theory views most humans as being lawful and moral citizens in their society. The average citizen only turns to deviance when they become inflicted with negative emotions brought on by one or more of the three main types of strain.   The three types of strain in this theory are fairly broad, and everyone has, at one time or another, experienced one or more of these strains. (Agnew, 2011)

            There are a lot of people who have lost their cell phones due to their own carelessness or it was stolen. Anyone who has lost their cell phone has experienced the first type of strain. Agnew plainly describes the strain as a result when individual’s “lose something good” (Agnew, 2011. p. 190). The description Agnew gives comes off as being ambiguous and incomplete. Arguably, the strain of losing something good can be interpreted a certain way by someone and a completely different way by another person. A perfect example would be a drug dealer losing his cocaine. According to this theory he is more apt to commit a deviant act to get his cocaine back. Obviously the problem here is the fact that he was already committing a crime before the strain ever took place. A victim of identity theft has their entire savings wiped out and consequently, due to their desperate need for money they become a prostitute. In this case the theory seems to hold true. The scenarios above appear to be completely different in all but two ways.

            The two ways in which they are similar are they both lost something important to them. The word good is not defined by what society approves or disapproves of. What’s considered to be good is based on the individual’s own definition. The second similarity is that their loss triggered negative emotions such as anger, depression, and frustration.  In these two similarities the core concept of General Strain theory is found. The presence of strain triggers negative emotions, which makes an individual likelier to commit crime if their coping skills are poor. (Agnew, 2011)

            The “receiving of something bad” (Agnew, 2011. p. 190) may also lead to deviance. Similar to the first type of strain, the second type involves an individual being subject to unwanted conditions which triggers negative emotions. Individuals may have been harassed, abused, or sexually assaulted to name a few. Individuals are more likely to become subject to the onset of a variety of negative emotions. They may feel worthless, scared, or angry, and these strong emotions may lead them to commit deviant acts. Furthermore, those acts may be closely related to the emotions the individual felt. An example being, a kid being picked on for years in school triggers serious negative emotions and in reaction he brings a gun to school and kills those who picked on him. (Agnew, 2011)

            The third type of strain occurs when an individual “fails to get something they want” (Agnew, 2011. p.191). This type of strain can help explain serious crimes and minor offenses. A good example would be a kid asking his mother to buy a new x-box game that he really wants. She tells him no, and in response to that he steals money from a friend and buys the game. That offense is fairly minor when compared to the situation in which a man wants to have sex with his girl friend but she refuses and in turn he ends up raping her.

            Social Bond Theory views individuals as naturally having deviant characteristics from birth; and these characteristics dissipate as a person grows older and develops strong conventional bonds to society. One may engage in criminal behavior as a result of the weakening or absence of these conventional bonds. There are four elements of social bonds and they are attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. (Hirschi, 2011)

            Attachment can be described as a person’s compassion towards others and having a true interest in their in opinions (Hirschi, 2011. p.217). People are subject to the constraints that this bond places upon them. When this attachment becomes weakened or removed a person is no longer bound by the constraints of the bond and are free to commit criminal acts if they want. (Hirschi, 2011) In the commitment element, people strive to attain respectable attributes such as a higher level of education, successful business, or the reputation of being a good person. People give significant amounts of their time, money, and energy to achieve these attributes. If they wish to use unlawful means to reach their goals they must consider the consequences and punishments if they are caught. If a person’s bond to commitment is strong they will not risk losing everything they have worked for by committing unlawful acts. (Hirschi, 2011)

            The involvement element states that people are typically too busy engaging in lawful conventional activities and they do not have the time to consider engaging in unlawful activities. (Hirschi, 2011) The belief element refers to people as generally adhering to moral values and laws while also respecting the wishes of others in their society. A person that does not have the same conventional beliefs in their society’s rules and norms are more likely to engage in acts that fit their personal beliefs in what the rules and norms should be.  In short, Hirschi’s theory views people as having natural characteristics associated with deviant behavior. For example, individuals are naturally self interested and act in ways to get what they want with little regard to others. As we grow older we are taught to conform to society and our level of conformity is measured based on how strong a person’s bonds are to the four previously mentioned elements. The bonds effectively suppress a person’s natural inclination towards deviant behavior. If one or more of these bonds become weak a person is more likely to engage in deviant behavior because deviant behavior is no longer effectively suppressed. (Hirschi, 2011) 

            Nearly every crime can be explained by General Strain Theory, given that a person actually experiences strain. The range of crimes it can explain is extensive; from a person killing someone to avenge the murder of their loved one, to stealing milk from the store because a person lost their job and can no longer afford it. However, is appears that this theory best applies to two types of crimes. First, crimes committed impulsively by a person due to the negative emotions brought on by strain. An example would be a person committing battery because the victim was verbally insulting them. The second type of crime would be those committed in order to fulfill a need. For example a person loses their job and can no longer afford to buy a pair of shoes that they need since their current pair is torn up. This produces strain and in order to fulfill their need they decide to steal a pair of shoes, thus committing larceny. 

            Social Bond Theory best explains crimes or deviant acts committed by younger people as a result of the weakening of a social bond. Such crimes or acts tend to be less serious than those crimes best explained by General Strain. Some examples of the crimes Social Bond Theory best explains are, experimental drug, underage drinking, cheating in school, and vandalism.  

            These two theories would complement each other nicely if merged. In short, there would be no need to change or modify either theory. Social Bond Theory, by itself, can explain most deviant acts committed by young adults and teenagers. For older adults, in many cases, the weakening of bonds would produce strain which then could lead to crime.  Either theory may still individually explain certain crimes committed by older adults, or at least some of the factors that led to that crime. Nevertheless, in situations where a person’s conventional bonds becomes weakened which then specifically produces strain and finally results in the commission of a crime; the explanation as to what caused the person to commit the crime is significantly easier to find than it would have been had only one of the theories been applied.

            The best part about merging these two theories is that their explanations on the cause’s crime do not conflict with each other. Instead, they tend to overlap one another or in some cases one theory is merely a factor that led to the commission of a crime explained by the other theory. The main concept of this theory is that a person develops conventional social bonds as a child and the strength of those bonds is primarily influenced by the person’s parents and their parenting skills. In other words, poor parenting skills may lead to the development of weaker bonds compared to the strong bonds that could be formed by good parenting skills. The older the child gets and the weaker the bonds become the likelihood of experiencing strain increases which may then lead to crime. Therefore, to reduce crime the government must focus on improving parenting skills.

            The main problems with merging these two theories, under the concept mentioned above, are that people usually do not like it when the government tries to dictate how a child should be raised. Also, this theory does a poor job at offering ways to reduce crime that stem initially from strain and are then committed when their social bonds become weak. For example, a person’s father is murdered thus producing strain which in turn weakens their bond, in regards to the element of belief. He seeks out that person that killed his father and murders him. What policy could be implemented to prevent crimes like this one from occurring?

            Both of these theories may individually explain certain crimes or the factors that led to the act, but there is often times a hole, in their explanations of crimes, that they cannot fill. When combined these theories help to fill the hole that cannot be filled by either theory on its own.