Module Code: MOD002760

Module code: MOD002760

SID: 1212061

“Compare and contrast three different criminological theories that have been covered in the module”

This essay will be outlining the different theories such as strain, labelling and control theories all are important within the industry. Each theory will be described in detail and how it affects criminology and crime within UK. Also this essay will be identifying links between the theories if there are any. Crime and law-breaking that is capable of overpowering the disapproval of previous strain theories. Labelling theory is a descriptive model for theories of criminal law-violating actions. Control theory general theory of crime and related behaviour.

This paper presents a general strain theory of crime and delinquency that is capable of overcoming the criticism of previous strain theories. In the first section, strain theory is distinguished from social control and differential association/social learning theory. In the second section, the three major types of strains are described: (1) strain as the actual or anticipated failure to achieve positively valued goals, (2) strain as the actual or anticipated removal of positively valued stimuli, and (3) strain as the actual or anticipated presentation of negatively valued stimuli. In the third section, guidelines for the measurement of strain are presented. And in the fourth section, the major adaptations to strain are described, and those factors influencing the choice of delinquent versus non-delinquent adaptations are discussed.

General strain theory (GST) is usually tested by examining the effect of strain on crime. Researchers, however, have little guidance when it comes to selecting among the many hundreds of types of strain and have trouble explaining why only some of them are related to crime. This article builds on GST by describing the characteristics of strainful events and conditions that influence their relationship to crime. Strains are said to be most likely to result in crime when they (1) are seen as unjust(ified), (2) are seen as high in magnitude, (3) are associated with low social control, and (4) create some pressure or incentive to engage in criminal coping. Drawing on these characteristics, it is predicted that some types of strain will not be related to crime, including types that have dominated the research on strain theory, and that others will be related to crime, including types that have been neglected by empirical researchers.

This study applies Agnew's general strain theory (GST) to two fundamental questions about gender and crime: (1) how can we explain the higher rate of crime among males? (2) How can we explain why females engage in crime? With respect to the first question, the authors suggest that gender differences in types of strain and the reaction to strain help one understand the gender gap in criminal behaviour. With respect to the second question, it is argued that several types of strain may lead to female crime under the proper circumstances. In this area, GST has much in common with numerous accounts that explain female crime in terms of oppression.

General strain theory (GST) is considered the most recent theoretical framework to emerge from traditional strain perspectives. GST focuses strictly on negative relationships and assumes that delinquency and crime are forms of coping mechanisms that result from strain and stressful events. While GST is considered an overall micro-level perspective, recently research has emerged which argues that GST can also be applicable at the macro-level and also has the potential to explain group differences (e.g., age, gender, race) in delinquent and criminal behaviour. The theory also suggests policy implications to decrease deviant coping through the reduction of strain and stress exposure.

This analysis considers the usefulness of labelling theory as an explanatory model for theories of criminal law-violating behaviour. Labelling theory is summarized in terms of nine "assumptions" as developed by Schrag, and each assumption is related to current empirical research. The analysis concludes that for those violations of the criminal law that have traditionally concerned society and criminologists, the labelling perspective is currently utilized as not a useful model to pursue. The suggested modification of the model and the more careful analysis of situational elements may eventually lead criminologists to discount the labelling approach as it is currently conceptualized.

Instead of looking at why some social groups commit morecrime, the labelling theory asks why some people committing some actions can to be defined as deviant, while others do not. Labelling theory is also interested in the effects of labelling on individuals.Labelling theorists note that most people commit crimes at some time in their lives but not everyone becomes defined as a deviant or a criminal. So how does this process of defining a person as deviant work?

Deviant behaviour can be defined as behaviour that differs from the normal, behaviour that incurs public disapproval and behaviour that is usually subject to some form of sanction.

Once someone has been successfully labelled as criminal or deviant, the label attached may become the dominant label or 'master status' which is seen as more important than all the other aspects of the person. He or she becomes a 'hooligan' or 'thief' rather than a father, mother or friend. Each label carries with it prejudices and images and this may lead to others interpreting the behaviour of the labelled person in a particular way. For example, a person who volunteers to stay late at work is usually seen as worthy of praise, but, if a person has been labelled as a thief, people might be suspicious that they will steal something. For some people once a deviant label has been applied this can actually lead to more deviance. This happens when people start acting in the way they have been labelled.Paul Willisexaminedmale youth behaviourin schools and found that those labelled ‘bad’ by staff effectively lived out that label and even revelled it in their lives.

Labelling can also mould the way someone behaves in their lives especially if they cannot shake off that label. There are many in society who view drug taking as something that should not be done because it is medically bad for you, breaks the law and leads an individual down what might become a dark path. Examine the following scenario:

It is easy to understand why those convicted of child abuse are not welcomed back into society as a whole. Once released from prison they are supervised by MAPPA whose task is to monitor their movements etc. If they are in a bail hostel they will be housed with people who have committed similar offences. If by any chance the media – be it national or local – find out about the location of one of these hostels there is the chance that the environment these people need to be in to be effectively monitored will be blown. An example of how the public might react to this was seen in Portsmouth when graffiti (‘Pedos Out’) was drawn on the outside of a GP’s surgery that specialised in paediatric care. The protesters mistook ‘paediatric’ for ‘paedophile’. One of the main concerns the police had with ‘Sarah’s Law’ was that it could allow – despite stringent restrictions – a community to learn about the whereabouts of a released child abuser within their community and that community would be unforgiving towards that offender. Prior to ‘Sarah’s Law’ such information was highly restricted and the police felt that it gave them control over an offender. Their fear was that an offender might be drivenunder the radar if he believes his name is going to be released to allowed concerned individuals– despite legal requirements for him to report to a police station once a week – and that monitoring that offender would therefore become far more difficult because of the labels society has placed on child abusers.

By articulating a general theory of crime and related behaviour, the authors present a new and comprehensive statement of what the criminological enterprise should be about. They argue that prevalent academic criminology whether sociological, psychological, biological, or economic has been unable to provide believable explanations of criminal behaviour.
The authors explore the essential nature of crime, finding that scientific and popular conceptions of crime are misleading, and they assess the truth of disciplinary claims about crime, concluding that such claims are contrary to the nature of crime and, interestingly enough, to the data produced by the disciplines themselves. They then put forward their own theory of crime which asserts that the essential element of criminality is the absence of self-control. An individual with high self-control considers the long-term consequences of their behaviour; those with low self-control do not. Such control is learned, usually early in life, and once learned, is highly resistant to change.

Self-control theory has received extensive empirical attention in the past decade, but most studies have not tested its arguments about the effects of parenting on self-control and delinquency. Using data collected from a sample of urban high school students, this study addresses the void by examining two parenting-related hypotheses derived from the theory. For one of the hypotheses, the results with self-control theory are contrasted with those obtained with Baumrind's theory of authoritative parenting, a theory that also is concerned with the link between parenting and self-control. Results generally support self-control theory's two hypotheses, but also point to empirical limitations of the theory.

Overall this essay has provided links between labelling and control theory it’s important to understand that all three theory will need to provide support to reduce levels of crime and criminal activity within UK. Looking at each of the theories they are equality as important within criminological. So the first theory strain it about reducing strain and stress which can lead to a criminal act and then become labelled depending on the level of criminal offence. This could then lead to control theory which depends on the behaviour of an individual as well as the environment. It’s important to consider all of the theories as they all work with each other as it creates a full module to reduce or help criminal to stop crime in a better way by teaching and giving better understanding and knowledge.

Reference

AGNEW, R. (1992). FOUNDATION FOR A GENERAL STRAIN THEORY OF CRIME AND DELINQUENCY*.Criminology, 30(1), pp.47-88.

AGNEW, R. (2001). Building on the Foundation of General Strain Theory: Specifying the Types of Strain Most Likely to Lead to Crime and Delinquency.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(4), pp.319-361.

BROIDY, L. and AGNEW, R. (1997). Gender and Crime: A General Strain Theory Perspective.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34(3), pp.275-306.

Gottfredson, M. and Hirschi, T. (1990).A general theory of crime.Stanford University Press. [online] Available at: [Accessed 18 Dec. 2014].

HAY, C. (2001). PARENTING, SELF-CONTROL, AND DELINQUENCY: A TEST OF SELF-CONTROL THEORY*.Criminology, 39(3), pp.707-736.

Leiber, M. and Peck, J. (2014). General Strain Theory.The Encyclopedia of Theoretical Criminology, pp.1-4.

Newburn, T. (2007).Criminology.Cullompton: Willan Pub.

Newburn, T. and Neyroud, P. (2013).Dictionary of Policing. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.

Trueman, C. (2014).The Labelling Theory. [online] Historylearningsite.co.uk. Available at: [Accessed 18 Dec. 2014].

Wellford, C. (1975). Labelling Theory and Criminology: An Assessment.Social Problems, 22(3), pp.332-345.

Page 1 of 6