Please respond to my classmate’s discussion post. Write as if he/she is your classmate
When it comes to the theories, I think two of the theories explain violent criminal activity. 1. I believe the Strain Theory is a good start. I say this because most people who are scraping to get by are more open to committing crime or being apart of it. Individuals without wealth tend to find was for themselves to provide. Unfortunately, most of the time they turn to committing crime to provide because of their need or even wants for things they can’t afford. Even with my time as active duty as a cop and working in the corrections field, majority of the people that end up in the facility are good people who just have had enough. Not necessarily violent or anything, but they felt they had been pushed to their limit and had enough and did whatever they could to get what they want.
My second theory would be that of the Social Reaction Theory, I mention this one just due to gangs. I mean when you think about it, in the book it talks about those that are labeled, but also mentions about why some people may wear what they wear. When it comes down to it people tend to have their own social groups who glorify whatever it is that they do. Some people end up with the wrong group and they end up changing into that style of the group because of how it is. Eventually the person either decides to change or be that way. The more you tend to hangout with a certain group the more you end up like them.
For me though I really don’t think any theory best explains non-violent crime. I think most of the theories that have been mentioned kind of correlate with each other. I believe learning, social reaction, and strain are the main theories that end up working together or each have portions that someone has been apart of in that theory that leads to the other. If that makes sense.
