Structural Theories Essay Example for Free

Structural Theories auditionMotives are believed to be the reason behind the action of people. Whether negative or positive, they are the cause of an individual(a)s action. Since motives help us better recognize why a person would do something, a lot of research has been committed to understanding the pattern of people or group of peoples motives. Knowledge of patterns is polar to many aspects of human behavior but especially those relating to crime. Knowing a pattern helps one to predict, and hopefully help educate others on future crimes. The research of crime is so extensive that researchers have created non only theories but also various subculture theories of crime. Subculture possibility of crime is a influence of theories arguing that real groups or subcultures in society have values and attitudes that are conducive to crime and military unit. Subcultural theories of Cloward and Ohlin, Wolfgang and Feracuti, Elijah Anderson, and Walter moth miller aim a great dea l of insight on why different groups of people choose to look at in the crimes that they participate in.Although these theories are broad and shed light on what certain groups will charge to crime, it is not an exact science. A lot of these theories come along with critiques that question the basic points the researchers are act to prove. Cloward and Ohlin theorized cocksucker opportunity structures, which argues that in order for someone to obtain and take advantage of the most honor love child opportunities, aspiring delinquents often need an in. Within the illegitimate opportunity structure in that location are different subcultures and cub cultures. Cloward and Ohlin go on to split people into different subcultures of criminals who do not have an in. The subcultures of the criminal structure that are tined are Conflict subculture, appointment gang, retreatist gang, and retreatist cub culture. Those who sum in Conflict subculture turn their frustration at failure in both the legitimate and illegitimate opportunity structures into violence and those that are in gangs aim to make money through a variety show of illegitimate avenues. While conflict gangs engage in raving mad activities, doing whatever is necessary to maintain their place in the streets andfinally retreatist gangs are considered double-failures no success in either legitimate or illegitimate opportunities turn to drugs. Some critiques to Cloward and Ohlin have been that they fail to realize that the different subcultures hindquarters overlap. For example, gangs involved in conflict subculture often deal in and use drugs, and make large sums of money in the process.Unlike Cloward, Ohlin, Wolfgang and Feracuti, Walter Miller argued that crime is simply an extension of normal working class values, not a distinctive set of alternative values. Miller argued that the lower classes create their different value system as a reception to the monotony of working class jobs and a life of pove rty. Working-class subculture is a mechanism full of processes, which set aside working-class people to cope with their situations. He termed this focal concern. These focal concerns are fate, autonomy, trouble, excitement, smartness, and toughness. Due to the fact that these characteristics can be distributed throughout society, Walter Millers possibleness is thought to be too fixated on working class values. His theory also has too much of a focus on boys.Wolfgang and Feracuti argue the subculture of violence they believe that violence is a product of conformity to a pro-violent subculture that is in direct conflict with the dominant culture. They suggest that violent fight backions to perceived threats to reputation or honor are culturally prescribed, given that a failure to react defensively may result in life-threatening consequences. These researchers even go on to apply this theory outside of disadvantaged neighborhoods, such as the American south, athletes, and postal wor kers. Still critiques feel as though Wolfgang and Feratuci infer the existence of subcultures of violence based on statistical indicators of high rates of violence in poor racialized neighborhoods. Another important critique is that not everyone follows the values and norms of violence. This critique was then explored in Andersons study. He revealed street and decent value orientations among families in Philadelphia neighborhood.In Elijah Andersons code of the street he proposes that the highrates of violence amongst inner-city residents can be attributed to a code of the streets. This code, he notes, functions as a set of informal rules governing interpersonal public behavior that encourages the use of violence for the purposes of maintaining honor and defend reputation. Just like Cloward and Ohlins Conflict gang subculture and Wolfgang and Fercutis subculture of violence, Anderson believes that crime occurred in certain neighborhoods in order to maintain status and respect. Howeve r new improvements on this contemporary theory were added when Anderson included the variations of families that lived at heart this pro-violent culture. He concluded that while both contingents experience the hardships of race and class oppression, rather than dwelling on the hardships and inequities facing them, Anderson argues, civil individuals tend to accept mainstream values more fully than street families and make the go around of what they have (Anderson, 1999 38). Although this theory goes on to prove that not everyone in a pro-violent environment upholds the same values, it fails to wrap up the specific processes that had led the residents of Germantown Avenues inner city to embrace pro-violent values and attitudes.Subcultural theories do not adequately explain racial disparities in crime. All these theories have a focus on African-Americans in impoverish areas. The subcultural theories offered also have a concentration on street crime. No theory seems to offer reason a s to why the elite commit white-collar crimes. Furthermore these various subcultures that focus on pro-violent cultures do not give insight on how the pro-violent cultures came to be in the first place.