Merton's Strain Theory: A Psychological Analysis Of Homicide

The understanding of homicide can be explained by many theories, particularly biological, psychological and sociological. This essay will be competing the usefulness of the three explanations in understanding the homicide of Sukhdev who was killed by Ryan in a brutal attack. While all three explanations are useful in the understanding of this particular case, they have limitations and criticisms which will also be looked at.
One sociological theory of homicide is Merton’s strain theory. He theorised that crime and deviance emerged as an individual adaption to pressures flowing from the social structure (Merton 1938, cited in Carrabine 2014: 77). Suffering economically can cause an imbalance between social structure and culture because the
individual has an inability to reach their goals. This leads to frustration because the individual is unable to achieve success which results in deviant behaviour. The deviant can then respond in 4 different ways; innovation, ritualism, retreatism and rebellion, as a result of the failure to achieve ideal goals (Carrabine 2014: 77). In the case of Ryan, it can be said that he responded to social strain by innovation. He found it difficult to get a job and when he did, it was poorly paid. This inability to achieve financial success led him to ‘innovate’ by dealing drugs and selling on stolen vehicles and car parts. While this does explain Ryan’s primary deviance, which was because of the frustration he felt at his inability to achieve desired goals, alone it does not explain the murder he committed. However, as well as the failure to achieve economic success, the failure to achieve other goals such as autonomy and status goals can could process strain, such as the desire of certain males to be viewed and treated as ‘real men’ (Elliot et al, 1979; Agnew, 1992, cited in Brookman, 2005: 103). This could explain why Ryan acted out in the way he did as he saw Sukhdev talking to his girlfriend Laura which he saw as ‘flirting’. This provoked Ryan to act aggressively to assert his dominance because he also experienced frustration because he want to be viewed as a dominant man. This led him to return to the club to affirm his masculinity, resulting in him murdering Sukhdev.
A problem with strain theory is that it assumes that everyone is socialized to a shared set of values when in reality there are different socialization patterns between different groups of individuals. In addition to this, the theory also assumes that people commit crime as a result of tensions and structural factors, however many individuals commit crimes for the thrill or other reasons, not just background influences.
Wolfgang and Ferrecuti’s (1967) sub-culture of violence theory can similarly explain this homicide. This theory sees sub-culture as favouring violence and stated that ‘homicide predominately occurs amongst individuals from the lowest socio-economic groups in society’ (Wolfgang and Ferrecuti, 1967, cited in Brookman, 2005: 108). Ryan grew up with a bad background where his family suffered economically and he also suffered physical abuse. He hung out on the streets and became friends with other boys who influenced him into drinking and taking drugs. He integrated into a sub-culture where they all had the same shared beliefs and deviant persona. In addition, the theory states that when an act of violence occurs it is normally as a result of something minor, such as an insult. This is because within the sub-culture there are codes which construes violence as a normative response when the individual is challenged. ‘These beliefs comprise the “sub-culture of violence” and include values such as sense of honour, courage and manliness’ (Brookman, 2005: 108). This suggests that Ryan acted out in the way that he did because he felt challenged by Sukhdev’s apparent ‘advances’ toward Laura and by Sukhdev’s friends who backed him up during the first encounter. Then to defend his honour, he acted violently towards Sukhdev during the next encounter and killed him. This act of aggression was expected of him and required in order for him to demonstrate his sub-culture’s code.
However, a problem with theory is that although it explains why the cultures come about, it doesn’t state how the sub-cultures develop. Also, Wilson (1993) states ‘cultural explanations suggest that groups with high homicide rates actually like violence’ (cited in Brookman 2014: 109). Therefore, like the strain theory, it doesn’t take into consideration that some people who act violently and aggressively do so because they enjoy acting that way.
A biological explanation that can explain Ryan’s behaviour is hormonal factors such as testosterone. The theory states that high levels of testosterone results in an increase in an individual’s aggression levels. Therefore, an increase of testosterone results in displays of violent behaviour by the individual which can result in a violent crime like murder being committed. There has been much research that has found a correlation between testosterone and violence. For example, Olweus (1988) and Christiansen and Winkler (1992) found evidence of a link between testosterone levels and violent tendencies (cited in Brookman, 2005: 62). This therefore assists in the understanding of this homicide because Ryan started acting violently at the age of 13, when boys start to produce more testosterone. He fought fellow pupils and smashed a teacher’s car windscreen, which were his first outbursts of violence. Then as he grew older he become more unpredictable and violent as the amount of testosterone being produced increased. These high levels of testosterone would have resulted in further aggressive behaviour and less inhibition of violent outbursts. Therefore, it suggests that Ryan had excess levels of testosterone, which would have been responsible for his violent attack on Sukhdev that led to his homicide.
Despite the supporting evidence, there is some evidence that goes against the findings that high testosterone levels result in violent behaviour. For example, Bain et al (1987) compared testosterone levels among a group of murderers, assaulters and non-violent controls and did not find a significant difference in testosterone levels in the groups (cited in Brookman, 2005: 62). Furthermore, the relationship between testosterone and violence may not be as straight forward as it suggests. According to Brookman (2005: 62) several researchers argue that high testosterone levels may be an outcome of violence, not that violent behaviour results from high testosterone levels. Therefore, this complex relationship may not be as simplistic as first thought.
Another biological theory that is useful in understanding homicide is the use of drugs and alcohol. Relating to alcohol, there has been much evidence that male offenders of homicide and their victim, consumed alcohol prior to the murder being committed. For example, Wolfgang (1958) found that 64% of total male-on-male killings he examined involved alcohol consumption and Brookman (2003) found that of over half of all male-on-male homicides analysed in England and Wales, alcohol consumption was a prominent feature (cited in Brookman 2005: 70). It was further found that of 36% of the cases analysed, ‘both the offender and the victim had consumed alcohol’ (Brookman, 2005: 70). This is seen in the homicide of Sukhdev, where Ryan had consumed a large quantity of alcohol before the incident happened. The alcohol would have increased Ryan’s confidence and aggression levels which meant the inhibition of his violent behaviour would have decreased and he was unable to control his violent outburst. This resulted in Ryan ‘losing it’ and attacking Sukhdev. This would suggest that if Ryan wasn’t intoxicated at the time, that he might not have attacked Sukhdev and killed him.
Despite the fact that alcohol consumption does play a role in many incidents of homicide, the link has many limitations. There are many people who consume a large amount of alcohol but don’t display violent behaviour. This suggests that there are other influential factors such as individual personalities and situational factors. In addition, cultural norms need to be taken into consideration because large amounts of alcohol consumption takes place in other countries without violent outcomes, which suggests that cultural factors might have an effect (Reiss and Roth, 1993, cited in Brookman, 2005: 71).
A psychological theory of violent criminals was theorised by Athens (1989).
According to Athens ‘dangerous violent criminals represent the finished product of a lengthy, and at point’s tortuous, developmental process’ (1989: 6, cited in Brookman, 2005: 95). The criminal goes through a process of 4 stages: brutalisation, belligerency, violent performances and virulency (Brookman, 2005: 95). The first stage involves a family figure using violence towards the individual and the individual witnessing violent behaviour towards another, usually a family member. The next stage is when the individual starts to repress rage and begins to have feelings of inadequacy. This is when the violent performance stage occurs where the individual reacts violently when provoked. The final stage is when the individual starts to become aware of what people think about them and adopts their violent reputation which eventually results in them becoming a violent criminal. In the case of Ryan, this theory explains every aspect of his crime. Firstly, he witnessed his father and mother’s boyfriends act violently towards her and he himself suffered physical abuse. After experiencing this brutalisation, Ryan entered the stage where he began to feel inadequate and with repressed rage he experienced his first violent performances by getting into fights at school. He then adopted this violent reputation for being both unpredictable and violent. This internalised status resulted in Ryan becoming a violent
aggressor so when the confrontational situation with Sukhdev arose, he succumbed to his violent tendencies and fiercely attacked Sukhdev, beating him to death.
This theory does assist in the understanding of Ryan’s homicide, however, it has its limitations. It doesn’t explain why ‘males significantly outnumber females as violent criminals’ (Brookman, 2005: 96). Females as well as males can go through these 4 stages but there seems to be a considerably larger number of males who turn into violent criminals. Also it doesn’t take into consideration situational contexts. Not all the violent individuals who act violently continue to do so which would suggest that interactional factors play a role in this theory, which should be considered.
Another psychological theory of homicide is Gilligan’s (2000) psychoanalytic approach.
This approach theorises that ‘the internal psychological conflict that leads to lethal violence is shame and loss of self-respect’ (Brookman, 2005: 78). This occurs when the individual is subject to extreme physical and psychological violence. There are three preconditions which ultimately lead these individuals to kill. The first precondition is ‘feelings of shame or a wounded self-esteem’ (Brookman, 2005: 76). These individuals will therefore hide these feelings by showing arrogant and reckless behaviour. The second precondition is when the person thinks that in order to reduce their feelings of indignity they must act violently, which is rewarded with high social status and respect. The third precondition is when the individual doesn’t have or lacks the emotional capacities and ‘feelings that normally inhibit violent impulses stimulated by shame’, so they act violently (Brookman, 2005: 79). This explains Ryan’s behaviour because he was physically abused when he was younger and to hide his ‘wounded self-esteem’ he showed irresponsible behaviour by fighting with fellow pupils and damaging school property. This violent behaviour gave him the reputation of being unpredictable and violent, which reduced his feelings of shame by giving him social status. Therefore, he lacks the emotional capacity to empathise with others which led him to brutally murder Sukhdev. This inability to look out for
him-self resulted in Ryan not being able control his aggression and he turned into a violent murderer.
Although this theory does explain male violence in term of homicide, like the theory above it does not explain female homicide. Women might have a different process to violence and homicide than males do. For example, women don’t gain social status and prestige by displaying violent behaviour, it’s normally the opposite. Therefore this wouldn’t increase their self-esteem but reduce it further. As well as this, not all individuals who suffer from low self-esteem, as a result of physical abuse, turn to violence to boost self-confidence. This would suggest that other factors such as individual differences and situational factors have a role in the violent behaviour.
In conclusion, all three explanations are extremely useful in the understanding of this particular homicide. Whilst they all have limitations, they explain different factors that an individual might be influenced by which results in their behaviour. Biological theories focus on genetics, environmentally induced biological deficiencies and hormonal factors in the influence of violent offending behaviour. As well as psychological theories like psychodynamic theory and Athen’s social psychological theory, it focuses on the individual and both assume that the violent offender is different from other individuals. Sociological theories, such as Merton’s strain theory and Wolfgang and Ferrecuti’s sub-cultural theory, focus on the social roots of offending and look at the effects society might have had on the offenders behaviour. Therefore, all the explanations are useful in understanding homicide together because they look at different areas that potentially influence the individual in becoming a violent criminal.