LOOKING AT CRIMES THROUGH THE GLASSES OF GENERAL STRAIN THEORY- A CRITICAL STUDY

Generally, the commission of a crime leads to a trial, ending in either conviction or acquittal, depending on the facts and circumstances. For centuries, legal systems have followed this process to address criminals and their deviant behaviour. However, a system that focuses only on determining guilt often overlooks a crucial aspect: the sociological and psychological factors that produce such behaviour.

This is similar to a farmer cutting wild plants without removing their roots. In both cases, the real cause remains untouched. Robert K. Merton highlighted this through strain theory. He explained that individuals pursue socially approved goals through the opportunities society provides. But when these opportunities are blocked, a “strain” emerges, pushing individuals toward deviant behaviour.

Understanding these factors is especially relevant today, as rising socio-economic disparities in India continue to shape crime patterns. NCRB data for 2022 shows that urban areas report higher crime rates than rural regions, underscoring how social and environmental conditions influence criminal behaviour. This paper examines the evolution of Merton’s theory, Agnew’s reinterpretation of it, and its relevance in understanding crime within criminal law.

FROM MERTON TO AGNEW

Merton developed strain theory to explain rising crime in the USA. Later, Albert Cohen, Richard Cloward, and Lloyd Ohlin expanded it in the mid-90s. The concept of the “American dream” is central to Merton’s work. It promotes meritocracy and equality, encouraging individuals to achieve set goals through legitimate means. Success, however, became measured largely through material wealth.

Merton used this idea to identify a flaw in the system, calling it “anomie.” He argued that when opportunities for equal achievement are blocked, individuals may turn to illegitimate means to meet societal expectations. This fuels criminal activity. Critics, however, noted that Merton’s theory focused narrowly on economic goals.

Cohen broadened the theory by introducing “status frustration.” He shifted attention from financial deprivation to psychological strain caused by social hierarchy. This helped explain crimes not motivated by material gain, such as vandalism, which challenge the very hierarchy that restricts individuals.

Cloward and Ohlin expanded the theory further by linking types of delinquency to the illegitimate opportunities available:

1. Structured criminal opportunity – arises in areas with strong adult criminal networks, where individuals learn professional crime focused on financial gain.

2. Conflict-based crime – arises in areas with less structured crime, leading to violent acts driven by status and reputation.

3. Drug-abuse crime – occurs when individuals lack both legitimate and illegitimate opportunities and turn to substance abuse as a coping mechanism.

Robert Agnew introduced the most significant changes to strain theory. He widened its scope by identifying strains arising from conditions disliked by individuals. Financial and psychological strain due to unemployment, for example, may affect both lower and middle classes. Agnew grouped strains into three types:

1. Inability to achieve goals

2. Absence of positive stimuli

3. Presence of negative stimuli

THE FIRST STRAIN: FAILURE TO ACHIEVE GOALS

Agnew’s first strain is the failure to achieve socially approved goals. Crime emerges from two pressures:

1. Society defines certain goals that mark success.

2. Structural inequality prevents some individuals from achieving them.

When legitimate paths seem blocked, individuals may turn to illegal means. For example, education and employment are common routes to status. But when unemployment rises or access to education is limited, alternative—often illegal—paths may be taken.

A 2023 report by the Swedish National Crime Prevention Council found higher crime involvement among individuals from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. Similarly, a 2004 study in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry found that childhood socio-economic disadvantage significantly increased crime rates.

Legally, understanding these pressures is crucial. While Indian courts focus on mens rea, they often overlook deeper causes of crime. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, the court acknowledged that economic crimes can stem from failed aspirations and societal barriers, reflecting strain theory.

THE SECOND STRAIN: LOSS OF POSITIVE STIMULI

The second strain involves the removal of things valued by an individual, such as relationships, employment, status, or security. Unlike older theories, this explains situations where individuals have access to legitimate opportunities yet still engage in harmful behaviour.

For example, the 2023 Shraddha Walkar murder case shows how the breakdown of emotional bonds and rising conflict can lead to extreme acts. Rising cases of domestic violence and drug abuse also reveal how emotional strain shapes behaviour. NCRB (2021) reported that 33.2% of suicides among men were due to family issues and 4.8% due to marriage-related problems. A 2009 study found drug use increased with trauma.

Criminal law acknowledges emotional strain through the doctrine of grave and sudden provocation under Section 122 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. In K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, the court examined how emotional shock can erode self-control. In Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka, the court highlighted the need to assess mental state during distress.

Positive stimuli can also be removed due to social breakdown. Riots, vandalism, and vigilantism often arise from institutional failures, creating collective strain.

THE THIRD STRAIN: PRESENCE OF NEGATIVE STIMULI

The third strain arises when individuals experience harmful conditions, such as abuse, discrimination, victimisation, or harassment. These negative stimuli can push individuals toward crime, especially when they are chronic rather than one-time events.

A 2024 study on hostile home environments and bullying showed that negative stimuli activate pathways leading to delinquency. Victims may feel anger and a desire for revenge, reinforcing deviant responses.

Chronic strains have stronger links to crime than sudden hardships like accidents or illness. Moon’s 2007 study confirmed that repeated victimisation creates lasting feelings of injustice.

In India, negative stimuli are pervasive—domestic violence, caste discrimination, and other forms of hostility affect people across classes and genders. A review of 137 studies found that 41% of women faced domestic violence. Another study showed that as lower-caste groups improved economically, they often faced backlash in the form of hostility.

Criminal law indirectly recognises negative stimuli through:

• Grave and sudden provocation

• Unsoundness of mind

• Self-defence, where individuals react to immediate threats

These doctrines show that external stimuli can reduce or reshape culpability.

CONCLUSION

From Merton’s concept of anomie to Agnew’s broader strain theory, it is clear that crime cannot be explained by a single factor. Human behaviour must be understood economically, socially, and emotionally. Economic loss, frustration, and harmful stimuli interact to shape criminal outcomes.

Though general strain theory offers a strong framework, it has limitations. It assumes individuals facing chronic strain will respond with crime, overlooks personal morality and social learning, and struggles to measure strain objectively. It also does not provide a direct framework for preventing crime.

As the criminal justice system evolves, it must move towards rehabilitation and restoration. Understanding strain can help identify not only intent but also root causes. This understanding strengthens pre-sentencing trials, social assessments, and policies that prevent crime before it occurs.

Article written by:
Shivam Singh Rathore
B.A. LL.B.(hons.)
Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala, Punjab.