Brown 1

Austin Brown

General Strain Theory: A Theoretical Approach to Understanding Intimate Partner Homicide

Introduction

Everyone is affected by positive or negative influences in their lives, and get stressed out

by the inability to achieve goals. This idea has been theoretically conceptualized a couple of

times throughout social science history. The classical theorist Emile Durkheim touched on the

effects of stress on a persons actions and life, however it wasnt until the mid-1950s that this

stress was given its own theory. This theory was called Strain Theory and it was developed by

Robert Merton. Merton discussed societal pressures placed on individual people to achieve

socially created goals. Mertons theory was then used and adapted by Robert Agnew to create

General Strain Theory. In 1992 Agnew devised General Strain Theory to more fully explain

where stresses come from in society. Also, unlike Mertons theory, Agnews focuses on

emotional repercussions from stress and the criminal and deviant actions that may occur as part

of these repercussions. Agnew discusses the different affects stress has on different genders as

well. Criminally speaking, General Strain Theory can be applied to understand many types of

murder, rape, robbery, and most other crimes for that matter. Stress can lead people to acting in

deviant ways to either cope with the stress or resolve the stress entirely. Because of this, most

legally criminal actions could be justified in a criminals mind as a way to ease the stress. This

paper will focus on General Strain Theory and its implications towards Intimate Partner

Homicide (IPH). IPH occurs when domestic violence leads to, or causes, death. It is a problem
 Brown 2

that, though declining in recent years, is still very much an issue and makes up a significant

number of homicides per year.

Social Policy and Social Control

Intimate Partner Homicide, sometimes referred to as Fatal Domestic Violence, occurs

when one partner murders the other. This crime is not specific to any gender, although men are

much more likely to be the perpetrator and women are much more likely to be the victim. The

U.S. Department of Justice suggests that about seventy-five percent of victims of domestic

violence crimes are women, while about seventy-five percent of perpetrators in these same cases

are male. (Durose, 2005) IPH is a serious crime, and one that comes with a significant amount of

gender bias. This is also a crime that comes with a lot of social stigma and legal repercussions.

Socially, people do not like to learn or hear about a significant other mistreating another,

especially when that leads to death. The way society controls this behavior is by shunning the

perpetrator and trying to comfort the victim. For example, how often in sports is a famous player

charged with beating, harassing, and even murdering his partner. One of the most infamous cases

of this happening is with OJ Simpson. Simpson, while eventually being acquitted, was charged

with the murder of his ex-wife. These charges, and the very public trials and court proceedings,

ruined Simpsons social appearance and reputation. He would never again be a respected

professional football player, he would forever be a potential wife murderer who was also a

professional football player. This clearly depicts a form of social control for IPH and related

crimes. People have a great fear of being socially rejected and stigmatized.

There are also legal ramifications for Intimate Partner Homicide. As the name suggests,

IPH is legally treated as homicide. The U.S. Department of Justice defines homicide as, the

willful killing of one human being by another (Catalano & Snyder, 2009). This definition
 Brown 3

includes murder that is both premeditated, first and second degree, and murder that happens spur

the moment, voluntary manslaughter. An individual that is charged for committing IPH can be

charged with any of the three options mentioned. California Penal Code 187 describes murder.

190 describes how to punish an individual convicted of first or second degree murder. And,

codes 192 and 193 explain voluntary manslaughter and how to punish that offense (California

Penal Code) In most IPH cases the persecutor is charged with first degree murder or voluntary

manslaughter. The murderer either planned on how and when to take out his or her significant

other or he or she killed the individual in the heat of the moment during a fight. This distinction

is very important and can mean a huge difference in sentencing for the murderer. Voluntary

manslaughter comes with a little over a decade in prison max where first degree murder

generally ends in life in prison without parole or the death penalty if the state allows it, which

California does. The legal system, when working effectively, has several methods of control

when it comes to IPH. These methods work to prevent an offender from offending again, but

they do not work to prevent a first offense.

There are several social programs in place that work to help victims of domestic violence

and families of IPH victims. According to the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, almost all

of the programs and grants come out of the Office of Violence Against Women and are designed

to help support and represent women of all groups after encountering a domestic violence

situation. For example, the Sexual Assault Services Culturally Specific Program which is a grant

for a project designed to create culturally specific aid for victims and their families (Catalog of

Federal). However, this grant, and many like it, exclusively single out and exclude the

perpetrator from receiving any aid. And this would make sense, as the program specifically is

designed to help the victims, but there is a stunning lack of support for the perpetrator. Now this
 Brown 4

might seem unnecessary to support a criminal, but support may be the very thing that could have

prevented the entire situation in the first place. In the following sections, General Strain Theory

will be used to explain how stress leads to violent and deviant behavior. If the government would

take some of the money and effort they put into consoling and helping the victims and put it

towards counseling and managing the stress of potential perpetrators they might actually help

more people.

Literature Review

See attached abstracts in Appendix A.

Discussion

As previously mentioned, Agnews General Strain Theory explains how the general

stresses of life, along with a failure to meet goals, lead individuals to perform criminal or deviant

acts in order to cope with the stress. For example, a person with poor economic standing may be

looking for quick money and resort to theft. Stealing is an act the person performs in order to

manage his or her stress regarding a lack of money. Many scholars have performed research and

analyzed the validity of General Strain Theory, and not only have they found it to be valid, they

have found interesting data about how stresses affect different genders differently. This variety in

affect can be used to explain why the majority of IPH perpetrators are male and why federal

funding of programs designed to target these stressed-out men may do better than putting money

toward supporting victims, as crazy as that sounds.

Emotion and situational variables are becoming more and more understood and

recognized as factors that contribute to crimes such as homicide. General Strain Theory describes

stresses as a leading cause of emotional instability and variance. These stresses come from three

areas: the inability to achieve positively valued goals, the introduction of negative stimulus, and
 Brown 5

the removal of positive stimulus (Delisi, 2011). If a man or a woman is unable to accomplish

what they want or what society says they should, or if he or she loses a positive aspect of life

there is an increase in that persons stress level. This increase in stress is then processed by that

person in a variety of ways. One of the biggest factors in how this new stress is processed is the

individuals gender.

In an article discussing the effects of General Strain Theory on individuals, the authors

describe how stress is handled by different genders. Males may encounter more strain than

females; males may encounter different types of strain that motivate a delinquent or criminal act;

males may be more likely to have different emotional responses to strain; and males may be

more likely to react to strain and negative emotions with delinquency and crime (Higgins,

Piquero & Piquero, 2011). The authors argue that men are more likely to react delinquently to

stress than women are, and that they may be introduced to stress more often than women. They

go on to explain that where men act out in outwardly criminal or deviant ways, women tend to

turn to internally deviant actions. The example provided to the reader is Bulimia, and other

eating disorders. Now that is a problem, but when it comes to IPH, and other domestic violence

situations, General Strain Theory begins to make a case for why men are so often the perpetrator.

Men get stressed and act out violently, and who is the person most often with them? Their

significant other is probably with them much of the time.

To begin preventing Intimate Partner Homicides, the most common causes of strain must

be known. This is where Erikssons and Mazerolles work helps shed some light. In an article

written by the two of them, they argue, IPH may thus be a means of dealing with the intense

negative emotions experienced in reaction to strain such as losing control, going through a

separation, suspecting infidelity or receiving a protection order (Eriksson & Mazerolle, 2013).
 Brown 6

The pair claim that men, in relationships, feel the responsibility and the need to be in control.

And when this control is challenged or taken away they are immediately removed of a positive

stimulus and introduced to an increase in stress. Also, the separation from his partner, whether it

be a long-distance relationship or a break-up, can also be the loss of a positive stimulus and lead

to similar stress level increases. Finally, child custody battles create a lot of stress for both

parents, especially if the individual in question is the losing parent. And, as mentioned before,

men act outwardly aggressive often to help deal with stress. So, as these issues build up the stress

and strain on a man, this individual is much more likely to cause a domestically violent issue that

could lead to a homicide.

General Strain Theory allows us to understand what causes stress in people and how

these people may react to handle and manage the stress. When compared to Intimate Partner

Homicide data, there is a clear relationship between what the theory says about men and women

handling stress differently and the recorded outward criminal expression of that stress. But why

is this important? Because, per the Department of Justice, almost ten percent of the total murders

in 2002 were murders of a spouse (Durose, 2005). If there was a program to help people, men

specifically, manage their stress levels then less men would get overwhelmed with stress and lash

out criminally.

This brings about a question on whether or not current social policies are working the

right way. And while yes, I do believe that all of the programs currently in action to provide aid

and support to victims and their families are working for an excellent goal that needs to be

addressed. I am not convinced that there needs to be so many programs and that the money

should not be used to fund prevention based programs instead of consequence repairing

programs. If the government, whether federal or state, were to create more programs to help keep
 Brown 7

families financially afloat during tough economic times or programs to help council men on

releasing the need for control, there would be a drop in the number of IPH cases. This would be

because men would be worrying less about being in control and they could spend more time with

their loved ones, which would strengthen the relationships and prevent loss of them. These new

programs would relieve some of the stresses Eriksson and Mazerolle were talking about and

remove some of the pressure that General Strain Theory discusses.

The most difficult aspect of this plan though will be getting men to attend and participate

in the programs. A piece of the control problem lends itself to being stubborn and resistant to

help. But, if there was a way to convince people that it was for their own personal gain and

betterment they may be more inclined to take part. And, overall, if the programs can prevent

many IPH crimes, then the government will be spending less on victim support programs. Long

term, this could lead to a savings in government spending and a significant decrease, almost ten

percent, in total homicides per year.

General Strain Theory clearly describes a reaction that occurs when an individual gets too

stressed out. The theory also explains how men and women handle that stress in different ways

and how they are exposed to the stress in different ways. For men, this often means an outward

expression that is violent and aggressive. This outburst is the cause of a majority of Intimate

Partner Homicides that occur in the United States. These stresses, and we know the common

causes of these stresses, are the cause of the majority of domestic violence situations. Yet most of

the government funded programs for domestic violence and IPH are geared towards helping the

victims, not preventing the crime. If some new programs were created to help teach men how to

release control, manage finances, and handle stress overall then the number of IPH cases would

be significantly reduced. And, overtime, they could potentially be eliminated as societal

 Brown 8

pressures even out across genders. Hopefully, as more studies are done, this issue becomes more

widely known and a solution at any level will be implemented.

 Brown 9

Bibliography

California Penal Code - PEN. (n.d.). Retrieved March 13, 2017, from

http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code

Catalano, S., & Snyder, H. (2009). Female Victims of Violence (pp. 1-8) (United States of

America, U.S. Department of Justice, Justice Programs).

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. (n.d.). Retrieved March 13, 2017, from

https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=list&tab=list

Delisi, M. (2011). How general is general strain theory?. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(1), 1-2.

Durose, M., Harlow, C. W., Langan, P. A., Motivans, M., Rantala, R., & Smith, E.

(2005). Family Violence Statistics (pp. 1-72) (United States of America, U.S. Department

of Justice, Justice Programs). Washington, DC.

Eriksson, L. , & Mazerolle, P. (2013). A general strain theory of intimate partner

homicide. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(5), 462-470.

Higgins, G. , Piquero, N. , & Piquero, A. (2011). General strain theory, peer rejection, and

delinquency/crime. Youth & Society, 43(4), 1272-1297.

United States of America, Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(2010). Uniform Crime Report. FBI.

 Brown 10

Appendix A
Brown 11
Brown 12