Robert Merton's Anomie Theory explains theft as an instrumental crime and tells us the goals we should desire to achieve such as cultural goals. Our culture defines and regulates the legitimate means to achieve these goals. His explanation falls within a macro perspective, according to which crime is rooted in the social structure and not in the individual, because we are told what goals we must achieve but we do not have the same opportunities to access the means legitimate. There is a gap between the cultural goals valued by society and the structural means available to a given individual to achieve them. There has to be a goal that everyone wants but that society values ​​like financial success. For anomie to occur, the goal becomes more important than how you get it. The company has an obsession with economic success in American society, this happened when they were in desperate need of money. However, after his first robbery, he realized how easy it was to commit this crime, which motivated him to continue. “Every time I make one, I say it’s my last” (p. 9). This does not explain the expressive behavior, the offender did not even need such accommodations to survive; he was rather greedy. His decision to rob a bank was not due to negative emotions or depression, but a desperate need for money to take care of his family. In strain theory, anger is the primary motivation for committing crime. This offender continued to rob banks even when he had more than enough money to live on, but he continued because it made him happy and spent it carelessly. His motivation to begin was primarily instrumental, which supports Merton's anomie theory and fails the compulsion theory because there was no negative expressive state that led him to commit theft. On the other hand, a criticism of the strain theory is that it overdetermines many expressive crimes, because not everyone who has strong negative or angry emotions will commit theft or theft. However, his argument with his brother led to his job loss. , which motivated him to look elsewhere to achieve his goal of paying off drug dealers. His motivation became strong when he read a lot of articles about bank robbery and decided to do it because of the simplicity of the crime. The loss of his job is instrumental and became expressive due to the negative state he was going through with his breakup and his money debts: “I owed about $7,000 to $8,000 for drugs” (p. 62 ). Cloward and Ohlin argue that crime is not a matter of will. This applies to this offender because he did not turn to crime because he wanted to, but because he did not have the legitimate means to repay his drug dealer. This led to tension as he could not think clearly and he chose illegitimate means by robbing a bank and his negative expressive behavior to achieve his goal.