Ludeke’s overall analysis classifies MLO as a criminal street gang under the STEP act and its criteria it sets forth. Although it satisfies the components of the STEP act, it does not explain gang formation using social science theories. Ludeke’s primary criticism of MLO was that the gang was predominately white and wealthy, which does not explain gang formation under Thrasher’s social disorganization theory or Merton’s strain theory. Thrasher’s social disorganization theory explains that youths turn to gang participation because the state in which they live in is in constant disorganization due to extreme poverty, weakened institutions, and high turnover rate (Tobin, 2008, pg. 30). Due to the population mobility constantly changing in that area, it is in a continuance state of transition establishing no value system, resulting in institutions being weak and less control over youth (Tobin, 2008, pg. 31). MLO’s does not fall under this theory because it is in a well off neighborhood that is stable and not in a state of transition (Rose & Clear,1998, pg.443). The Malibu locals were also wealthy and more likely have an established value system there for support (Tobin, 2008, pg.31). Merton’s theory of Anomie explains that due to the breakdown or absence of society norms, it strains individuals…show more content… He discusses the missing factor component can play a huge role into participating in gang activity. Although it makes it great argument it does not cover completely every aspect of the social theory that can explain MLO’s gang formation. Ludeke’s major criticisms of his work were primarily due to the fact that MLO’s gang was composed of middle class, wealthy males which did not explain its gang formation under the social science theories of Thrasher’s social disorganization, Diego Vigils multiple marginality and Merton’s Anomie theory (Ludeke,
