Findings revealed that although Agnew's General Strain Theory (GST) asserted a relationship between strains and the adoption of beliefs favorable to crime, no empirical support was found for this thesis. However, analysis focused on only three neutralization techniques. Therefore it is not known if the presence of two important techniques, denial of responsibility and condemnation of the condemners, could have changed the results in a decisive way. However, it should be noted that the techniques used denote the presence of criminal reasoning; this type of criminal reasoning is evident, particularly in those subjects involved in major crimes. In general, a person does not use all of the various neutralization techniques. Research focused on the traditional model proposed by GST: strain (as a predictor) + neutralization techniques (as predictors) = crime (as a dependent variable). Another model could be considered: that of assuming that strain acts as a moderator and not as an independent variable, thus facilitating criminal behavior in those persons who are disposed to crime because they have a form of criminal reasoning. In this way the alternative model could be: techniques of neutralization (as predictors) + strain (as a moderator variable) = crime. To test this idea, another type of analysis would be needed. Data were collected from 500 Italian youths aged 15 to 25 years and surveyed between September 2004 and July 2005. Table and references