Neutralization Theory

375) and by using this hedonistic calculus people will refrain from committing crimes. This concept focuses on the punishment fitting the criminal and on preventing future crimes from occurring. The three most important factors in effectively deterring a criminal from further crimes are the severity of the punishment, the certainty of the punishment, and the swiftness of the punishment. If criminal doesn’t believe he will be punished or he feels the punishment is minor in comparison to the crime or if the punishment is not swift enough, then he/she will not be deterred from committing crimes. Studies on the effectiveness of deterrence have shown to be inconclusive. The deficient areas of deterrence are crimes committed in the heat of passions, crimes committed under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and the massive backlog of cases in the nation’s courts (Neubauer & Fradella, 2008).

They don’t exactly fit into social norms in relation to lawful behavior, usually not caring for the consequences of the law.

Techniques of neutralization are ways for people to justify their defiance of society’s norms. These are observed in five categories: denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of a victim, condemnation of the condemner, and appeal to higher loyalties. Denial of responsibility puts the blame on the persons surrounding temptations rather than themselves. They say that they couldn’t control their urges. An example of this would be if someone were to break a vase and they justified their actions by saying they couldn’t help themselves.

Finally, the consensus perspective takes responsibility for those who violate those values. Many believe that criminal behaviors result from a failure to control oneself, a lack of self-control. The consensus perspective advocates believe that crime exists because there are members of society “who fail to participate in the social consensus” (Agnew, 2011), arguing that these people are “low is self-control and lack the abilities to resist the temptations and provocations for crime” (Agnew, 2011). In other words, those do not have the base norms necessary to fight the temptations of crime. Almost as if they have no conscience and they tend to be those with no strong connections with family, school or any major institutions, therefore cannot quite control themselves. Many argued that “crime is a result of low self-control” (Agnew, 2011).

Theories of victimization essentially does something morally unpopular, by discussing how the victim caused their own victimization. Identified below are four theories of victimizations and examples of both strength and weakness of each. The goal for this paper is to briefly define at the four theories in order to grasp a better understanding of how individuals can lessen the opportunity to become a victim of a crime.

One point of view holds that the social responsibility perspective believes that individuals are fundamentally responsible for their own behavior and that they choose crime over other, more law-abiding courses of action (Schmalleger, F., 2015, p. 15). This perspective places the cause of crime directly on the individual and presumes that the individual is exercising their free will. The social responsibility perspective on crime also relies on theories about individual faults leading to criminal behavior, and that in terms of the criminal, victim, and justice system individuals play a role within the social aspect of crime. These theories suggest criminals are different from noncriminals for biological or psychological reasons, the difference between this perspective and the social

A number of studies do, in fact, find that young people do seek justification before engaging in delinquent behavior (Siegel and Welsh, 2015). But Ronald Akers (1997) asserts that adherence to neutralizing attitudes has been found to be moderately related to delinquent and criminal behavior. Akers suggests that while there is support for the theory it may be because neutralization attitudes dispose individuals to violating the law – instead of offering rationalizations for committing delinquent acts.

There are many theories in the field of criminology that seek to explain the reasons behind why people commit crimes. Social process theory is one such theory and asserts that criminal behavior is learned through interactions with others (Schmalleger, 2012). There are four types of social process theories including: social learning theory, social control theory, labeling theory, and dramaturgical perspective. This paper will explore two of the theories including social learning theory and social control theory. The paper will discuss social process theory and the history of its development, the theory’s importance to criminology, examples of

When listening to the song “Ain’t No Rest for the Wicked” by Cage the Elephant, the theories that best describe this song are the Techniques of Neutralization by Sykes and Matza, and the Rational Choice Theory by Cornish and Clark. Sykes and Matza outlined five techniques based on offenders coming up with excuses when committing crimes to defend themselves. On the other hand, Cornish and Clark discuss four decisions to commit crime that offenders are concerned about when deciding whether to involve themselves in crime, so they outweigh the risks vs. the rewards. In Sykes and Matza Techniques of Neutralization, the five techniques include; denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of the victim,

It allows us to examine what makes crime acceptable and desirable in the minds of potential criminals, and it gives us the tools necessary to use a proactive rather than reactive approach to crime control. To look at crime from a psychological point of view is nothing new. However, use of this technique may lead to better methods of deterrence. To begin, we must understand what the concepts are that have shaped the average person’s mind. In general the average person is faced with the concepts of determinism, free will, and social identity as they mature into adulthood.

It is known that crime is caused through imitation, arousal and desensitising. The social Learning theory (2009), looks at how people engage in crime due to their associations. It explains that a person’s behaviour is a product of the people who surround ourselves – people imitate those who people admire. Theorist Bandura (1997) had completed an experiment in which looked at

The three key goals victims can pursue through the criminal justice system is to punish the offender, compel law breakers to undergo rehabilitate treatment and restitution. Punishment is usually justified on utilitarian grounds as evil. Although it is argued that making transgressors suffer curbs future criminality in a number of ways. It is said if an offender gets punished by unpleasant and unwanted consequences it will most likely discouraged him/her from breaking the law again. Also it satisfies victims thirst for revenge and prevents future vigilantism and incapacitates dangerous predators so they can be off the streets; a safer community. Rehabilitation, some victims want professionals to help offenders become decent,

Though the offender still believes that crime in general is wrong, they will justify or excuse their crime as necessary, morally correct or otherwise acceptable. Offenders might suggest that their crime was acceptable because they are not responsible (“Denial of Responsibility”), no harm occurred (Denial of Injury), the victim deserved to be victimized (“Denial of Victim”), the authorities have it out for them (Condemnation of the Condemners) or there is a higher good served by their actions (“Appeal to Higher Loyalties”). The offender in all of these cases recognizes that their actions were deviant, but argue that it was justified (Sykes and Matza , 2011). Under these theories, humans are considered to naturally want to commit crime, but generally believe that crime is wrong. When they do offend, they consider their offense to be justified exceptions to their belief in the wrongness of crime, the result of a lack of self-control or social bond.

Throughout the years, the association between a criminal offense and a criminal have become more relevant. Although there are many theories that try to illustrate the concept of why crimes happen, no theory has a profound influence of understanding an individual’s nature, relationship, development, and a society itself (Coleman & Ganong, 2014). To further explain, “theories of crime are defined in relation to modernity, spanning their development from the enlightenment to the present, with the advent of postmodernism” (Miller, 2012, p. 1798). In other words, theories of crime are an approach to understanding an individuals behaviour and actions in their environment, society, and themselves that may lead to crime. Nevertheless, within this paper, it will be comparing the case of

The social learning theory states that criminal behavior is learned. Criminals learn their bad behaviors from close relationships they may have with criminal peers (Siegel & Worrall, 2016). Children look up to their parents; they want to be just like them. So, if children grow up surround by crime, they think that it is both normal and acceptable, and it is likely that they will participate in criminal behavior when they are older. As a result of learning this behavior, it is passed down through generations and is never broken. This can also be learned from friendships people may have with negative influences. Young adults and children want to fit in with their peers, so if they are surrounded with those who commit crimes, they are probably going to do the same because “everyone is doing it”.