The Five Techniques Of Neutralization

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).

Among any community there is a set of boundaries that must be respected under penalty of being labeled as deviant. Consequently, a community will create agencies of control in order to punish and fight against all the forms of behavior considered as deviant. In his Study in the Sociology of Deviance, Kai T. Erikson defends the point that deviant forms of behavior are a natural and beneficial part of social life. One of his main arguments is that, in our modern society, “the agencies of control often seem to define their job as that of keeping deviance within bounds rather than obliterating it altogether” (Wayward Puritans 24:2). Now, what if society gave to its agencies of control the role of annihilating deviance? What if the set of

Furthermore, criminal behaviour is learned, and when this behaviour is been taught, it entails techniques of committing the crime which at times can be complicated and other times quite simple; ' the specific direction of the motives, drives, rationalisation and attitudes.' (Newburn, 2013, pp. 394). Although this theory is rarely used when theorising white collar crime, it is nonetheless an important factor in many offending. For example, a study carried out by Geis of an electrical equipment company found that a lot of manufacture encouraged price fixing by their employee as a way of coping with market pressure. Geis pointed out that these activities was an established way of life where those that are involved learns attitudes and rationalisation that favour and support such misconduct. (Newburn, 2013). A second theory was given by Hirschi and Gottfredson, which is called the Self Control Theory. This theory focus on human nature and the significance of gratification. The central idea of this theory is that individuals peruse self interest and self gratification and the avoidance of pain. In regards to this theory crime is seen as a way in which individuals maximise pleasure and minimise pain. Furthermore, they argued that the differences that there are between those that chooses not to be involved in criminal activities and those that choose to

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.

I do take full responsibility for my actions when I am the only one who engages in that act. However, if someone else is involved and he or she does not get punished, I start to blame the condemner. The reason for this is because the condemnation is unfair since it does not include everyone involved. I remember when I was 16 years old, I managed to get a scratch on my dad’s car. Of course my parents were not happy about this and scolded me for it. I believed that it was unfair because there was a huge dent in the car that my brother caused. However, he was not punished because he is the oldest and I should have learned from his mistakes. I honestly thought that reasoning was injudicious and tried to “turn” the blame around on my parents. As mentioned in the article, this condemnation was unacceptable because someone else who did the same thing was not punished. This is why I believe that this technique of neutralization is relevant to

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.

Victimology draws together academics, activists, and policymakers from a variety of backgrounds and identifies three main victimological perspectives. Positivist victimology dates back to the emergence of victimology as a discipline in the 1940s. It looks to understand the process of victimisation and why people become victims of crime by examining the relationship between the victim and offender through an agency lens. Newburn (2013) identifies positivists such as Miers (1989) who see victimisation as being causal in nature and identify three key features:

In this essay, I am going to discuss what some of the ideas are when it comes thinking as to why deterrence does not work, which could be that the harsher the crime, the harsher the punishment for many of the crimes committed. It could mean that it does not work because the offender maybe becomes aware of the punishment. However, it could be because of the notion of impulsivity which connected and is almost everywhere within a society where there has been a connection to the idea of rational choices, which has a role when it comes to the way people have been thinking about committing the crime of any shape or form. However, there have been many reasons why it doesn’t work, because the offenders come from many different walks of life within a society. Therefore, the kind of crimes that have been done, which can then have associated with rational choices, which have people are connected to in society.

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.

The idea of control theory is that it is human nature for people to break the law, that humans seek gratification therefore they result to crime. They argue that delinquency occur when one does not have societal bond, or those bonds are weak. I do not thin Dominic Toretto is an example of this theory. When looking at the aspect of specific techniques of neutralization he does not fit in any of the four categories. The first of the four is denial or responsibility, Dominic never denied the crime he committed he was a very upfront and honest man, if he did something he did it. There was also no denial of injury, with the movies being so fast of course there was no time for him to sit down with a person that he hurt and care for them. But most of the movies he was not the one doing the hurting he and his team were the ones hurt. In relation to denial of victim sometimes he did see himself as the victim, in which times he had the right to because he was victimized. Lastly, condemnation of the condemners and appeal to higher loyalties. Dominic was never hypocritical mostly because, as I stated earlier, he had a code and that code was family. Everything he did was to help his family, which was his appeal to higher loyalties. His family was who he was loyal to not society.

Negative emotions selfishly nudge a place to overwhelm the mind and heart, lacking merciful speech practices. The agony which is delivered as a result of the union of lies and deceit, becomes multiplied, in situations, when the offender, act as if they did, or said, nothing to warrant a wounding reaction from the intended victim.

rightly mentions the causation of injury or harm.It is an umbrella term that incorporates a

This experiment was performed to determine the heat of neutralization between Hydrogen chloride (HCl) and Sodium hydroxide (NaOH). A temperature probe was used to measure the temperature of the reaction when the base (NaOH) was poured into the acid (HCl). The data was collected on logged on LoggerPro.

As the nineties began, the general theory of crime became the most prominent criminological theory ever proposed; furthermore, it is empirically recognized as the primary determinant in deviant and criminal behaviors. Known also as the self-control theory, the general theory of crime can most simply be defined as the absence or lack of self-control that an individual possesses, which in turn may lead them to commit unusual and or unlawful deeds. Authored by educator Michael R. Gottfredson and sociologist Travis Hirschi, A General Theory of Crime (1990) essentially “dumbed down” every theory of crime into two words, self-control. The widely accepted book holds that low self-control is the main reason that a person initiates all crimes, ranging from murder and rape to burglary and embezzlement. Gottfredson and Hirschi also highlighted, in A General Theory of Crime (1990), that low self-control correlates with personal impulsivity. This impulsive attitude leads individuals to become insensitive to deviant behaviors such as smoking, drinking, illicit sex, and gambling (p. 90). The extreme simplicity, yet accuracy, of Gottfredson’s and Hirschi’s general theory of crime (self-control theory), make it the most empirically supported theory of criminal conduct, as well as deviant acts.

The history of victimology travels further back in time than most would realize. The concept of the victim emerged from the many attempts of many societies and peoples to explain both the reasons behind victimization and the appropriate action to be taken as a result of it (Burgess et al., 2013). As a concept, it can be difficult to define victimology, since each individual defines the term differently. According to the text utilized for this class, victimology is defined as being the study of the victim, including the offender and society. It is also seen as being a social-structural way of viewing the relationships between crime and the law as well as the criminal and the victim (Burgess et al, 2013)..