Techniques of Neutralization in Criminal Procedures
LAW 604 - Criminal Procedure
Arizona State University
Definition of Techniques of Neutralization
The term “techniques of neutralization” is used in criminal procedures mostly by people who
are accused of having committed crimes. This refers to theoretical series of theoretical
methods. Also, they are used by people who have committed illegitimate acts to defend or
neutralize several values that could prevent them from indulging in such acts. These values
include obligations to act according to the law, morality among many others. Techniques of
neutralization are psychological methods that are used by people who want to commit crimes.
They use these methods to justify the wrong acts that they intend to do. These methods are
seen as being part of inner denial (Braithwaite, 2010, p. 5).
The argument for Techniques of Neutralization in crime and its Justification
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential
association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and
Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential
association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were
interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate
ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of
neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the
responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or
victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties.
These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of
wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they
knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give
criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept
responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When
given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to
neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior
is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza,
1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and
Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In
the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of
neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses
that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation
files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in
denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at
portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts
that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked
the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several
themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them
being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They
claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus,
according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the
seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women
enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that
they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who
denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted
did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree
of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to
the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of
those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in
the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts
blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society
otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the
entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications
made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization
follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict
and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief
that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to
enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained
based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society.
This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can
be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep
interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the
proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing
the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their
behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via
neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which
individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have
a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential
association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies
have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also,
unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social
structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
Reference List
Braithwaite, J. (2010). Crime, shame and reintegration. In Wright, B.R.E and McNeil, R.B.
(Eds.), Boundaries: A customized reader. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Sacco, V. F. and Kennedy, L. W. (2011). The Criminal Event: An introduction to criminology
in Canada. Toronto: Thomson Nelson fifth edition.
Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of
delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22 (6): 664-670.
