Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet
icon backReturn to Entries

Neutralization Theory

In the 1950s, the criminologists Gresham Sykes and David Matza sought to explain how juveniles who commit delinquent acts are able to do so while still accepting conventional social values and norms. They concluded that juveniles would be able to commit such acts only if they could temporarily overcome their sense of a moral obligation to obey the law by using one or more of the mental techniques of neutralization, mechanisms to block the potential guilt and negative self-image associated with violating social norms. By using these techniques, individuals could engage in criminal behavior and still maintain a positive self-concept.

Techniques of Neutralization

According to neutralization theory, juveniles who commit delinquent acts overcome the demands for conformity by learning how to neutralize society's norms and values prior to violating them. In so doing, delinquents redefine their behavior to make it acceptable. Even though the juveniles know that delinquency is essentially bad, they later claim that their criminal behavior was justified or excused based on one of the neutralization techniques. In their original article, citing interviews with offenders, Sykes and Matza identify five techniques of neutralization. These include (1) denial of responsibility, (2) denial of injury, (3) denial of the victim, (4) condemnation of the condemners, and (5) appeal to higher loyalties. While there may be five techniques of neutralization, not all five may be used. There may be different variations of techniques that could be used, based on individual traits and on the nature of delinquent act. Therefore, certain techniques could be more crime specific. While the original techniques were discussed in the context of an investigation of juvenile delinquency, other scholars later tested the theory with various offenders such as white-collar criminals, street offenders, rapists, and identity thieves.

Denial of Responsibility

Juveniles can deny responsibility for delinquent acts by claiming that they were not in control of their actions or that what happened was an accident. The delinquent can even go so far as to place blame on their environment, their peers, or their parents. By not accepting responsibility, the individual sees himself or herself more as a victim than as a delinquent. As a result, the juvenile is able to accept the delinquent act and denounce society's conventional moral beliefs without feeling remorse.

Denial of Injury

The next technique focuses on the results of the delinquent act as it is related to injury or harm toward others. While juveniles do not always fully understand the consequences of their delinquency, they still evaluate the “wrongness” of their actions. When using this technique, juveniles attempt to justify their actions based on whether or not anyone was directly hurt by their actions. An individual may see graffiti as not hurting anyone because it was only vandalism and no one was physically hurt. Similarly, embezzlers contend that they were not stealing but merely borrowing the misappropriated money. Although individuals accept responsibility for their actions, they use the technique to justify their actions on the grounds that no one was hurt.

Denial of Victim

In contrast to denial of injury, this technique is used when the individual is aware that there is a victim and accepts responsibility. However, in this situation, when the delinquent inflicts injury, it is not seen as wrong because the individual believes that it is justified. The juvenile's rationale is that he or she believes that the other person deserved the injury. It could be perceived as a righteous retaliation toward someone (e.g., for a punishment from a parent or teacher). Denial of victim can be divided into four categories: (1) close foes: individuals who have directly injured them; (2) those who engage in deviant behavior (e.g., homosexuals, drunkards); (3) members of groups with tribal stigmas (racial and ethnic minorities); and (4) distant foes: politicians and remote authority figures. Consequently, individuals who claim this technique do so, because they feel that their victims “had it coming to them” based on the victim's perceived conduct or social status. They may perceive the other person or institution as the wrongdoer who thus “deserved what they got.”

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Read next

More like this

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

close

Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches

close
close
close Signed In to profile You are signed in as:
close
Logged in Institution Institution