Sykes and Matza (1957) propose that all behaviour, whether social or deviant, is learned by the process of social interactions. This proposal is based on Sutherland’s theory of differential association. Sutherland (1974) asserts that all criminal and deviant behaviour require an individual to learn techniques of committing crimes as well as the motives, drives, rationalisations and favourable attitude to breaking the law. Sykes and Matza used this principal to develop Neutralisation theory. These techniques reduce the social controls over the individual. Neutralisation theory suggests that all offending behaviour is justified by the individual; this may even precede the offending behaviour. These justifications, or rationalisations, are generally given in defence in court and are believed by the individual, thus protecting him or her from self-blame and the blame of others. Sykes and Matza suggest that there are a limited number of categories for these types of justifications.
The first of these techniques is ‘Denial of responsibility’. This technique allows offenders to use external factors to explain their behaviours, for example unloving parents or other factors beyond the control of the individual. When an offender employs this technique they believe they are helplessly propelled into the situation and view themselves as more acted upon than acting.
The second of the neutralisation techniques is ‘Denial of injury’. This technique allows the individual to feel that nobody was hurt or harmed in the offence, for example acts of shoplifting do not cause any physical harm towards another person.
The third technique is ‘Denial of the victim’. In this technique the individual may still acknowledge that an offence has occurred and that a person may have actually been hurt or harmed, however, they believe that the injury is not wrong in light of the circumstances. In this technique, the injury inflicted is seen as a justified form of retaliation or punishment. Sykes and Matza suggest that the victim sees himself as an avenger and the victim is the wrong-doer, for example, attacks on homosexuals because of their sexual orientation.
The fourth neutralisation technique is ‘Condemnation of the condemners’. In this technique, the offender shifts the focus of attention away from their own behaviours to those who disapprove. For example, Sykes and Matza suggest that individuals may believe that ‘Police, are corrupt, stupid, and brutal. Teachers always show favouritism and parents always “take it out” on their children’ when employing this technique (pg 668). In adopting this viewpoint, the wrongfulness of the offenders behaviour is more easily disguised or lost.
The fifth and final neutralisation technique is ‘Appeal to the higher loyalties’. Throughout this technique individuals are able to neutralise social controls by ‘sacrificing the demands of the larger society for the demands of the smaller social group to which the delinquent belongs’ (p669). While an offender may recognise the norms and laws of society, other norms and beliefs are seen as more important to him or her.
There has been much support for Neutralisation theory, for example Professor Topalli (2006) used Neutralization theory to explain behaviours of hard-core street offenders, saying ‘guilt is not an issue at all because their crimes are not only considered acceptable, but attractive and desirable with long term consequences that would justify their actions, such as protection of a friend’(p475). Mitchel & Doctors (1984) lend general support to Neutralisation theory and report that there is a significant correlation between techniques of neutralisation and different types of delinquency.
