The law abiding citizens amongst you might argue that there is no excuse for breaking the law and committing a crime. Whenever I talk to people about crime and offending people often ask me why they do it. It seems such a natural question to ask and one that should have a fairly straight forward answer. Why did that man shoot another person? Why did someone break into my home and steal from me? Why did that person steal something from a shop?
I have spoken to many criminals over the years and all of them will have a reason for committing the crime. When a person stands trial their defence lawyer will often say what circumstances led their client to become involved in the crime. They might try to get a reduced sentence for their client by arguing that they were coerced into the act or felt they had no other options available. Some offenders might even admit their wrongdoing and say how sorry they are for the offence; however, it will often be accompanied by some kind of justification.
The specific justification will depend on the individual and will vary greatly. Some people may feel that their actions were completely justified. For example, one offender I have spoken to told me that they felt they had to do the crime. He was involved in a gang and wanted to stay under the protection of that gang and so was involved in violence towards rival gangs. He felt that he had no choice other than to do what the other gang members asked him to.
Another young man told me that he didn’t intend to commit the crime. He had been involved in a fight during a night out and punched someone. That punch led to a bleed on the brain which killed the person. The offender appeared to be very remorseful of his actions and said that cocaine was a major factor in him being so violent. However, other murderers such as Fred West intended to kill. He had prepared a way of dispatching the victim before he had come into contact with a victim, and showed little remorse afterwards.
Other offenders will say that they commit crime to pay for drugs. People become so addicted to various substances that they are willing to go to any lengths to get more. They will steal money or items to sell on or trade. Those who steal because of addiction often take from their friends and family members.
As you can see, how people justify their criminal activity will vary depending on the crime and the circumstances. The non-offenders amongst us may think that there are no excuses for crime. However, a few months ago I was reading an online news article about a sex offender who had been released from prison and re-offended again shortly after. Almost every comment I read was suggesting that he should have his private parts removed and how they would willingly do it for free. Some people were saying that if they ever saw him they would beat him. Others, especially females, were commenting that if it had happened to their child they would kill him with their bare hands.
These normally law abiding citizens felt that their actions would be justified because of the circumstances. They would feel justified to carry out actual bodily harm, torture, and even murder. I have no doubt that any parent would feel as strongly as this if someone hurt their child. The point that I am trying to make is that every single person who commits a crime has some kind of justification for doing so.
Two researchers called Sykes and Matza suggested that these justifications could be classified into a limited number of groups. Sykes and Matza developed Neutralisation theory. 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.
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.
In conclusion, offenders will have a variety of reasons for committing their crimes. Everybody uses justifications for their behaviour. When we feel that our actions are justified we are much more likely to act. This also means that we feel less guilty for our behaviour.
