Sutherland's Differential Association Case Study

1012 Words 5 Pages
Sutherland’s differential association is a theory that stats through interactions with others, individual can learn values, attitudes, techniques and motives of criminal behavior. For example, if an individual were to socialize with a friend group notorious for committing crimes and devious acts, that said individual, over time, would learn and understand the techniques, values etc. of committing those crimes. According to the excerpt from “Stick-up, Street Culture and Offender Motivation” (Jacobs and Wright, 1999), one man said that “Some people want to be like other people… they want to dress like this person.” When people want to be like other people or they look up to role models, they begin acting like they do and taking on the actions …show more content…
On the contrary, however, there are definitions of law that can be learnt that have anti-criminal intent. Sutherlands theory states that if your learnt definitions that are “pro-criminal” outweigh those of which are meant to be “anti-criminal” than the said individual is to experience actions of criminal activity. The background following up to the act of committing crimes from an individual’s perspective may vary depending on their circumstances and environment but the crimes an individual chooses to commit over others usually is the same. For example, in the excerpt by Jacobs and Wright (1999), reason being as to why the robbers chose to commit robbery was mostly the same. They all were in desperate need for cash with little time to acquire it, making this their motivation. On the legal perspective, there wasn’t an option for them to acquire these funds without trouble however there were other methods of acquiring money illegally that could’ve substituted robbery. The reason these offenders chose robbery as the means to obtain cash was because of the low-risk appeal it …show more content…
Most if not all saw this as an opportunity to make quick cash when they needed it the most. However, in the excerpt (Jacobs and Wright, 1999), the offenders were evenly split between committing robberies regularly and only when they needed it. This differentiates the opportunities of the criminals because one hand you have a group who seek out these places to rob for their next heist. The other group, the ones who only do it when needed, don’t see it as an opportunity when it arises; they have to seek out a suitable target in order to perform this crime. The last most influential factor to the offender’s actions could be the result of their environment more specifically their social structure. Where and how an individual grew up affects their mindsets and personalities substantially. Where they currently reside directly correlates to who they associate it with. Living in a rundown, crime-heavy style neighborhood can lead to individuals in that neighborhood doing more of the same. When individuals are in poverty too, they see robbery as a quick risk-free way to obtain money. I say risk-free because they have little to nothing to risk for being caught for the

Related Documents