The Techniques of Neutralization comes from the neutralization theory, which appeared in an article published by Sykes & Matza titled “Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency” (BROWN, ESBENSEN, & GEIS, 2015, p. 325). Published in 1957, this article ranked top ten in the most cited article in the American Sociological Review. One of the interesting features of this theory is the vast span of nonconforming behavior that has been used. Further the assertion of this type of behavior gives way for a wide generalization of the Neutralization theory. The first origin for the techniques of neutralization was from a theory of delinquency from Sutherland. He argued that “learning criminal or delinquent behavior includes values and rationalizations as well as
…show more content…
326). They contested this assertion with evidence that criminals usually experience both feelings of culpability and humiliation. Sykes and Matza also observed that criminals exhibited some sort of selective choice in their targets. Specifically, they avoiding those who demonstrate a connection to mainstream values of society, and prey on those who are seemingly disconnected to mainstream values. For example, priest are seemingly free from criminal targeting, while victims of robbery are targeted often by drunkards and or homosexuals. On another side, it can be tolerable to contravene against norms while still bearing the validity they hold if the norms are seen conditional. Though a social engagement may require specific times in which one should show up, there can be certain situations where being behind schedule can be acceptable. This however is not the case in criminal codes. Norms apart of criminal codes give specific and crystal clear identifications in terms of justifiable and alleviate situations. Matza states “The criminal law, more so than any comparable system of norms, acknowledges and states the principled grounds under which an actor may claim
326). They contested this assertion with evidence that criminals usually experience both feelings of culpability and humiliation. Sykes and Matza also observed that criminals exhibited some sort of selective choice in their targets. Specifically, they avoiding those who demonstrate a connection to mainstream values of society, and prey on those who are seemingly disconnected to mainstream values. For example, priest are seemingly free from criminal targeting, while victims of robbery are targeted often by drunkards and or homosexuals. On another side, it can be tolerable to contravene against norms while still bearing the validity they hold if the norms are seen conditional. Though a social engagement may require specific times in which one should show up, there can be certain situations where being behind schedule can be acceptable. This however is not the case in criminal codes. Norms apart of criminal codes give specific and crystal clear identifications in terms of justifiable and alleviate situations. Matza states “The criminal law, more so than any comparable system of norms, acknowledges and states the principled grounds under which an actor may claim