Exploring the "Why"

Theoretical Argument Techniques of neutralization: a theory of delinquency Gresham M. Sykes and David Matza commenced their discussion of delinquency by briefly restating the previous findings and conclusions of the specialized literature. Particularly, they revealed how juvenile delinquency is a learnt behavior, which revolved around two primary components. On the one hand, there is the process of learning the techniques by which to commit and cover up for crimes, on the other, the environment that favors the occurrence of crimes.

The two authors in discussion as well as the previous works cited fail to mention the genetic component of criminal behavior, namely the predisposition towards criminal behavior of children with criminal parents. While this element is worthwhile studying in the future, the focus of the currently assessed article and the sources to which it refers falls on the environmental and personal aspects of juvenile delinquency.

Sykes and Matza promoted the previous findings that delinquency flourished in an environment in which crime was perceived as the norm and the "right" thing, namely in a system and an environment guided by rules different than those followed by law-abiding citizens. There is nevertheless, a somewhat positive component of juvenile delinquency in that it helps young boys survive in high crime environments, such as low class and low-income neighborhoods. The two university professors, authors of the article, argued that this approach of juvenile delinquency has numerous shortcomings.

They argued, for instance, that if delinquents were committing crimes out of a distorted sense of right, they would feel some sense of pride -- yet, in many cases, they exhibited remorse and guilt upon having committed a crime. This argument proposed by the authors is a solid point-of-view, but it is insufficient in order to draw a significant conclusion. At this level then, the emotional consequences the delinquents are experiencing should be further assessed by psychologists and researchers.

Then, the authors argued that the values of the subculture of criminality in lower class neighborhoods were interpretable and they did not constitute sufficient rationale to support and explain juvenile delinquency as a way of life. Then, they argued that the delinquents had rules of their own by which they judged what crimes were acceptable by their code and which were not (stealing from friends for instance, or from the church, could be unacceptable behaviors).

Last, Sykes and Matza proposed that even when the delinquents were ruled by their own law and set of rules, they could not be unaware or unacceptable of all norms which regulate the greater society. These arguments basically reveal how the previous theories of juvenile delinquency are insufficient to explain the phenomenon. But aside from pointing out the shortcomings of the existing literature, Gresham M. Sykes and David Matza went further and sought to explain juvenile delinquency through new lenses.

This new standpoint of analyzing delinquency refers to the techniques of neutralization. In short, these represent subjective interpretations, rationalizations and excuses for the delinquent behavior. For instance, under normal circumstances, stealing from grocery stores would be unacceptable. However, when the family is poor and suffering from hunger, the act of stealing a loaf of bread from the store is viewed as more acceptable, understandable and excusable by the community.

The major contribution of this article then is that of identifying the techniques of neutralization and pointing out that these are the underlying basis for a continued delinquent behavior.

Crimes perpetuate when the criminals are able to create their own excuses and justifications for their acts, and this is a better truism than saying that juvenile delinquency perpetuates because it is learnt in the sub-culture: "It is by learning these techniques that the juvenile becomes delinquent, rather than by learning moral imperatives, values or attitudes standing in direct contradiction to those of the dominant society" (Sykes and Matza, ).

The two academicians have devised a set of five primary neutralization techniques, as follows: Denying responsibility for the committed crime Denying that any harm or injury has resulted from the committed crime Denying that there existed a victim, or that the victim suffered any real harm (it is often argued that the harm done was justice, retaliation, rather than abuse over a victim) Shifting the focus.