Neutralization Techniques in Juvenile Delinquency and White-Collar Crime

QUESTION

How do juvenile delinquents neutralize the influence of the law on their behavior?

Do white collar criminals use similar or different techniques of neutralization?

ANSWER

Neutralization Techniques in Juvenile Delinquency and White-Collar Crime

Introduction

Juvenile delinquents and white-collar criminals employ various techniques to neutralize the influence of the law on their behavior. Neutralization theory, originally developed by Sykes and Matza in 1957, provides insights into how individuals rationalize and justify deviant or criminal actions. This essay explores the ways in which juvenile delinquents and white-collar criminals neutralize the influence of the law, highlighting both common and distinct techniques.

Neutralization Techniques in Juvenile Delinquency

Denial of Responsibility: Juvenile delinquents may claim that external factors, such as peer pressure or family issues, compelled them to engage in criminal activities. By denying personal responsibility, they seek to absolve themselves of guilt.

Denial of Injury: Delinquents might argue that their actions did not cause harm or injury to others. They may perceive their actions as victimless crimes or downplay the severity of the consequences.

Denial of the Victim: Some delinquents justify their actions by blaming the victim, believing that the victim deserved the mistreatment or that the victim provoked the criminal behavior.

Condemnation of the Condemners: Juvenile delinquents often criticize the legal system, law enforcement, or societal norms, portraying themselves as victims of an unjust system.

Appeal to Higher Loyalties: Delinquents may argue that their actions were driven by a greater loyalty, such as protecting friends or family, thus prioritizing these loyalties over compliance with the law.

Neutralization Techniques in White-Collar Crime

Denial of Responsibility: Like juvenile delinquents, white-collar criminals may deflect blame by citing external factors, such as corporate culture or pressure from superiors, as the driving forces behind their illegal actions.

Denial of Injury: White-collar criminals may argue that their actions did not cause significant harm, often downplaying the consequences to minimize their culpability.

Denial of the Victim: They may rationalize their actions by believing that their victims are faceless entities, distant from their decisions, or by suggesting that the victims brought the harm upon themselves through negligence.

Condemnation of the Condemners: White-collar criminals might criticize the regulatory system, portraying themselves as victims of overbearing regulations or an excessively punitive legal environment.

Appeal to Higher Loyalties: Some white-collar criminals may invoke a sense of loyalty to their organizations, framing their illegal actions as necessary to protect the company’s interests or maintain economic stability.

Comparing Techniques

While there are similarities in the neutralization techniques used by juvenile delinquents and white-collar criminals, it’s essential to recognize that the contexts and motivations behind these techniques differ significantly. Juvenile delinquents may be more likely to rely on peer pressure and impulsive decision-making, whereas white-collar criminals often cite corporate culture and financial pressures.

Conclusion

Neutralization techniques provide insight into how individuals rationalize deviant behavior in the face of the law. Both juvenile delinquents and white-collar criminals employ these techniques to neutralize the influence of the law, though the specific justifications and contexts differ. Recognizing these techniques is vital for law enforcement, policymakers, and the criminal justice system to develop effective strategies for deterrence, rehabilitation, and prevention.