Sykes and Matza’s techniques of neutralisation – Domestic violence

Sykes and Matza’s techniques of neutralisation – Domestic violence

Domestic violence is a complex social problem. Often we noticed how abusive individuals sink into denial, externalise blame and play down abusive situation or injuries. Society often sees these actions as excuses but these actions could also be known as the neutralisation theory proposed by these offenders.

The neutralisation theory or drift theory by Matza and Sykes explains how individuals or delinquents go back and forth between legitimate and illegitimate behaviours. The delinquents see abiding to the law from a different perspective and are able to justify their illegitimate behaviour when going against the norm of society. The delinquents ultimately set forth the argument about choice which they did not have in committing illegitimate behaviours thus in some cases, are able to avoid punishment. There are five Techniques of Neutralisation which was classified by Matza and Sykes.

The first technique is the denial of responsibility where the delinquents propose that they are the true victim of the situation and externalised the blame to someone else who caused them to be forced into the circumstances beyond their control (Sykes and Matza, 1957). There are a few cases in law which provocation is used as a source of defence although not all as cases are screened through case by case basis by the trial judge (Bronitt and McSherry, 2005). A drunk husband came home and repeatedly strikes his wife, when arrested for domestic violence explains that his wife had always looked down on him and calls him names to humiliate (emasculate) him in front of their friends. This caused him to be depressed and upset which lead him to drinking, becoming drunk and abusing his wife. The husband claims that he was provoked by his wife to such rage and anger which caused him to drink, become drunk and consequently taking out the rage and anger from humiliation back on her.

The second technique is the denial of injury where the delinquents assume that their act did not cause any harm whatsoever or permanent damage. They are normally very certain that there is no permanent loss or suffering which would impede on the victim (Sykes and Matza, 1957). This is normally seen in cases of child abuse where the parents ‘discipline’ the child which includes verbal abuse and threats. These delinquents when questioned normally motion that the child is not physically hurt and they will eventually ‘grow out of it’ (Sykes and Matza, 1957). The delinquents would usually disagree with the norm of the society or opinion on child abuse as they believe otherwise on child abuse. They tend to react in a way to question ‘what is the big deal? Nobody is hurt anyway!’ This is a grey area in law and it’s normally impossible to be charged as the action can be seen as morally wrong but not legally wrong. It is also a task itself to gain physical evidence for child abuse.

The third technique would be the denial of the victim. The delinquents view this as retribution of the victims action thus claims that there is no real victim as they deserved the circumstances (Sykes and Matza, 1957). A husband brutally raped his wife and repeatedly struck her. In his defence, he stated that she cheated on him with another man and he believes that she enjoys rough sex anyway; thus he was only trying to please her and avenge his marriage. In his believe, the husband made his wife who was a victim appear to be the guilty party instead. In this technique, the delinquent either denies the existence of a victim or convert the victim to the guilty party instead to neutralise the situation.

Condemnation of the condemners is the fourth technique mentioned by Sykes and Matza. In this technique, the delinquent tries shifting the centre of attention from them towards others (Sykes and Matza, 1957). Despite the fault, the condemners are seen as hypocrite instead. For example; a child being severely beaten repeatedly for misbehaving by the mother is caught up for child abuse after the teachers reported her in upon discovering massive bruises on the child’s body. In her defence to neutralise the situation, she launches into a speech about every parent would have beaten their child at least once in their lifetime and claims that the bible said to ‘spare the rod, spoil the child’. She claims that by her disciplining her child, at least he would turn out a better citizen then the rest of the street junkies which their parents would probably avoided stern discipline at home. In her action, instead of focusing solely on her wrong doing, she blames the rest of the society and parents who does not practise discipline at home causing social issues such as homeless people and drug addicts.

The last technique is appealing to higher loyalties. In this technique, the rules and laws of the larger society are normally masked by the demands and allegiance from other in their action (Sykes and Matza, 1957). Examples of the mother of the abused child seeking the support from her husband in her believe to discipline their child as they wish to produce a good citizen. In this scenario, she is appealing to her husband whom she seeks loyalty from. She believes that he, as her husband must always take side with her and her actions. There is a conflict here where relationships and law are seen as two separate matters and by having her husband siding her, it does not mean that she will be spared from the criminal justice process for child abuse charges.

In these techniques of neutralisation, the delinquents are trying to justify their actions which defy the norms of the society. The society demands conformity and the delinquents are not immune from it. The justification of their actions which includes denial, externalise blame and playing down of situation or injuries doesn’t excuse them from domestic violence and being dealt with by the criminal justice system. However these techniques are frequently seen in domestic violence case and widely practise throughout society not just in domestic issues.

In summary, the neutralization theory is the homeostasis of personal belief and morality conflict between conventional behaviour and illegitimate behaviour. There is the occasionally drift between illegal and conventional behaviour by the delinquents (Sykes and Matza, 1957). The techniques and justification used by the delinquents includes denial; both of injury and of the victim, condemnation of the condemners, and the appeal to higher loyalties. However, the society demand conformity and promotes criminal justice system to deal with these delinquents.








References

Reading 9.2 from the book of Readings CCJ27; Sykes, Gresham M. and David Matza (1957) “Techniques of Neutralisation: A Theory of Delinquency,” American Sociological Review, 22 (December): 664-70


Bronitt, Simon and McSherry, Bernadette (2005) Principles of Criminal Law 2nd edition, Lawbook Co. Riverwood, New South Wales.


Viewed on the 11 October 2007; Sykes and Matza’s Techniques of Neutralisation, http://www.hewett.norfolk.sch.uk/CURRIC/soc/crime/sykes_ma.htm


Viewed on the 11 October 2007; Learning Theories of Crime, http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/301/301lect10.htm