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

The debate

Assessment item 1:

A discussion between 3 theorists in regards to Macquarie Fields Riot 2005 in the Workaholic Lounge located at Heaven Street.

In the present time, it is noted how different parties react differently to social disorders. The Macquarie Fields Riots is a perfect case to be debated by the three theorists who strives in different perspectives in crime and punishment for social disorders. We have Beccaria who believes fully in social contract and the need for criminal justice system and the government, Durkheim whose specialty is the anomie and strain theory and Lombroso the author of the book The Criminal Man.

Let us be enlightened by their opinions on the Macquarie Fields Riot which took place in February 2005.


Lombroso: According to the theory of evolution, these people in Macquarie Fields could have their genealogy traced back to history of violence and criminality, although there is the possibility that because of their disadvantage and lack of nutrition and chemical imbalances which influences their mind causes them to be violent. Their disadvantages did not help with their moulding of characteristic which fit into society, what more if they inherited the criminal genes from their family line.

Beccaria: Pardon me, but their disadvantages mention has nothing to do with violence.

Lombroso: But Mr. Beccaria, if a bear were made to live like a rat, it is almost impossible… It is in the genes and chemical changes that people behave the way they are. If they have criminality or violent genes in them, they will manifest themselves under the appropriate conditioning such as what happened in Macquarie Fields.

Beccaria: In this day and age, individuals choose to live in places or country by their own accord. In Australia, there are rules and regulations that help the society to feel safe and comfortable. There are social contracts in placed for a country such as Australia. If they want to live there, they would have to abide by the laws as pledged by their citizens.

Durkheim: Could this whole situation just be a theory of anomie and strain where deregulation took placed when the law and the society did not agree on matters. The boys in Macquarie Fields are blaming the police for intrusion of their personal liberty for years where they are harassed by authorities for living being at disadvantage.

Beccaria: It is not about disadvantages! Like Mr. Carr said that there are lots of people who were brought up at disadvantage but they do not go around attacking police or starting riots. They choose to live in this society therefore they have to agree upon the laws and regulations determined by the society for the society. They could move to countries such as Iraq or some other places where violence is accepted as a cause of action but not in Australia.

Durkheim: You can’t deny that the authorities are partly to be blamed for causing this situation to flair up. It probably doesn’t involve the government as a whole but the law itself for example of how the police officers stereotyping the residences thus harassing them in unapproved methods by the law. And because they authorities are breaking their own law, the residences are just fighting for survival by their own understanding of ways to revenge or fight back to survive.

Beccaria: The police are doing their job by making sure that the public is safe. They are always allegations and rumours on the authorities.

Durkheim: Does it mean achieving public safety by harassing the residences at Macquarie Fields or having a car chase resulting death of a teenager?

Beccaria: The car chase was an accident resulted in the death of teenagers who failed to comply with the police orders after committing a crime. We definitely cannot assume that the authorities harass the residence as that is just an allegation. But we are certain that the police would have reacted to prevent further crime that would harm the society and residences by arresting suspects and offenders. Deterrence is certainly more effective than trying to patch things up after a crime occurrence.

Lombroso: I have to agree with you as there is definitely no reason for punishing certain people as it is the genes that are affecting them to criminality. To deter them from criminal acts, there is a need for education and reformation in their society which the government and authority should adopt instead of violence.

Beccaria: Genes should not be part of any influence to a person’s criminal activity or it is impossible to use that as a defence in court of law.

Lombroso: If a child should have criminality genes in them; they would be succumb to negative forces. If they have a strong positive character gene, no matter where they are brought up even in a crime spree neighbourhood, they will not be influenced. This is proven through the twin studies.

Beccaria: The external factors such as bad parenting or social influence should be the one to be blame for a person’s violent or criminal behaviour. With that said, a person is made to be able to make choices between the good and bad.

Durkheim: Individuals may commit crimes to protect a group they belong to sometimes. It is factors like the fall of societal norms or corruption in society which forces an individual to commit the crime.

Lombroso: Yes, but that does not discount the theory where genetics play as a major role in the criminal act. The external factors are considered as a trigger which activates the bad gene.

Beccaria: Look, a child doesn’t just inherit genes and be born as criminals. It is their upbringing by their family which shape their character. There is also the factor in society that shape the child’s mind and attitude.

Lombroso: I still stand by my genetics theory and as I said, external factors are just trigger for the manifestation of the violent or criminal acts.

Beccaria: I’m sure you do. Then again the only way to suppress or minimise criminal activities is to impose appropriate punishments. This method act as a prevention for crime as it plays on the human instinct to avoid pain, suffering, humiliation or discomfort.

Durkheim: It really doesn’t work if there is a weakness in the criminal justice system such as what happened at Macquarie Fields.

Lombroso: What weakness are you referring to?

Durkheim: The individualism of the authorities. I’m sure the power of discretion played a large role in the law enforcement which resulted in actions taken being one that reflect on individuals from the authority that might not be compliant to the laws and regulation of the state. This causes strain in the society which believes in the law that protects them.

Beccaria: The criminal justice system is created to maintain social control, deter and control crime. It also administers punishment to those who violate the law. Individualism has no place in the criminal justice system as it is created by the government for the people.

Durkheim: But I am sure that the criminal justice system is operated by individuals.

Beccaria: Do not forget then that the individuals are controlled by the law and legislations put in place for proper procedures and enforcement methods.

Durkheim: How then does the criminal justice system deter violence and criminal activities?

Beccaria: The government put up more laws and legislations and stringent punishment but reasonable as a measure to deter criminal activities. No person is willing to sacrifice their freedom in place of others (Beccaria, Original 1767, Reprint 1994).

Lombroso: Punishment doesn’t necessary stop crime activities. Criminals need to be identified and be stopped before they strike.

Durkheim: Prevention?

Lombroso: Yes. They can be identified. Their actions can be predicted and prevention can be in place to stop crime and violence. Criminals can be identified by their appearances such as facial features, tattoo, love sex or orgies and etcetera. By knowing that, we can stop criminals from roaming in the society.

Beccaria: I would hardly think that as an effective way of prevention of crime as we might be seeing over crowded prisons around the world with that hypothesis. Moreover, nobody can be labelled a criminal until they are proven guilty of a crime committed.

Durkheim: What do you both think about this Professor Homel critic? He is saying that rigid law and order would not make a difference in this instant.

Beccaria: Law and order is everything. An established Criminal Justice System is the key to safety and comfort in a society. I think what Professor Homel citing was just about how the community in Macquarie Fields have to establish trust with the police. They have to accept that the law and government are interested in their welfare, safety and comfort.

Durkheim: If you noticed, most of these people in Macquarie Fields were brought up at disadvantage. Most of them were raised in a home with only one parent. Their violent behaviour could be assumed to be an accepted norm in their environment for survival.

Lombroso: There is definitely the pretence of criminal gene for an individual to conform to the negative environment that easily.

Durkheim: That could be true but it is easier to understand how the society the dwell in influence and mould their characteristics.

Lombroso: In the twin study, they took a pair of twins and separate them. One of a twin who is from a criminal background was placed in a good home but grew up committing crime which proves that social influence almost has nothing to do with creating a criminal.

Durkheim: But the twin study is not an accurate reflection of the population of the world. It is just a hypothesis made with a specific sample of studies performed in a specific area. A child brought up in a run down society where being part of a clan or group is vital for survival would inherit all the negative influence in this case of Macquarie Fields. The child would accept that it is a norm to be violent in expressing fear and anger towards the authorities.

Beccaria: I guess that the majority rules in a society settings but there is also a cost for such norm accepted thus the society which is the country in a bigger picture despises such violent activities which laws against it to ensure comfort and safety. The law which is backed by the country would try to put a stop to their violence.

Durkheim: But as Professor Homel mentioned that “capital punishment is a very harsh penalty for stupid kids who do stupid things”.

Beccaria: That is true as said. In a sense, I’m sure the government has tried helping these kids. They have financial support with tax payer’s money, community support from community centres, government housing, employment assistance and etcetera. Yet, they have proven their ungratefulness and lack of regards for their society in having the ‘pity party’ on their ‘disadvantages’. With that I’m sure any government or country would be frustrated and impose harsher lessons on them especially if they threaten the safety and comfort of a society.

Lombroso: Putting the criminals and violent people away is definitely a positive step in ensuring public safety.

Beccaria: It is not just putting them away. It is making sure that they understand the social contract of their society and the consequences of breaking the contract.

Durkheim: This is done through punishments?

Beccaria: Yes. The Criminal Justice System caters for reformation of an offender. This includes the application of laws and regulations that imposes punishment which serves as a reinforcement of the social contract of a country in which the offenders live in.