Answer to Question #305549 in Psychology for Nqoqo

Question

In your own words, explain property crime in relation to Sykes and Matza’s neutralisation theory, and provide your own practical examples.

Answer 1

Neutralization, according to the law in Sykes and Matza terms, is the deviant using legal concepts in different ways; this freedom from the law allows the delinquent to choose to commit crime. Neutralization and Drift Theory proposes that juveniles sense an obligation to the law. This obligation to the law remains in place most of the time. However, when this obligation is strained, juvenile delinquents tend to drift into crime. This strain is best explained by Sykes and Matza’s example of justified theft. When an employee sees their wages cut they are able to rationalize stealing from their employer because they are earning less money than before, essentially, the employee feels they “deserve” it. According to Sykes and Matza, most delinquents have the same values, beliefs and attitudes as those of law-abiding citizens. Some juveniles, however, learn techniques that allow them to “neutralize” such values and attitudes temporarily. Such a theory proposes that delinquents disregard the controlling influences of rules and use these techniques of neutralization to weaken the hold of society.

For example,  to reduce the probability of verbalizations allowing embezzlement, employers should adopt educational programs that allow employees to discuss emerging financial problems from losses and that phrases used to excuse and justify such behavior should be repeatedly corrected to reveal their harm and crime.