AUG 27 — Ever heard of neutralisation theory?

The theory explores how individuals who commit crimes justify their actions to mitigate feelings of guilt and evade responsibility. It was developed by criminologists David Matza and Gresham Sykes in the 1950s and 1960s based on the works of previous sociologists.

Five specific techniques of neutralisation were identified: (1) denial of responsibility, (2) denial of injury, (3) denial of the victim, (5) condemnation of the condemners, and (5) appeal to higher loyalties.

Each technique allows offenders to justify their behaviour, often by shifting blame or minimising the perceived harm of their actions.

Take the example of an offender who would say that he had no choice but to commit a crime due to external circumstances. Another example is of an offender who would say that his actions were not harmful.

We can quickly identify the justifications in the examples above. We call them excuses. Matza and Sykes called them neutralisation.

By neutralising the motives, nature, or severity of a crime, an offender seeks to avoid feelings of guilt or responsibility for his actions.

Matza and Sykes specialised in juvenile delinquency, the study of young people who commit crimes and other socially unacceptable acts. 

They noted that the offenders invested great energy in justifying their actions to escape feelings of guilt. This energy took the form of many mental activities that Matza and Sykes termed the techniques of neutralization.

In denial of responsibility, by claiming that he was forced to commit the crime in question, the offender denies responsibility for the crime or its effects.

In denial of injury, the offender insists that his actions were not harmful and thus not a true misdeed. This form of justification often arises in cases in which the victim is not immediately clear, such as online piracy. 

A person may illegally download movies or music, for instance, and not have a feeling of guilt because any harmful effects of the action are not immediately evident.

In denial of the victim, the offender might say, for example, that his malicious pranks or offensive were meant as a joke, even if harm had been caused to people — the victims.

The fourth neutralisation technique — condemnation of the condemners — refers to the reflection of criticism or punishment. An offender might insist that he was falsely or unfairly blamed for spiteful reasons. 

An example of this is a young offender claiming an older authority has no right to judge because the authority likely committed youthful indiscretions in the past.

Understanding the mental and emotional states of young offenders is critical to understanding how they view themselves and their actions.

By understanding the techniques of neutralisation, we can dismantle inaccurate and misleading beliefs to both rehabilitate young offenders and potentially put a stop to harm caused by them such as harm caused by bullying.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.