SozTheo

Sozialwissenschaftliche Theorien

Sie befinden sich hier: Home / Archiv für micro

micro

Age Graded Theory/ Turning Points (Sampson and Laub)

[also known as: Age-Graded Life-Course Theory of Crime, Age-Graded Development Theory, Theorie der Turning Points]

Robert J. Sampson’s and John H. Laub’s Age Graded Theory or Theory of Turning Points describe the change in the crime load of individuals as a function of biographical events. For this purpose, they use the so-called ‘Turning Points’, which can either strengthen, weaken or interrupt criminal behaviour.

Main Proponents

Robert J. Sampson und John H. Laub

Theory

With the Age Graded Theory or Theory of Turning Points, Sampson and Laub presented in 1993 one of the most outstanding developmental and life course theories (Schneider, 2007, p. 7). The theory states that criminality in a person’s life course does not necessarily have to be constant, but that biographical turning points can be associated with a discontinuity as well as the (re)initiation of criminal behavior. Turning points are to be understood as “abrupt – radical turnarounds or changes in life history that seperate the past from the future” (Sampson & Laub, 1996, p. 351), such as marriage, parenthood, taking up permanent employment, entering military service, etc.

For their theory, the authors used data from a previous study by the married couple Sheldon and Eleonore Glueck (see: Glueck & Glueck). They compared the personal histories of five hundred juvenile male delinquents who were in a reform school with the personal histories of five hundred nondeviant juveniles in a control group as early as the 1940s to 1950s. In their longitudinal study, the couple investigated the delinquency of adolescents and young men at the ages of 14, 25, and 32.

Sampson and Laub continued the longitudinal study by re-evaluating the already collected and evaluated data using new statistical methods, collecting data from criminal files on 475 delinquents and visiting still living test persons (who are now about 70 years old) and questioning them about their delinquency after the age of 32. The study design thus offers a unique opportunity to investigate the delinquency in the life course of individuals over an almost complete life span. Based on the interviews conducted and documented behavior in the past, Sampson and Laub can assign the subjects to three different categories:

  • Persisters: Persons who continued their criminal career into adulthood
  • Desisters: People who have ended their criminal career
  • Zigzag criminal career: Persons for whom the criminal career had no continuity and was applied from time to time.

From this they conclude that deviant behavior in the life course is characterized by both continuity and change.
The reason why crime occurs is weak social relationships, which are expressed in a low level of “social capital”. The nature and strength of social bonds varies more or less over the life course, and so social capital varies as well. Particular importance is attributed here to informal ties such as friendships, neighborhoods and marriages.

The main focus of this theory of crime is on the so-called turning points that are connected with the establishment or termination of social ties. Marriage, military service, and/or employment strengthen the level of social bonds and are accompanied by a greater degree of social control. The establishment of meaningful social bonds is accompanied by a change in everyday life routines. New informal obligations and increased social control have a positive effect on the development of non-deviant behavior.

However, a biographical turning point can also mark the beginning of an increase in delinquency: the loss of an employment relationship or the termination of a partnership, etc. reduces the level of informal commitments and social control. An increase in deviant/criminal behavior can be the result.

According to this, it is the same underlying social factors and the strength of the associated bonds that – depending on their characteristics – are responsible both for a delinquent life style and for a termination of a criminal career. Or as Sampson and Laub write themselves: “explanations of desistance from crime and persistent offending are two sides of the same coin” (2005: 171).

 

 

Turning Points (Wendepunkte) markieren ein biographisches Ereignis und dessen Einfluss auf die Kriminalitätsbelastung
A “Turning Point” marks a decisive biographical change that coincides with the discontinuation or (re)beginning of a criminal career.

 

Turning Points lönnen sowohl für eine Abnahme als auch Zunahme der Kriminalitätsbelastung verantwortlich sein
Turning Points can both mark the transition from a deviant lifestyle to a norm-compliant lifestyle and also indicate a turnaround to a deviant lifestyle.

 

Schaubild zur Turning Point/ Age Graded Theory
Sampson & Laub, 1993, p. 244f.; here cited according to: Siegel, 2011, p. 234. Click on the image for a larger view.

 

Criminal policy implications

Sampson and Laub stand with their theory for a rehabilitating criminal law. In contrast to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime or Moffit’s Two-Path-Theory, Sampson and Laub emphasize that delinquency in people’s lives can be characterized by continuity AND change. The transition to delinquency or the end of a delinquent lifestyle cannot be tied to specific points in time or time spans in the life course, but is possible at any time.
Thus, a life free of crime and punishment can be paved for everyone, even for serious offenders, through the right, meaningful social bonds.

Critical appreciation & relevance

Sampson and Laub’s Age-Graded or Turning Points Theory is still the most influential theory in the field of Developmental Criminology. No other study offers a comparable insight into delinquency over the almost complete life span of individuals.

The focus on biographical turning points and their influence on the intensity of social control shows strong parallels to control theories, but also a close relationship to the labelling approach. For example, the authors point out that the future chances of young people are reduced by the experience of imprisonment: “the connection between official childhood misbehavior and adult outcomes may be accounted for in part by the structural disadvantages and diminished life chances accorded institutionalized and stigmatized youth. (Sampson & Laub, 1993, p. 137).

The emphasis on changeable delinquent careers (Zigzag criminals) and persons who end their criminal careers at an advanced age (Desisters) contradicts other developmental theories that paint a more deterministic picture of career criminals (see, for example, Moffit’s Two-Path Theory).

Criticism of the age-graded theory is based on the lack of an explanation of why some people change their behavior as a result of the turning points, while for others biographical incisions have no influence on the development of delinquency. Furthermore, it remains unclear which factors and qualities characterize stable social bonds. Finally, the study is based on a sample of purely male subjects. Therefore, no statements can be made here about female delinquency or the influence of biographical turning points. Therefore, the theory cannot claim to be universally valid.

Factors such as a steady job or a partnership are generally regarded as important supporting factors that are taken into account, for example, when assessing the probability of recidivism of offenders. For example, an employment that implies a daily routine as well as social control plays a major role after release from prison. Furthermore, before release, increased emphasis is placed on continuous contact with family and partners, as these ideally serve as supporting factors.

Literature

Primary Literature

  • Sampson, R. J. & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making : pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.] : Harvard Univ. Press.
  • Sampson, R. J. & Laub, J. H. (1996). Socioeconomic Achievement in the Life Course of Disadvantaged Men: Military Service as a Turning Point, Circa 1940-1965. American Sociological Review, 61(3), pp. 347-367.
  • Laub, J. H. & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives : delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.] : Harvard Univ. Press.
  • Sampson, R. J. & Laub, J. H. (2005). A general age-graded theory of crime: lessons learned and the future of life-course criminology. In: Farrington, D. P. (Hrsg.) Integrated developmental and life course theories of offending. New Brunswick: Transaction, pp. 165–181.

Secondary Literature

  • Schneider, H. J. (2007). Internationales Handbuch der Kriminologie. [Band 1: Grundlagen der Kriminologie]. Berlin: De Gruyter Recht.
  • Siegel, L. J. (2011). Criminology: The Core (4. Aufl.). Belmont: Wadsworth.

Further Information

Video

Interview with John Laub and Robert Sampson — The Stockholm Prize in Criminology

John Laub, Director, Director, National Institute of Justice
Robert Sampson, Henry Ford II Professor of the Social Sciences, Harvard University
NIJ Conference 2011
June 20-22

 

Robert J. Sampson and John H. Laub received the 2011 Stockholm Price in Criminology for their work on Age Graded Theory. In the statement of the jury it says:

Jury Motivation
The authors of the longest life-course study of criminal behavior ever conducted, Laub and Sampson discovered that even very active criminals can stop committing crimes for good after key “turning points” in their lives. In their sample of 500 male offenders born in the 1920s, these turning points included marriage, military service, employment, and other ways of cutting off their social ties to their offending peer group.
These findings have had broad influence in criminology world-wide. They have also influenced the policy debate about criminal justice and sentencing policy, especially concerning the potential for rehabilitation. Their work has influenced other scholars to search for means by which offenders can be assisted to break their links to other offenders, such as by moving to new communities.

Source: http://www.criminologyprize.com

Reintegrative Shaming (Braithwaite)

Shaming describes any form of reaction to deviant behaviour that causes shame in the deviant. Braithwaite assumes two different forms of shaming. Disintegrative shaming has a stigmatizing effect and excludes a person from the community. It thus provides for the emergence of secondary deviance and is thus related to the labelling approaches on a theoretical level. Reintegrative shaming, on the other hand, involves not only disapproval of deviance but also signs of forgiveness and a willingness to reintegrate the offender into the community.

Main Proponent

John Braithwaite

Theory

Based on the labeling approach, control theories and theories of social disorganization, Braithwaite distinguishing between two forms of shaming to explain the different ways in which penalties work. Braithwaite understands shaming as “all social processes of expressing disapproval which have the intention or effect of invoking remorse in the person being shamed and/or condemnation by others who become aware of the shaming” (Braithwaite, 1989: 100).

According to Braithwaite there are two forms of shaming:

The crucial distinction is between shaming that is reintegrative and shaming that is disintegrative (stigmatization). Reintegrative shaming means that expressions of community disapproval, which may range from mild rebuke to degradation ceremonies, are followed by gestures of reacceptance into the community of law-abiding citizens. These gestures of reacceptance will vary from a simple smile expressing forgiveness and love to quite formal cere-monies to decertify the offender as deviant. Disintegrative shaming (stigmatization), in contrast, divides the community by creating a class of outcasts.
(Braithwaite, 1989: 55)

Disintegrative Shaming

Disintegratives Shaming: the British priest Titus Oates at the pillory

In disintegrative shaming, the focus is not only on the actual act committed, but on the person as a whole. The shamed person is degraded in his/her entire person. The stigmatisation that goes along with this has an effect on the social interactions of the ashamed person. For example, access to the labour market is denied and other measures are taken that contribute to social marginalisation. As a consequence, the ashamed person is now denied the opportunity to participate in mainstream culture. This ultimately leads to the formation of subcultural structures in which those so excluded join together.

Integrative Shaming

The negative consequences of punishment, however, are not inevitable. In reintegrative shaming, the act of shame is combined with an offer of reintegration into the community. Braithwaite assumes that this reintegrating shame is particularly promising when people from the perpetrator’s social environment are involved.

It would seem that sanctions imposed by relatives, friends or a personally relevant collectivity have more effect on criminal behavior than sanctions imposed by a remote legal authority.

(Braithwaite, 1989: 69)

How and why does shaming work?

Braithwaite (1989: 81 ff.) lists the following points that explain the effectiveness of shaming:

  1. Deterrence works more for fear of shame than for fear of punishment.
  2. Shame also functions as an instrument of negative general prevention, since other members of society who experience the shame of a perpetrator would be deterred by this experience from committing crimes themselves.
  3. Both the special and general preventive effect of shame has the strongest effect on socially integrated members of society.
  4. A stigmatising form of punishment, on the other hand, weakens social control and strengthens the cohesion of stigmatised offenders.
  5. Shame is a social process that illustrates the harmfulness of certain actions. The effect of shame is more effective than that of deterrent punishment.
  6. Reintegrative shaming has a greater positive effect than stigmatizing shaming. The repentance of the perpetrator and the forgiveness of the community would strengthen criminal law through the symbolic power of community-wide consciousness building.
  7. Shame is a participatory form of social control in which citizens – in contrast to formal sanctioning – are participating in the events and become both instruments and goals of social control.
  8. The cultural process of the formation of shame and repentance leads to pangs of conscience. This guilty conscience is the most effective punishment for committing crimes.
  9. Feelings of shame have a double function: they are both the social process that strengthens the conscience and the most important support that must be used if the conscience does not contribute to conformity. The fear of formal sanctioning is also an inhibition threshold, but not so effective.
  10. Gossip about perpetrators and their crimes has an important function. Gossip promotes the development of a conscience and morality even outside the social circles in which the perpetrators operate.
  11. Another important function is public shaming, which replaces private shaming when children and adolescents escape the sphere of influence of family and school. It would therefore be up to the courts to provide for public humiliation of the perpetrators of crimes committed primarily by adults (e.g. environmental crimes).
  12. Public shaming generalises familiar principles into unknown or new contexts and integrates new categories of misconduct into existing moral concepts. Public shaming could, for example, “transform” the loss of a human life into a war crime or massacre.
  13. Cultures with a strong emphasis on reintegrative shaming create a smoother transition between socialisation practices in the family and socialisation in wider society. Within the family, social control shifts from external to internal control as the child grows older. In punishment-oriented cultures, this process is reversed. However, internal control is the more effective form of crime control – which is why families are the more effective control agents than police forces.
  14. Shaming that is excessively confrontational complicates the social reintegration of the ashamed. Even without becoming targets of direct humiliation, members of society may be aware when they become the subject of gossip. Here, special gestures of acceptance are needed to promote reintegration.
  15. The effectiveness of feelings of shame is often increased by the fact that shame is directed not only against the individual perpetrator but also against his family or – in cases of white-collar crime – against the company. Within these collective relationships, the individual is exposed both to humiliation by society and to strengthening informal control by the family/company. A negative and defiant attitude of the individual towards his critics and thus a stronger identification with the deviant role would also aggravate the consequences of the shame for the family or the company, which is why this would encourage the individual in the acceptance of the shame.

In a complex diagram Braithwaite summarizes the effects of reintegrative shaming as well as stigmatization (click to enlarge). This illustrates the hybrid character of the theory that makes use of other crime theories. In the upper left corner there is a reference to control theories. To the right, the reference to theories of social disorganization is illustrated. In the lower right half of the picture, Braithwaite sketches the consequences of criminalization from the perspective of labelling approaches (also with reference to anomie and subculture theories). In contrast, in the lower left half of the diagram, Braithwaite presents the consequences (or consequences without consequences) of a re-integrating embarrassment.

Schaubild: Zusammenfassung der Theorie des reintegrative shaming (eigene Darstellung nach: Braithwaite, 1989: 99)
Figure: Summary of the theory of reintegrative shaming (based on: Braithwaite, 1989: 99)

Implications for Criminal Policy

Braithwaite’s theory can be understood as an answer to just deserts philosophy, i.e. a criminal policy that is primarily oriented towards the retaliatory character of punishment and negative general prevention. At the beginning of the 1970s, a change in criminal policy in the USA (but also in other countries) had to be taken into account. A rehabilitative ideal in which the reintegration of the offender into society has top priority is increasingly receding into the background. It is replaced by the just desert paradigm (“Everyone gets what he deserves”), which can be understood as a kind of retaliation. According to this doctrine, punishment should be adapted and standardized to the seriousness of the crime, measured by the damage inflicted and the seriousness of the offender’s guilt. So-called “sentencing commissions” have developed guidelines for criminal judges for many US states, whose discretion in the sentencing of criminals has been severely restricted (cf. Sebba, 2014).

Braithwaite’s Restorative Justice approach is to be understood as a clear criticism of this development and as his draft of a Restorative Justice approach.

Literature

  • Braithwaite, John (1989). Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge u.a.: Cambridge University Press. [Volltext]
  • Sebba, Leslie (2014). Penal Paradigms: Past and Present. In: G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Hrsg.) Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. New York: Springer Reference, S.  3481-3490.

Further Information

  • Christie, Nils (1977). Conflicts as Property. British Journal of Criminology 17 (1), 1-15.

Video/ Podcast

A summary of the various theories on which Restorative Justice is based can be found here: http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No63/No63_10VE_Braithwaite2.pdf

Techniques of neutralization (Sykes und Matza)

Techniques of neutralization explain how offenders rationalized or justified their behaviour.

Main proponent

Gresham M. Sykes und David Matza

Theory

A special case within the learning approaches is Sykes’ and Matza’s thesis of techniques of neutralization. The focus here is on the learned justifications of the criminal for his already committed offence. Deviators therefore look for loopholes and explanations to justify or neutralize their own deviant action. Sykes and Matza distinguish between five types:

  1. Denial of responsibility: The perpetrator perceives himself as a victim of unfavourable social conditions or circumstances. Not he himself, but others are responsible for his actions.
  2. Denial of injury: The offender trivializes or plays down his actions; does not recognize it as immoral.
  3. Denial of the victim: The offender believes that the victim deserved the crime committed against him (e.g. because of ethnic background or sexual orientation).
  4. Condemnation of the condemners: The perpetrator accuses the police and other state controls of being corrupt, flawed, selfish and unjust.
  5. Appeal to higher loyalties: The offender claims to have acted in the interest of others or on the basis of orders or peer pressure, but not according to his own will.

The techniques of neutralization therefore do not represent an actual theory of crime, but rather describe the rationalizing behaviour of the offender after the crime has been committed.

Contrary to subcultural theories, the Sykes and Matza assume an internalization of common social norms. These are merely changed, weakened or distorted in the course of the techniques of neutralisation that follow the deed.

The cause of deviant behaviour is therefore not a gradual deviation in the acceptance of norms (as subcultural theories argue), but the high flexibility of the system of norms, which paradoxically allows the prevailing norms to be internalised but at the same time to be violated.

Implications for Criminal Policy

The neutralization thesis does not include any concrete political demands by the authors. However, each of the five techniques implies different criminal policy thought-provoking impulses.

Thus, the denial of responsibility can be understood as a call for better social policy, since the perpetrator, in an environment no longer perceived negatively and unfairly, can only hold himself responsible for his own misconduct.

The denial of injury implies too weak or, at least in certain areas, insufficient internalisation of norms, which can lead to a demand for more moral and value education by parents or school institutions. In certain cases, there is also a need for adequate clarification of the applicable law in cases of unawareness or too vague a conception of the law.

The denial of the victim, however, reveals a connection to meanwhile established concepts such as victim-offender mediation or restorative justice. In these concepts, the victim’s suffering is obviously brought closer to the perpetrator, thus making it more difficult to reject the victim and to embellish the crime.

A condemnation of the condemners is to be fought by open and comprehensible procedural justice. In addition, the demand for a paradigm shift, which was later substantiated by the labelling approach, is already recognizable here: Not only the perpetrator, but also the judging instances should be the subject of scientific research, since they too can be criminal or at least flawed.

Finally, the appeal to higher instances conceals a general criticism of hierarchical structures in which ordered behaviour is carried out uncritically and thus criminal behaviour can also occur without the perpetrator’s own motive. Particularly within the military and in states of war, individuals are often forced to choose between orders that may deviate from peace-oriented norms and refusals of orders, which can, however, have legal consequences.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

The neutralization thesis has a unique status in criminology, often difficult among crime theories. On the surface, it only describes the behaviour of the perpetrator following a criminal act. Thus it seems doubtful whether it really addresses the causes of crime. An explanation of criminal behaviour is certainly less to be found in the neutralisation techniques themselves than in the implicit assumption of a flexible interpretation of norms. If one assumes that one or more of the justifications were formed before the crime and thus functioned as a kind of motive, the neutralization thesis could be presented as an etiological theory of crime in which cognitive overcoming of inner inhibitions and internalized moral concepts are causes of crime.

Empirically, it was never possible to determine exactly when the rationalizations came into being. Thus it cannot be ruled out that the techniques of neutralization will only be developed after the crime has been committed. However, a certain etiological explanation of deviating behaviour is retained to the extent that the successful rejection of one’s own guilt can reinforce future criminal action.

Sykes and Matza, however, have little concrete explanation as to when and how exactly which neutralization technique is applied and how strong or how weak the internalization of the existing norms must be, so that the perpetrator still accepts them per se, but is at the same time in a position to violate them.

In some cases, such as political extremists, it is also extremely questionable whether any society-wide norms have been internalised. If this is not the case, deviating behaviour does not have to be neutralised.

Despite all these objections, the neutralization thesis is regularly received. The five techniques mentioned appear as an almost placeless and timeless concept, the justifications can still be applied to a whole range of crimes (war crimes, white-collar crime, lower class crime, sexual violence, murder, etc.). In addition, various studies show that changing or eliminating such justification techniques actually leads to a reduction in crime. It can thus be said that the Sykes and Matzas thesis is almost uniquely topical and important.

Literature

  • Gresham M. Sykes and David Matza: (1958): Techniques of Neutralization: A theory of Delinquency. In: American Sociological Review, 22, S.664-670.

 

Weiterführende Informationen

Social learning theory (Akers)

The theory of social learning states that criminal behaviour is learned when the positive consequences of deviant behaviour are more powerful than the positive consequences of normative behaviour (operant conditioning).

Main proponent

Ronald L. Akers und Robert L. Burgess

Theory

Referring to Sutherland’s theory of differential associations, Aker’s theory of social learning poses the question of how criminal behaviour is learned.

The answer to this question is, on the one hand, the consideration of the Bandura principle of social learning, but above all the assumption that criminal behaviour is learned through the principle of operant conditioning.

Accordingly, the learning of criminal behaviour is dependent on whether it is differentially amplified – i.e. whether a deviant behaviour is positively stimulated or negatively stimulated – or whether it is punished or conformal behaviour is amplified more than criminal behaviour.

The decisive factors are therefore above all what reinforcing consequences are available for deviant behaviour, how effective they are, how intensively and frequently they occur, and how likely it is that they actually follow the behaviour shown.

Aker’s theory was therefore referred to in its first publication (together with Burgess) as the theory of differential amplification. The name change, however, makes it clear that Aker later considered the principle of model learning in addition to the concept of operant conditioning. Accordingly, the observation of the actions of others and their consequences can also lead to a strengthening of one’s own behaviour: The reward of an observing person for their behaviour has a strengthening effect in that the observed behaviour is now carried out by the person.

Thus, a direct social interaction process (in contrast to Sutherland’s theory) is not absolutely necessary here, since non-social situations (e.g. via the media) can also have an amplifying effect. However, Akers agrees with Sutherland in so far as criminal behaviour shown for the first time (whether it is subsequently intensified or not) mostly arises through contact with a criminal environment.

In summary, it can be said that Aker’s theory of social learning takes Sutherland’s basic idea as its starting point, expands it to include the idea of social learning, and finally explains the process of learning criminal behaviour through the principle of operant conditioning.

In this way, despite some similarities, it differs fundamentally from Sutherland’s theory of differential association: contact with criminal persons is not the cause of crime, but the reinforcement/reward of deviant behaviour.

Implications for Criminal Policy

Aker’s theory of social learning initially implies the same criminal policy implications as the theory of differential associations, but there are two crucial aspects that behavioural therapy attempts to address through concepts such as the token economy:

First, criminal actions must have such negative consequences that they outweigh the positive consequences. Conversely, conforming actions must be rewarded in such a way that their negative consequences recede into the background. Criminal policy must therefore prevent both the reinforcement of criminal behaviour and the punishment of compliant behaviour as well as support the punishment of criminal behaviour and the rewarding of compliant behaviour. A political kinship with rational choice theory cannot be overlooked here.

Secondly, the influence of the mass media on individual behaviour must be taken into account. Theories such as Akers’ thus lay the theoretical foundations for the ongoing discussions about the effects of violent ego-shooter games or violent movies.

What remains decisive, however, is the fact that according to Burgess and Akers, the mere observation of a behaviour does not lead to its imitation (as argued by Gabriel Tarde). Rather, the behaviour and its positive consequences must be observed.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

Akers succeeds in theoretically integrating the processes and mechanisms of social learning that were missing in Sutherland’s concept of differential association theory, but even he cannot resolve the fundamental objections to the approach of learning theory (partially tautologous, individually different ability to learn, non-consideration of affect crimes).

Thus, the theoretical advancement through the consideration of the principles of social learning and operant conditioning is to be appreciated. However, Akers also fails in his attempt to present a pure learning theory as a general theory of crime.

Literature

Primary Literature

  • Akers, Ronald L.; Burgess, Robert L. (1966). A Differential Association-Reinforcement Theory of Criminal Behavior. In: Social Problems, 14(2), 128-147.
  • Akers, Ronald L. (1977). Deviant behavior: a social learning approach. Belmont, CA.
  • Akers, Ronald L. (1998) Social Learning and Social Structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Boston, MA: Northeastern Uniniversity Press.

Further information

  • Akers, Ronald L.; Sellers, Christine (2004): Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and Application. 4th. ed. Los Angeles: Roxbury Pub.
  • Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.
  • Bandura, Albert (1963). Social learning and personal development. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  • Bandura, Albert (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
  • Beirne, Piers (1987). Between classicism and positivism: crime and penalty in the writing of Gabriel Tarde. In: Criminology, 25(4), 785-819.

Video

Differential association theory (Sutherland)

In his differential association theory Edwin Sutherland proposes that criminal behaviour is learned. A person will be delinquent if there are prior attitudes that favour violations of the law, as opposed to attitudes that negatively evaluate violations of the law.

Main proponent

Edwin H. Sutherland

Theory

Edwin Sutherland’s theory of differential association assumes that criminal behavior is learned through contact with individuals who are themselves criminal.

It is therefore also called the “theory of differential contacts”. The term “association”, however, refines this idea by the realization that it is not sufficient to merely contact criminal persons, but that during these contacts the criminal definitions and attitudes must also be successfully conveyed.

The basic thesis here is that criminal behaviour is learned when more attitudes are learned that favour violations of the law than those that negatively evaluate violations of the law. Conversely, learning criminal attitudes, motives and definitions becomes all the more likely the more contact there is with people and groups who violate the law and the less contact there is with people and groups who live according to the rules.

In simple terms, one could say that contact with criminals leads to one’s own criminal behaviour by learning the corresponding behaviour in a model manner. This becomes even more likey when there is fewer contact to non-criminals.

 

Schaubild: Theorie der differentiellen Kontakte nach Sutherland

Sutherland’s theory of differential contacts (see diagram) is based on nine theses which summarize the theory of differential association:

  1. Criminal behaviour has been learned.
  2. Criminal behaviour is learned in interaction with other persons in a communication process.
  3. The learning processes take place primarily in small and intimate groups (and thus less through (mass) media, for example).
  4. The learning of criminal behaviour includes the learning of techniques to commit a crime as well as specific motives, rationalisations and attitudes that favour criminal behaviour.
  5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned by defining laws positively or negatively.
  6. A person becomes delinquent as a result of the predominance of attitudes that favour the violation over those that take a negative view of the violation.
  7. Differential contacts vary according to frequency, duration, priority and intensity.
  8. The process of learning criminal behaviour includes all the mechanisms involved in any other learning process.
  9. Although criminal behaviour is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by them. Non-criminal behaviour can also infer from exactly the same values and needs (e.g. sexual urges).

Implication for criminal policy

Sutherland’s theory of differential association stands for a rehabilitative ideal. Since criminal attitudes and activities can be learnt, these can be logically deduced and re-learned, or compliant behaviour, attitudes and rationalisation can be achieved in the first place.

In the sense of the ultimately decisive imbalance in theory between associated attitudes that favour violations of the law and attitudes that evaluate violations of the law negatively, it must therefore be the goal of justice and society to surround criminals with non-criminals or to dissolve social spaces in which predominantly people with deviant motives and patterns of action live.

Furthermore, criminal law must build on the ideal of rehabilitating offenders.

Critical appreciation & relevance

In the past, Sutherland was often accused of theoretical gaps in his concept, for which other theories or theoretical extensions were developed.

Thus Sutherland himself drew attention to the different needs and preferences of learning individuals, who significantly contribute to deciding whether deviant actions and attitudes are accepted or not.

Glaser pointed out, however, that it is not the number of people with deviant attitudes that is decisive for learning crime, but rather the degree of identification with one or a few people.

Cloward & Ohlin pointed out that access to illegitimate means or exclusion from legitimate means is a decisive factor.

Akers (and also Eysenck) extended Sutherland’s theory to include a detailed analysis of the learning processes taking place (conditioning, social learning/ observing a model, etc.).
Despite this, Sutherland’s crime-related learning theory has to struggle with the accusation of partial tautology, since the existence of delinquency must already exist for it to be passed on at all.

Furthermore, the theory of differential associations does not take into account instinctive and affect crimes, nor does it take into account the fact that the cognitive abilities of different individuals can also be varying.

Sutherland’s thesis also assumes a purely behaviorist view: The human being reacts automatically and reflexively to stimuli in the environment. Cognitive or unbiased aspects are not sufficiently considered here, yet Sutherland’s theory can be regarded as a far-reaching anti-biologistic theory. According to Sutherland, the consideration of social processes in the search for the causes of crime has only really taken its course and has certainly long since become predominant in criminological research alongside social-structural aspects. The idea that crime can be learned has turned the previously very perpetrator-oriented perspective into a sociological and socio-psychological one.

Literature

  • Edwin H. Sutherland (1924): Principles of Criminology. Auflage von 1966, mit Donald R. Cressey, Philadelphia.

Seductions of Crime (Katz)

The central thesis of Seductions of Crime is that situation-specific emotional and sensual sensations play a major role in the committing of crimes. It is not a complete theoretical building, but rather the sensual experiences and emotional states of the perpetrator that are brought to bear in various forms of crime – from occasional shoplifting to cold-blooded robbery.

Main proponent

Jack Katz

Theory

Instead of attributing crime to background factors such as low socio-economic status, the US sociologist Jack Katz draws attention to the positive stimuli of crime or the “experience” of crime from the perpetrator’s point of view, i.e. to the emotions and sensory impressions that lead to or arise during the crime.

Conventional categorizations of crimes follow the requirements of prosecution rather than asking how the offender experiences the crime. In “Seductions of Crime” (1988), Katz (re-)orders “criminal projects” on the basis of the emotional states that are decisive in each case:

Righteous Slaughter

The term righteous slaughter describes the motivation behind impulsive homicides, which (seemingly paradoxically) are committed because, from the perpetrator’s point of view, the later victim violates fundamental, unassailable values. The perpetrator feels challenged and humiliated by the victim and has the feeling that the most elementary social imperatives – such as respect for other people’s property or the duty to marital faithfulness – are at stake. “Banal” everyday conflicts such as a driveway blocked by a stranger or an argument between spouses can trigger a strong sense of humiliation in the perpetrator that turns into anger. The victim is attacked in the name of the values he violates and to defend “the good” (in defense of the eternal good), even sanctioned, physically marked or “sacrificed” (sacrificial violence), whereby the killing itself does not have to be a direct goal. The offence arises spontaneously from the situation, the perpetrator acts emotionally determined, is not to be deterred by severe punishments and usually makes no serious attempt to flee.

Sneaky Thrills

The sneaky thrills include property offences such as occasional shoplifting, vandalism or joyriding, which are typically committed by juveniles (theft especially by women).

In contrast to professional theft, in which the stolen goods are resold on the black market, casual theft is a widespread phenomenon among all classes and is not the result of a simple willingness to enrich oneself or material misery. Shoplifting and the associated thrill exert a special fascination, it is committed in a playful spirit. Theft is an emotional roller coaster ride: the challenge of behaving as “normal” and inconspicuous as possible despite all the excitement, the fear of being caught and finally the euphoria of having made it and successfully deceived everyone.

A central emotional moment is the act of being “seduced”: The product develops a life of its own, it exerts a special charm and stands out from the mass of goods in an inexplicable way, lures you (“take me”), and there is a complicity between the thief and the goods. The opportunity seems to offer itself in a magical way: “It would be so easy!

This playful or sexual metaphor is also supported by the fact that occasional theft does not lead to the assumption of a criminal identity. If the seriousness of the situation is made clear by uncovering it, the caught usually stop the criminal behaviour.

Ways of the Badass

Street Elites

Doing Stickup (Raub als erlerntes Verhalten)

Cold-blooded senseless murder

 

 

Implication for Criminal Policy

 

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

Jack Katz criticises that in criminology the explanatory potential of psychological, social and economic background factors is overestimated. Many people who fall into the conventional risk categories never become criminals. Others, to whom the relevant circumstances do not apply, still do. Even with predisposed individuals, it is unclear what exactly is decisive for them to conform most of the time before a criminal act occurs a moment later. The background variables are therefore insufficient to explain the actual motivation to commit an offence.

Jack Katz also explicitly distinguishes himself from Robert K. Merton’s anomie theory, which can at best explain professional property crimes committed by adults. And even in this area, according to Katz, the attainment of material wealth is not the only motive for the perpetrators to act. Jack Katz’s approach can also be seen as a counterpoint to the Rational Choice paradigm, which sees the individual as an actor acting rationally in economic terms, orienting his actions towards pragmatic cost-benefit calculations. Nonetheless, it can be argued that “senseless” acts such as vandalism do seem to have a positive impact in the eye of the perpetrator (e.g. gaining respect within the peer group).

Literature

Primary literature

  • Jack Katz (1988). Seductions of crime: moral and sensual attractions in doing evil. New York: Basic Books.

Sekundary literature