SozTheo

Sozialwissenschaftliche Theorien

Sie befinden sich hier: Home / Archiv für punitive

punitive

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

Defiance Theory (Sherman)

According to the Defiance Theory, punishment can have three different effects.

  1. Punishment can have a deterrent effect and thus have the desired success.
  2. Punishment can be ineffective, i.e. have no influence on the subsequent committing of crimes.
  3. Punishment can cause a reaction of defiance. Thus punishment intensifies deviant behaviour.

Which of the reactions causes a punishment depends on various factors. Factors that make defiance more likely are perceived injustice, doubts about the legitimacy of the punisher, injured pride and a lack of social commitment to the punisher.

Main Proponent

Lawrence W. Sherman

Theory

Sherman’s Defiance Theory is not a labeling theory in the true sense of the word. What it has in common with the labeling theories, however, is that it tries to explain the paradoxical effect that punishment can have. Unlike labeling theories, Sherman does not focus exclusively on the negative consequences of punishment. He assumes that punishment sometimes acts as a deterrent and sometimes as a reinforcer to the committing of further crimes.
According to Sherman, sanctions can have three different effects:

  1. Sanctions can provoke future defiance of the law. Thus punishment intensifies deviant behaviour. (Defiance)
  2. Sanctions can have a deterrent effect and thus have the desired effect. (Deterrence)
  3. Sanctions can be ineffective, i.e. have no influence on the further committing of criminal offences. (Irrelevance)

The Defiance Theory aims to uncover the patterns according to which the different modes of action occur. For Sherman, this includes correlations found in empirical studies, such as:

  • that a connection can be established between personality type and mode of action of punishment,
  • that punishment works better on working men than it does on the unemployed,
  • or that it works better on older people than on younger people.

Sherman sees his theory as a ‘General Theory of Crime’, but he uses this term differently from Gottfredson and Hirschi. Sherman makes no claim that his theory alone could explain deviance. However, he assumes that it can be applied to any form of deviance.

If defiance occurs in response to punishment, this may lead to further and more severe acts being committed, with future acts directed against the sanctioning group and explained by a proud, shameless reaction to punishment. Defiance is therefore a state of angry pride.

Defiance is caused by the following factors:

  • A sanction is perceived as unfair.
  • The type of punishment is perceived as unfair. This can happen if the punishment is perceived as arbitrary, discriminatory or excessive, or if the offender has no respect for the punisher.
  • The perpetrator is not integrated into or even alienated from the community.
  • If bonds to the community and in particular to the sanctioning authorities are weak, the willingness to recognise the sanctions also decreases. (At this point, Sherman’s theory corresponds with Braithwaites’ Theory of Reintegrative Shaming.)
  • The punishment has a stigmatizing effect.
  • When the perpetrator feels rejected as a person.
  • Shame is not recognized.
  • When weakness is perceived in the punisher or for other reasons the shame normally caused by the sanction is rejected.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

Sherman’s defiance theory is extremely well integrated. This means that it takes into account the findings of other theories and includes elements from various other theories. In particular, it is a continuation of John Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming.

Sherman himself extensively criticized, refined, and expanded his own theory in 1993. He particularly emphasized that defiance can lead to an interaction between police and perpetrators. Police officers, judges and other sanctioning actors themselves react harder when they perceive defiance in their counterparts. If someone appears insightful and respectful, he is more likely to be met with clemency than if someone obviously rejects the punishment. The same processes take place in courts when judging. A judge will impose a harsher punishment if he/ she perceives a defendant as being unreasonable. Someone who perceives that he/ she will receive harsher punishments than other people who have committed the same crime will in turn perceive this punishment as unfair, leading to further defiance. This can create a vicious circle.

Sherman also criticized his original theory for using the term ‘defiance’ with two different meanings. On the one hand, it stands for the emotion of injured pride, from which further crimes are committed. On the other hand, it is also used for the criminal acts themselves. This implies that whenever the emotion defiance occurs, other crimes follow.

Implications for Criminal Policy

Sherman and Braithwaite: Restorative Justice

Sherman and Braitwaite’s recognition that sanctions can both inhibit and reinforce criminal behaviour has clear implications for the design of an ‘ideal’ judicial system.

Sherman and Braithwaite are both advocates of restorative justice. This refers to forms of alternative conflict resolution that respond better to the needs of the individual participants than traditional criminal proceedings. Restorative Justice’ wants to impose more than just a one-sided punishment for a misdemeanour. Instead, a healing process should take place in which the needs of all those involved are heard. In addition, ‘Restorative Justice’ attaches particular importance to respect and communication between all participants, so that stigmatisation or disintegrative shaming can be avoided. This should be replaced by communication between all participants, in which both perpetrators and victims have the chance to explain themselves.

But Braithwaite’s and Sherman’s theories also provide many clues within the classical judicial systems on how to deal more effectively with (potential) perpetrators. It is important to avoid arbitrariness, humiliation and stigmatization, e.g. by the police or the courts.

Literature

Primary Literature

  • Sherman, Lawrence H. (1993) Deviance, Deterrence and Irrelevance: A Theory of Criminal Sanctions. In: Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(4), S. 445-473.

Secondary Literature

Weiterführende Informationen

Deterrence theories

Deterrence theories argue that the punishment of crimes results in both actual and potential perpetrators avoiding crime in the future.

Main Proponents

Cesare Beccaria, Jeremy Bentham, Franz von Liszt, Jack P. Gibbs, Alex Piquero, Raymond Paternoster, Stephan Tibbetts, M.C. Stafford, M. Warr, etc.

Theory

A so-called skull beam is an example of deterrence theory in practice.
A so-called skull beam: In the 15th/16th century the heads of executed pirates were nailed to a beam as a deterrent and exhibited in public.
Quelle: Von Bullenwächter – Eigenes Werk, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=20898787

Deterrence theories are based on the classical and neoclassical assumptions of a free and rationally thinking individual who strives for utilitarian principles of pleasure gain and pain avoidance (or rational principles of choice maximization and cost reduction). If criminal actions accommodate this aspiration (i.e. if crime can increase one’s own desire), it makes sense to choose them. However, if the offence is punishable, it is likely that the expected costs will outweigh the expected benefits. It is also decisive with what probability and with what delay the sanction is actually enforced on the criminal act.

The deterrence hypothesis states that people can be deterred from criminal acts if threatened punishments follow the delinquent act with certainty and without delay and are so severe or so harsh that the expected pain (cost) from the punishment is greater than the expected pleasure (benefit) from the criminal act. A distinction must be made between macro-general deterrence (corresponds to negative general prevention in German criminal law) and micro-specific deterrence (corresponds to negative special prevention in German criminal law):

  • The former causes the general public, i.e. potential perpetrators, to refrain from criminal acts. Making the sanction visible to the public is therefore extremely important so that the general public also knows what consequences would follow a criminal act and therefore refrains from delinquent behaviour.
  • Micro-Specific deterrence, however, refers to the effect of the sanction on the punished person, who is now deterred from further criminal acts out of fear of further punishment. The German scholar von Liszt envisages this form of punishment for the so-called casual criminal, who must be given a lesson to show him the boundary between conformity and crime for the future.

Implications for Criminal Policy

Obviously, in the opinion of deterrence theorists, there is a demand to always react to crime and possibly without time delay, so that it becomes irrational to act criminally.
It should be noted, however, that it is not the actual punishments that act as a deterrent, but the perceived deterrence, which is influenced by the sanctions actually imposed and their media coverage.
In addition, deterrence theories do not only refer to criminal sanctions, but are also reflected in other policy preventive concepts such as video surveillance and personal checks. The focus here is less on anticipating a harsh punishment than on the increased risk of discovery, which is part of situational crime prevention.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

The deterrent effect of sanctions has been discussed in criminal policy for many years. In the USA, where deterrence theories are widely supported, the death penalty is a comparatively extreme form of deterrence. It is questionable whether the implementation of criminal executions is actually based on the idea of deterrence, or whether concepts such as ‘just deserts’, ‘retribution’ or ‘incapacitation’ provide the actual justification.
Even the assumption that the imposition of death sentences has a deterrent effect has been widely studied and empirically disproved in recent years. However, there are also studies that prove the deterrent effect of the death penalty.
On the whole, however, it seems extremely doubtful whether the deterrence theories can be upheld. In the case of video surveillance, there is also an increasing number of voices denying the deterrent effect of cameras and speaking of a spatial shift in crime combined with a reduction in subjective fear of crime. In any case, a rational decision for or against committing a crime requires a rational actor. It therefore seems unlikely that an emotionally aroused – possibly alcoholized – perpetrator would consider the long-term consequences of his action at the time of the crime.

Literature

Primary Literature

 

Further Information

Classical Criminology

Classical Criminology sees criminal action as the result of free and rational decisions of the acting individuals.

Main proponents

Cesare Beccaria, John Howard, Jeremy Bentham, Samuel Romilly, John Anselm von Feuerbach, Sir Robert Peel, Samuel Pufendorf u.a.

Theory

Classical crime theory, especially according to Beccaria, is based on the assumption that people are free of will and thus completely responsible for their own actions, and that they also have the ability to rationally weigh up their abilities. Crime is therefore the result of free and rational decisions of the acting individuals.

Although social conditions are also mentioned as causes of crime in the classical period, Beccaria and others are more interested in the crime than in the perpetrator. This is due to the idea of equality of all human beings, as well as to the fact that any social (or at the beginning of the classical period also supernatural) circumstances can be met equally, which means that only the deed itself distinguishes the criminals from the non-criminals.

Implications for Criminal Policy

Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794)
Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794)

The central demand of the classical school of criminolgy is the proportionality of the sanctions to its preceding crimes. According to Beccaria, the level of punishment must be based on the damage caused. The arbitrary use of justice and overly harsh and inappropriate punishments should be rejected. It is necessary to introduce clear, legal and equal rules for everyone with regard to punishment and the severity of penalties, which should not be based on the person committing the crime but only on the act itself. Therefore, for the same crimes, there must be consistently the same penalties, which in turn must be strictly bound to the written, precise definitions of the various crimes and their corresponding criminal regulations.

The call for punishment and less cruelty came not only from Beccaria. Romilly opposed the arbitrary imposition of harsh and disproportionate punishments, Peel called for the necessary secularization and rationalization of criminal law, Feuerbach advocated the abolition of torture, Pufendorf introduced the concept of human dignity into criminal law, and Howard achieved prison reforms that took into account the health and hygiene of prisoners.

Almost all criminologists from his time period also called for the more or less extensive abolition of the death penalty. However, Beccaria and other authors referred above all to the often disproportionate nature of this sanction to their crime. Many people were then executed for less serious crimes or even killed unjustly. Beccaria wanted to fight this grievance.

However, a stance which in principle is opposed to the death penalty – as it now prevails in many countries, particularly in Europe – cannot be associated with the classical school of criminology, even though they have often been interpreted in this way in the past. After all, Romilly, Feuerbach and Beccaria referred to offences that would still be eligible for the death penalty.

This phenomenon can be explained by the demand for the preventive effect of criminal law, which emerged at the time. According to Beccaria, punishment may only be used if and when it serves to prevent crime. Since man is seen as a free and responsible being, deterrence is the only imaginable form of crime prevention.

The first consequence of this is that secret trials must be abolished and court proceedings accelerated in order to discourage the apparently high level of crime investigation and effective suspension of justice. It also follows, however, that certain particularly serious crimes must continue to be punishable by the death penalty in order to comply with the requirements of proportionality and prevention.

However, Beccaria stresses that the vast majority of criminal offences should be punishable by imprisonment, since too frequent use of the death penalty leads to brutalisation of society and therefore no longer has a deterrent effect.

 

Skizze Panopticon nach einer Skizze von Jeremy Bentham (1791)
Design of a Panopticon based on a sketch by Jeremy Bentham (1791)

The deterrence hypothesis on the one hand and the underlying assumption of human rationality and responsibility on the other are also reflected in Bentham’s idea of the Panoptikum, a prison in which the inmates, due to the construction of the building, are at all times under the visual surveillance of the guards or must assume that this is the case. According to the tradition of classical criminology, Bentham assumes that this form of constant surveillance must lead to a conformist way of life for the prisoners within the walls, since it would be extremely irrational to behave criminally in the conscious presence of a guard. Even more than Beccaria, Bentham can be seen here as the implicit precursor of the ‘Rational Choice’.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

It is certainly problematic that the question of the phenomenon of “crime” in the classical period was probably still a by-product of the political and literary handling of punishment and justice. There was no such thing as a specially developed classical theory of crime. The classical theory of crime is rather a summary of the mostly political ideas of Beccaria and his contemporaries, presented and interpreted in retrospect by recipients. Thus there are quite a few who date not classical but positivist criminology as the actual beginning of today’s criminology, since there the subject of “crime” is clearly outlined.

However, the significance of Beccaria and classical criminology (in addition to their influences on crime policy) can be justified above all by their diverse current perceptions (rational choice, deterrence, routine activity approach). Thus, the classical school is not only the oldest school, but probably also the most constant, whose relevance is repeatedly confirmed in neoclassical studies.

In terms of content, classical theory weakens the incompatibility of the assumptions that although people are free and responsible for their actions, they are at the same time subject to (supernatural, later social) causes that lead to their deviant behaviour. However, this contradiction is again due to the fact that Beccaria and Co. did not pursue a coherent crime theory, but tried to justify their political and criminal demands theoretically. On the one hand, it was necessary to mention society as the focus of criminal activities in order to achieve a certain understanding of the perpetrator and thus a renunciation of excessively harsh punishments (this was also associated with criticism of the judges and the judicial proceedings). On the other hand, the emphasis on the equality and freedom of all human beings was also important in order to underline the utilitarian and enlightenment thought prevailing at that time and to establish it in criminal law.

A theory-related critique can therefore be better carried out on the basis of deterrent and rational electoral theories.

Literature

Career model (Hess)

According to German sociologist Henner Hess, the emergence and consolidation of criminal behaviour can be explained by careers. The actor glides processually, pushed through the outside world and situation, but ultimately individually chosen, into a delinquent role.

Main proponent

Henner Hess

Theory

Hess’ basic assumption regarding crime theories is that deviant behavior cannot be explained by a single hypothesis, but that a kind of filtering process, a career model, is needed to describe the development of delinquent behavior of individuals.

Hess thus considers both the characteristics of the acting person and the characteristics of the situation in which the acting person finds himself. He pays particular attention to the constant changes to which the person and the situation are subject and which always bring with them new possibilities or constraints for (deviant) behaviour. Ultimately, however, it is always the individual decisions of the actors that determine criminal or conformal behaviour at every point in the career. Hess’ career model goes through several phases, which he illustrates using the example of “prostitution” (Hess, 1978):

  1. Motivation for deviant action and situational aggravation
    First, according to Hess, an etiological explanation is needed for the motivation to act differently. In the case of prostitution, for example, anomie, subculture and learning theories could be considered, and situational aggravations in the form of sudden deterioration in the social or economic sphere could also be present.
  2. Willingness to act through weak social controls and overcoming norms
    In a second step, internalised norms must now be neutralised, which speak against the act for which the motivation exists, and thus internal controls must be loosened; at the same time, current social ties may be weakened, according to which less integrated persons would have to successfully pass through this phase of the model more often than persons who are kept on the path of conformity by important reference persons and institutions.
  3. Deviating action after individual decision with objective opportunity
    In addition, there must be objective possibilities for action: specific characteristics and knowledge of the individual, but also contacts and opportunities relevant to the deviating action. Finally, it is important to note in Hess’ model that although there may be a motivation to deviate and weak bonds and relaxed internal controls may also be present, an individual decision by the actor is still required to actually deviate or not.
  4. Secondary Deviance, Stigmatization, Role Taking and Subsumption
    If the processes just described have led to the deviant action itself, this will be continued if the outcome is successful. This is followed by attribution processes and stigmatizations by the outside world, but also by the person himself who has become delinquent. Certain expectations of others are satisfied by the person’s own assumption of the deviant role and thus a subsumption gradually comes about: the attribution and acceptance of a new, deviant identity.
    With Hess, the prostituting person is labelled as a “whore” or something similar and then approached with certain role expectations. These are answered by further prostitution and an identity as a prostitute is taken over.

Altogether Hess thus connects etiological theories such as those of Merton, Sutherland, Hirschi and others with the penological approaches of Becker and Lemert, but at the same time emphasizes the continuous, individual possibility of nevertheless being able to decide against the external and situational determinants and factors. Thus also the rational-classical paradigm of criminology has not been forgotten by Hess.

Implication for criminal policy

Due to the very comprehensive model, which takes into account all criminological paradigms, the criminal policy implication for Hess is very complex. In addition, it is difficult to determine, since Hess explicitly describes only the micro-perspective part of a general crime theory that he considers necessary. The latter was finally developed by Hess (together with Scheerer) under the name of Social Constructivist Crime Theory (Sozialkonstruktivistische Kriminalitätstheorie), into which Hess’ career model was integrated and from which the corresponding implications for criminal policy can be derived.

Critical appreciation & relevance

The career model of Hess certainly has its strength in the combination of different basic criminological paradigms: etiological theories are associated with parts of the labeling approach, and the individual’s freedom of will is addressed as well as his determination by external factors; while the latter context is reminiscent of David Matza’s postulate of a soft determinism, the attempt to combine etiological and penological theories seems to represent criminological new territory: Hess describes both the causes of criminal acts and the consequences of labeling and stigmatization.

Critically, however, one could claim that Hess’ model is merely a supplement to Lemert’s theory of secondary deviance to explain the primary deviation. The actual statement of the labeling approach that crime is only what people call crime is not really taken into account by Hess. Likewise, there are no social structural factors that could promote or prevent motivation and the willingness to delinquency.

Once again, reference is made to Hess’ and Scheerer’s social constructivist theory of crime, in which all these factors were taken into account.

Literature

  • Hess, Henner (1978): Sexualität und soziale Kontrolle: Beiträge zur Sexualkriminologie. Heidelberg.

Delinquency and Drift (Matza)

Matzas work Delinquency and Drift, published in 1964, is a critique of positive criminology (e.g. Lombroso’s anthropological/anthropogenetic crime theory) as well as of the then prominent explanatory approaches to juvenile delinquency (theory of differential opportunities of Cloward & Ohlin and subculture theory according to Cohen).

At the center of the critique is the behavioural determism inherent in the theoretical approaches. Instead, Matza argues for a naturalistic view of delinquency based on representatives of symbolic interactionism (Blumer, Mead) or Max Weber’s concept of sociological understanding (Verstehen). The drift or the turning to and rejection of delinquent behaviour is thus a conscious decision of the agent in question.

Matza’s remarks are regarded as fundamentals / predecessors of Critical Criminology.

Main proponent

David Matza

Theory

With his book Delinquency and Drift, published in 1964, Matza takes up the article Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency (1957) published a few years earlier [see: Neutralization Thesis (Sykes and Matza)] and renews his criticism of the then popular explanatory approaches to crime. In particular, Matza rejects Cohen’s subcultural theory, according to which subculturally shaped norms and values are adopted and conventional concepts of values are “overwritten”. This would amount to a behavioural determinism: a deviant behaviour of the members of the subculture would be inevitable, since they do not (or no longer) have conventional norms and values.

Matza opposes this with the facts that

  1. Delinquents sometimes show guilt or remorse regarding their behaviour. This would hardly be the case if the persons had only deviant values.
  2. Delinquents show respect for rightful citizens. They can respect or even admire celebrities, athletes, clergy, teachers, family members or neighbours, although they stand up for other social values.
  3. Victims of delinquent actions are not arbitrary. The own group members are just as taboo as members of the own ethnic group, the church community, the own school or neighbourhood. This indicates that the perpetrators are aware that what they are doing is wrong.
  4. Many delinquents are often involved in their community and perform the same social functions as law-abiding citizens. Shoplifters or drug dealers can be regular churchgoers.

The Delinquent is facing a moral dilemma. On the one hand he knows about the validity of conventional social norms and values, on the other hand he has succumbed to the permissive temptations of the deviant subculture. Matza believes that delinquents (like all other members of society) are subject to the moral obligations of the law. Only when the attachment to laws is perceived as weak and an opportunity for deviant behavior arises does man drift into delinquent behavior. The following consciousness of guilt and bad conscience is compensated by a return to norm-compliant behaviour.

Drift is a “soft determinism”, i.e. delinquency can be partly self-selected and partly determined. The actor can seize an opportunity and consciously decide for a repetition of deviant behaviour if he considers the execution to be feasible and worthwhile or if an act is spurred on by despair over extraordinary circumstances in life that cannot be influenced.

A “drift” into deviant behaviour is always based on a perceived injustice. Here Matza mentions five circumstances that can be the cause of a sense of injustice:

  • Cognizance describes to what extent the (juvenile) delinquent understands his committed injustice as such.
  • Consistency describes whether the (juvenile) delinquent feels treated in the same way as other offenders.
  • Competence related to those who judge the behaviour of the delinquents
  • Commensurability describes whether (at all) the punishment is perceived as appropriate.
  • Comparison refers to legal provisions aimed at juvenile delinquents which, from the point of view of the juveniles, present themselves as unfair.

Literature

Primary literature

  • Matza, David (1964): Delinquency And Drift. New York: Wiley.

Secondary literature

  • Blomberg, Thomas G.; Cullen, Frank; Carlson, Christoffer; Lero Jonson, Cheryl (2017) Delinquency and drift revisited: the criminology of David Matza and beyond. New York: Routledge.