Criminal activity occurs everyday. The explanations for criminal behaviour still stump criminologists to this day. Theories like differential association theory and social learning are perhaps the best explanations for why people commit crimes. Previous theories believed poverty was one of the main explanations for why people commit crimes. This does not explain white-collar crimes. Through the explanations and similar elements of differential association theory, social learning theory, techniques of neutralization, and a 1985 article, written by Michael L. Benson, titled “Denying the Guilty Mind: Accounting for Involvement in a White-Collar Crime”, some light can be shed on this lack of explanation. The required readings for this term paper illustrate that regardless of class status, criminals learn and rationalize crime the same way. Outlined in these works is a clear disjunction between street criminals and white-collar criminals. The question raised is why is it that white-collar criminals are not seen on the same level as street criminals when the crimes they are committing are perhaps even more nefarious?
Differential Association Theory emerged from the Chicago School by a Sociologist named Edwin Sutherland. The theory states that criminal behaviour is learned through a process of interaction and communication. Criminals learn how to commit crimes and the techniques for committing said crimes through other criminals. They also learn rationalizations and attitudes towards these crimes. When an individual sees crimes being committed all around them, the exposure tends to make criminal behaviour seem almost normal. There are two types of explanations of criminal behaviour as described by Sutherland and Cressey (12893u1203u2018). They are: mechanistic (i.e. seeing an opportunity and taking it) and historical (i.e. based on past crimes success). Factors including frequency, duration, and exposure to criminal peers, will have an affect on the likelihood of an individual engaging in criminal behaviour. This type of learning can be compared to the type of learning found in the education system. You spend your time with your peers and your teaches help you learn the material you need to graduate school and subsequently succeed in life. Regarding criminal behaviour, an individual in a gang spends time with his/her peers, learning from older gang members, who provide them with the information they need to succeed within their gang. In an article published by Sutherland in 1940, titled “White-Collar Criminality”, Sutherland compares crime within the upper/white-collar class and crime within the lower class. Sutherland expresses that the descriptions for white-collar crime and lower class crime should be the same. Crime is crime. Sutherland expresses that offenders that commit white-collar crimes, learn the techniques and rationalizations in the same way someone with a low-socioeconomic background would. Also, that previous theories have focused on crimes typically committed by lower-class members, therefore the upper-class appear as underrepresented as a result of a bias within the theories. Sutherland also demonstrates that the correlation between crime and poverty is invalid for three reasons: the bias shown through research which omits white-collar crimes, the correlation between crime and poverty does not explain white-collar crimes, and these theories do not even do a good job of explaining lower class criminality.
Social learning theory has roots in the Chicago School and differential association theory. Ronald Akers has provided the most work towards social learning theory and collected an abundance of research to support his theory. Social learning theory combines many different theories and takes parts from these theories to illustrate that criminals learn definitions that are favourable or unfavourable to committing crime. Criminals then act accordingly if past behaviours were rewarded or punished. In a study from 2009, Akers and Sellers talk about the influence positive and neutralizing definitions have on a criminal. (CITE>>>>>) Positive definitions from my understanding are almost like the ins and outs of criminal life and what is socially acceptable. Neutralizing definitions is an idea taken from Sykes and Matza’s Techniques of Neutralization from 1957 that rationalize criminal activity. “These definitions are learned through a process of differential reinforcement” (Pg. 287, understanding crime in canada) Differential association-reinforcement theory, a 1966 theory by Akers and Burgess elaborates on Sutherland’s differential association theory regarding the mechanisms through which criminal behaviour is learned. It offers Skinner’s theory on operant conditioning to explain these mechanisms which talks about behaviour learned through exposure to positive and negative stimuli. This theory is evident in social learning theory, how criminals behaviour is altered based on past experiences resulting in reward or punishment. If you rob a bank one hundred times and never are caught, what is stopping you from doing it one more time? White-collar criminality employs aspects of social learning theory. If an associate at a big financial firm, sees others committing fraud so often that it becomes normal behaviour and then learns from then. Then perhaps a mechanistic explanation of criminal behaviour occurs. The associate is never caught for the fraud they committed, they are more likely to do it again which is a historical explanation of criminal behaviour. Then they will use techniques of neutralization in order to relieve themselves of guilt.
In the 1957 article, Techniques of Neutralization, Gresham M. Sykes and David Matza elaborate on the rationalizations Sutherland did not address in his differential association theory. The different techniques outlined in their theory include: denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of the victim, condemnation of the condemners, and an appeal to higher loyalties. Denial of responsibility includes one absolving themself of responsibility for the deviant action. Denial of injury talks about that if no one was hurt, is it really that immoral, or just a law that was broken. Denial of the victim explains that if there is not a victim, rather it was a form of retaliation, then where was the harm? Condemnation of the condemners includes shifting attention from the act itself to those who disapprove of the act. Almost a form of retaliation against “deviants in disguise” (Sykes & Matza, 1957). An appeal to higher loyalties describes the sacrifice of the law, for the gain of a smaller group (i.e. the gang or clique). Most criminals, regardless of socioeconomic status, use these techniques of rationalization in order to absolve themselves of guilt they may be feeling. In a 1985 article, written by Michael L. Benson, titled “Denying the Guilty Mind: Accounting for Involvement in a White-Collar Crime”, Benson uses findings from interviews with white-collar criminals to see these techniques of rationalization at play.
In Benson’s article a study is described where thirty accounts from white-collar offenders were examined. The interviewees were asked questions about their crimes and their convictions and asked to provide their accounts of everything. The interviewer listened and took notes. The interviewer was not there to argue with the offenders on what they were saying, simply to observe and engage them. Benson outlines two general forms of accounts. They are justifications and excuses. Justifications for why a criminal did what they did, or excuses for why they did what they did. Benson describes three reasons for why accounts are important. They shed light on neutralizations of motive. This relates back to neutralization definitions laid out by Sykes and Matza (1957) and employed in Akers’ and Sellers theory (2009.. They describe what constitutes actual criminality and acceptable illegalities. Finally, sufficient accounts given by white-collar criminals sometimes minimize things like sentencing and sanctions they receive. The study describes four different types of white-criminals. They are: antitrust violators, tax violators, violators of financial trust, and violators of fraud and false statement. They all use different techniques of neutralization as laid out by Sykes and Matza (1957) to rationalize their actions. Most of the people also never explicitly expressed that they were a criminal, there was always something or someone else to blame. Benson then illustrates three patterns for the usage of accounts. They would tend to account: the event (the actual offense), the perpetrator (the offender/accused), and the denouncer (the prosecutor). These accounts were then used in order to appeal to the judge that the offender is not a criminal when they clearly are and it was just an aberration. Benson ends his article by questioning the effectiveness of the criminal justice system, given the evidence that members of higher classes can commit crimes, be convicted, and still not be labelled as a criminal.
These works all closely relate to each other. Beginning with Sutherland’s differential association theory and ending with Benson’s article (1985), they all dance around a central element. Criminals, regardless of class status, learn and rationalize crime the same way. So why is it that white-collar criminals are not seen on the same level as street criminals when they crimes could potentially be more heinous. These works also provide a good explanation for criminality. As laid out in Skinner’s 1940 work, “White Collar Criminality”, multiple reasons were provided as to why the correlation between poverty and crime is invalid. The idea that criminality is learned proves to be a lot more effective of an explanation for criminality as supported through these works. Criminals in society reject the institutional means of reaching cultural goals. Instead they pave their own way for how to reach these goals. Once a mechanistic explanation of criminal behaviour takes place, a historical explanation of criminal behaviour ensues and this employs elements of differential association theory and social learning theory which best explain why people commit crime.