Edwin Sutherlands Theory of Differential Association to Contemporary Criminology - Essay Example

Application of Edwin Sutherland’s Theory of Differential Association to Contemporary Criminology Introduction: Crime has aptly been viewed as a social phenomenon, which prevails in each and every culture of the globe since the known human history; consequently, the theorists take keen interest in determining and deciding the acts that are come under the fold of crime, and have discovered the reasons behind criminal behaviour. During Palaeolithic and Neolithic eras, crimes are stated to be limited in number and less grave in intensity. Constant increase in population led to the transforming of small tribes and communities into big social setups. Subsequently, cultural amalgamation and incorporation came into being, and the crime rate also got its place along with the growth of civilisation with an upward trend and increase. With the passage to time, methods of protecting the society from criminal assaults were taken into consideration. Human societies established political authorities, which introduced laws and rules for keeping the societies in perfect order on the one hand, and for protecting the people from criminal assaults and harms on the other. Hence, boundaries lines were drawn between normal and criminal behaviour. “The vast majority of the rules”, Sutherland & Cressey state, “which define certain behaviour as criminal are found in constitutions, treaties, common law, enactments by the legislators of the state and its subdivisions, and in judicial and administrative regulations.” (1970, p. 5) Researches were conducted and theories were articulated in order to discover the real reasons and motives behind committing of crime and getting involved into perversion and deviant behaviour. Nature-nurture theories appeared for further debate and discussion on the topic of the reasons behind people’s getting involved into criminal activities and delinquent behaviour. Some of the theorists believed that innate characteristics are dominant in personality traits, which determine the future behaviour of the individuals. “Concrete behavioural traits,” Pinker submits, “reflects the underlying talents and temperaments—how proficient with language a person is, how religious, liberal or conservative—are partially heritable.” (2004, p. 5) On the other hand, another school of thought vehemently declared crime as a learned behaviour. According to this school of thought man is born with pure heart and mind, and it is social environment that spoils and detracts the individuals from the right track. Sutherland insisted on the theory that crime is absolutely a learned behaviour, and people learn and adopt criminal activities from the stratum of society with which they enter into relationship time and again. Edwin Sutherland (1883—1950) is regarded as one of the greatest criminologists the world has ever produced. Born and brought up in the multi-cultural and multi-racial society of the USA, Sutherland got opportunity of examining and analysing prominent traits and characteristics of various racial, ethnic, religious and communal groups. He maintained deep insight and profound observation of social phenomena existed all around him, on the basis of which he presented his famous Differential Association Theory of Crime in 1939. The theory discusses in details the universality of deviant behaviour and the motives behind committing of crimes. Sutherland is of the opinion that since crime is a learned behaviour, which certainly is the product of society, the individuals become criminals because of the environment in which they are brought up and get chances of entering into continuous interaction with other members of society. Social learning theory and socialist school of criminology also interconnect crime with environment. “People learn”, Siegel observes, “the techniques and attitudes of crime from close or intimate relationships with criminal peers; crime is a learned behaviour.” (2008, p. 202). The Hence, Sutherland concentrates upon the following nine points while elaborating the vital characteristics of his crime theory: 1. Criminal behaviour is always learned one. 2. It is learned because of interaction with others 3. Principal part of criminal behaviour is learnt through interacting with intimate personal groups of individuals including family, friends, peers and colleagues. 4. Crime techniques are also the part of learnt criminal behaviour, which are learnt from the intimate groups. 5. “The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as favourable or unfavourable.” (Sutherland & Cressey, 1970, pp. 80-81). 6. Excessive rigidity as well as excessive flexibility in code of law paves the way towards getting indulged into criminal behaviour. Hence, association with some criminal group encourages them in violating the statutes of prevailing law. In the same way, association with non-criminal groups forbids the individuals from breaking law. Moreover, man learns some specific criminal behaviour by having association with the group adopting and exercising some particular delinquencies. Thus, differential association theory aims to state that the difference and variation in the nature and intensity of crime causes difference in occurrence of crimes. 7. Differential associations may vary in several ways including frequency, duration, priority and intensity, which is completely based on the group with which an individual has close association. 8. The entire criminal mechanism has direct relation with criminal and anti-criminal patterns of behaviour. 9. Both criminal and non-criminal behaviours are actually the expressions of the general needs and values of the individuals, because criminals and non-criminals have also same needs as well as the same social values. Thus, Sutherland emphasises upon nurture theory of crime, and refutes the very belief that deviators and law breakers are born criminals. On the other hand, there exists another school of thought that supports nature theory of crime and submits to state that criminals have some particular physical traits that decide their habits and aptitude towards deviancy and perversion. Led by Italian theorist Cesare Lombroso, bio-typologist school of thought declares genes and biological traits as responsible for forcing people commit crime in one way or the other. Renowned biologist theorist Lombroso vehemently supported the idea of born criminals on the basis of his researches conducted on the physical and biological traits of prisoners and criminals. According to bio-typological school of thought, some particular structure of skull, ears, hands and feet can suggest inner-self of criminals. “Criminals are”, according to Lombroso, “by birth, a distinct type, and this type can be recognised by stigmata or anomalies, such as asymmetrical cranium, long lower jaw, flattered nose, scanty beard, and low sensitivity to pain. (Sutherland & Cressey, 1970, pp. 57-58). On the other hand, Sutherland vehemently argued that criminal behaviour and the techniques applied in it are entirely learned behaviour in nature and scope. Sutherland’s Differential Theory of Crime maintains imperative significance even in the present day. He is of the view that psychological and financial causes pave the way towards committing crimes, and both these causes are part of learned behaviour. It is therefore, social environment under which a criminal has been brought up, can help the law enforcing agencies in respect of detecting the reasons behind committing a crime. It is therefore the crime rate is higher in the societies where social injustices and inequalities prevail at their full swing. Hence, a political system that fails to offer equal opportunities of growth and developments to its individuals surely undergoes upward crime rate. “When a political establishment”, Schwarzbaum & Thomas observe, “fails to make provision for basic needs such as food, healthcare, education, security and shelter, this failure is typically referred to as oppressive because it constitutes an injustice that denies equal opportunities, and it projects criminal attitude in everyday life of individuals.” (2008, pp. 14-15). The theory presented by Sutherland in 1939 still maintains great validity in its scope, and the modern criminologists imitate his ideas to a great extent. They assess and analyse the criminal assaults and activities in the same lines described and determined by Sutherland. Strain theory of criminal behaviour advocates in favour of nurture theory and states that financial matters play very dynamic role in pushing the individuals towards adopting of criminal behaviour. “Money is perhaps the central goal in the United States. All people, poor as well as rich, are encouraged to work hard so that they might make a lot of money. Further, money is necessary to buy many of the things we want, including the necessities of life and luxury items. Many people, however, are prevented from getting the money they need through legal channels, such as work. The entire state of affairs introduces crimes like theft, embezzlement, frauds and others.” (Retrieved from law.jrank.org) It has often been found that the individuals belonging to very poor stratum of society have tendency of stealing, robbing and theft etc. Similarly, the individuals who have undergone hunger and deprivation tend to commit white collar crimes even while serving as executives and managers at large companies and firms. Marxist theory also analyses the criminal activities in the same patterns. The theory opines that social injustices and inequalities prevailing in a community motivate the persons deviate from the existing rules, regulations and authorities. The situation of negative competition and conflict starts creating and the deprived and haves-not rise to the occasion to get their share from society. On not getting successfully in obtaining what they deserve, the persons deviate from the laws and social norms and commit crimes of different types. Hence, all modern schools of thought imitate Sutherland by refuting the very idea of born criminals, and are of the opinion that man’s interaction with society paves the way towards developing his personality. Hence, the school of thought led by Sutherland, supports the nurture theory that criminal environment urges the individuals commit crimes of different types in one way or the other. Sutherland lays stress upon the very reality that even the techniques and strategies adopted by the criminals while committing the crimes in one way or the other prove the reality that crime is a learned behaviour. As in a case study of criminal law, it was found that the murderers had cut the body of a person into pieces in such an orderly and spotless way, as the butchers cut the pieces of animals for sale. The police successfully arrested the culprit, who admitted that he had relationships with the criminal butchers. The modern theories also reveal that a child tendency to pick each and every thing from his social environment. Cognitive theories articulated by Piaget & Vygotsky submit to state that human instinct depends upon the learning process from environment, which urges the small children follow the footprints of other members of society. Thus, Sutherland has rightly argued in favour of nurture theory of criminal behaviour while describing the differential association theory of criminal behaviour. He is of the view that environment plays first and formidable part for getting involved into crimes. He also argues that discrimination in different social classes also plays very pivotal role in respect of promoting criminal behaviour at community and state levels. The expansion of social discrimination between haves and haves-not creates social exclusion of the deprived strata and conflict arises out of this divergence between different classes where some social strata undergoes feelings of alienation and observes its exclusion from the boundaries of social set up. This social exclusion may be on the basis of class, caste, community, clan, culture, region, religion, age-group, status or gender. Marxist and Feminist perspectives are also the outcome of social exclusion, which raised their sonorous voice for the cause of the suppressed and deprived communities and groups of society. Social inequality and injustices give way to criminal behaviour in a social net work. “Community disorganisation”, according to Vedder, Koenig & Clark, “has been found to be related to several social problems, including crime and delinquency.” (1973, p. 37). Marxism is also based on conflict theory articulated by Karl Marx, and it states that conflict between different social classes in a society leads towards alienation and criminal behaviour. The social researches reveal the very fact regarding involvement of gypsies in criminal activities. As they live far away from social institutions, there are bight chances of their indulgence in criminal activities that is the by-product of biased behaviour of the members of society. In the same way, injustices exercised on some specific gender or age group also causes criminal behaviour. It has often been observed crimes are usually conducted in order to obtain which man has been kept away from or had been deprived of in his adolescence or early youth. These deprivations and unfulfilled desires assume the form of delinquency and man adopts every possible way to achieve them all. The social norms and morality are the identification of the individuals of a nation. “The price of toleration”, George argues, “of serious deviance from a society’s constitutive morality is the loss of a distinctive form of interpersonal integration in community understood as something worthwhile for its own sake.” (1993, p. 65). Looking into the social conflicts present in this world of today, it appears crystal clear that the nature of criminal acts reflects the deprivations prevailing in our social establishment. For instance, the terrorism prevailing in India, Afghanistan and other parts of the world are actually the reaction of the suppression and oppression inflicted and imposed upon the helpless individuals at the hands of powerful stratum. Similarly, the surge of hatred against the USA and terrorist attack on the US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are also learned behaviour, which though is not crime in the real sense, but certainly is the violation of prevailing law of the country at large. Thus, differential association theory of crime always looks valid in almost all parts of the globe. Taking the examples of sexual crimes and deviant behaviour, it appears to be a proven fact that the children who had been maltreated and molested in childhood, deviate from the right path and take perversion as a normal state of life. For instance, renowned feminist leader and writer Dorothy Allison was raped by her stepfather in her childhood for six years continuously from the very small age of five only.. Being an illegitimate child of an unwed mother, Allison underwent social exclusion during her childhood when she was up brought by single parent and lived in a very poor and almost intolerable atmosphere. The feelings of hatred for her step-father turned into hatred for man-folk and she became flag-bearer for the feminist cause and fought for the cause of woman homosexuals. Her reaction against exclusion of women from the mainstream turned out to support a movement for the cause of lesbians in the USA. She could not forget the time when she was molested, battered and abused continuously and got so annoyed with the male gender that the feelings of liking and love for the individuals of the same sex created in her mind and heart at her teen age, the time she was entering her adolescence. Thus, social exclusion gave birth to perversion and deviant behaviour. To conclude, it becomes evident that differential theory encompasses every aspect of the reasons behind committing of various crimes in divergent societies. It is therefore social action theory, strain theory and all other theories of contemporary times explain the same ideas and views, presented and projected by Sutherland in 1939. The criminologists, and experts of criminal law apply his theoretical framework in detection of various crimes committed in a society. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Allison, Dorothy. (2005) Survival is Least of My Desires. An Extract from “Skin: Talking About Sex, Class & Literature. Firebrand Books pp George, Robert P. (1993) Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp 31-123 Pinker, Steven. (2004) Why Nature & Nurture Won’t Go Away The American Academy of Arts & Sciences pp. 5--17 Siegel, Lary J. (2008) Criminology Sengage Learning pp 190-221 Sutherland, E.H. (1939). Principles of Criminology, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Sutherland, E.H., & Cressey, D.R. (1970). Criminology, 8th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott. Schwarzbaum, S. and Thomas, A. (2008) Dimensions of Multicultural Counseling SAGE Publications pp 11-19 Vedder, Clyde B., Koenig Samuel& Clark, Robert E. (1976) Criminology. Holt, Rinehart & Wilson New York, pp 183-209 http://law.jrank.org/pages/814/Crime-Causation-Sociological-Theories-Strain-theory.html Read More