The Principles of Edwin Sutherland Differential Association Theory - Research Paper Example

Identify and describe the principles of Edwin Sutherland Differential Association Theory . Select and exaple and apply the Theory. When having to explain the causes of criminal behavior it is necessary to refer to the criteria that can be applied on the particular case. This means that the actual reasons of criminal activity are likely to be differentiated across individuals taking into consideration their background and their personal perceptions. Many efforts have been made by theorists in order to explain the terms under which individuals can proceed to criminal behavior. The theories that have been developed in relation to the criminal behavior can be used in order to identify the potential chances of individuals to get involved in criminal activity. Legislators could use these theories for introducing legal rules that will prohibit people from crime. An indicative example is the theory of Differential Association of Edwin Sutherland. This theory is based on a series of principles, which are analytically described below referring to studies published in the academic literature. Sutherland first introduced the Differential Association Theory in 1924. The above theorist has been strongly influenced by the sociological theories of that time. He was mostly influenced by the views of Thomas and his theory of ‘the definition of the situation’. The above concept has been the theoretical basis on which the work of Sutherland was based. Sutherland developed his ‘generic theory of crime, the differential association theory, based on specific explanations of ‘law’ and ‘crime’’ (DeLisi et al. 216). This has been the main point at which the theory of crime of Sutherland – or else the differential association theory – has been differentiated from the work of other theorists in the specific field. A key characteristic of the theory of Sutherland is that it is not a concept that can be used periodically, independently from the life conditions, for the explanation of criminal behavior. It is rather involved in the course of life (DeLisi et al. 217). Another important element of the specific theory is its extensive reference to terms, like ‘attitudes and self-concepts’ (DeLisi et al. 217). In accordance with the theory of Sutherland, the criminal behavior cannot be characterized as a personal characteristic, i.e. it is not a type of behaviour inherited. Instead, it is learned, through the social interaction. In other words, the theory of Sutherland emphasizes on the importance of the social environment for the potential development of criminal behavior (DeLisi et al. 217). However, through this point of view, it can be assumed that every individual who is raised within a social environment that highly favors crime, he will, necessarily, be involved in criminal activity, a view that cannot be considered as applicable for all individuals. On the other hand, the above view, that is the fact that criminal behavior is likely to be developed through the interaction with other people, can be justified if taking into consideration the period in which this theory was introduced. Indeed, in 1900s, particular emphasis has been paid on the social interaction and its power on the behavior of individuals. In fact, it was considered, that all characteristics of human behavior could be developed through imitation, i.e. by observing the behaviour of others and repeat the same action. It is through the above approach that the theory of Sutherland can be characterized as justified (Morrison 150). On the other hand, it cannot be supported that today imitation is not a social phenomenon – maybe not extended at the same level with 1900s, but it is still a way for capturing and re-producing a series of activities. Perhaps, the only difference between the era of Sutherland and today – in regard to the role of social interaction in human behavior – is that in the particular era, social interaction was highly used by sociologists for the explanation of human behavior. Today, a series of criteria and factors are likely to be used for explaining the human behavior. On the other hand, Sutherland has explained that there is no chance for individuals to develop a criminal behavior because of inheritance mostly because the criminal activity is related to a specific cultural environment (Morrison 150). At this point, the following issue is revealed: criminal behavior is the result of a particular social environment. Thus areas where social conditions are deteriorated and where laws are not applied – probably in areas where poverty is increased. An important implication of the above view is that poor people are considered as having more chances in order to get involved in criminal behavior. On the contrary, people of high financial status – living in social environments that are highly regulated and monitored – are not expected to develop criminal behavior, a view that cannot be characterized as standardized. Of course, it can be considered that Sutherland refers mostly to the close social environment of an individual, for instance family and so on. Even through this point of view, a generic assumption that criminal behavior is related with family conditions cannot be fully justified. At this point, emphasis should be given on the following element of Sutherland’s theory: in accordance to Sutherland, there is a dependency of criminal behavior on the social environment but, still, there is a differentiation in the response of individuals in their environment. In practice, this means that people living in the same social conditions may respond differently to their environment that favors the crime (Morrison 150). The problem that could probably result from the above explanation is the following one: could the theory of Sutherland be used in order to explain all aspects of criminal behavior? In accordance with the traditional methodology for the explanation of criminal behavior, two different time periods are important for explaining the criminal behavior, ‘the time when the crime was committed (known as situational) and the time period before the crime (known as historical)’ (Crutchfield 190). In the above context, how and when the theory of Sutherland could be applied for explaining the criminal behavior? In a first view, the theory of Sutherland could be used in order to explain the causes of criminal behavior in regard to the period before the crime, i.e. in the past. Since the theory of Sutherland emphasizes on the importance of social interaction for the development of criminal behavior it would be appropriate in order to explain the gradual development of ‘criminal instincts’ within a specific social/ cultural environment. If referring only to the reasons of the criminal behavior as related to the time point when the crime was committed, then the theory of Sutherland is difficult to be applied – there is no time for the social environment to influence the psychology of the person at such point that a criminal activity is developed. However, the theory of Sutherland could be also used when referring to the causes of criminal behavior at the time of the crime through the specific view: an individual can be urged by its social environment in order to commit a crime under specific circumstances, for instance if by his nature he can be easily persuaded to proceed to a specific activity or if the criminal behavior is presented as not opposed to the law. This approach is in accordance with the view of Sutherland that individuals are likely to respond differently to their social environment and thus they are not expected to develop necessarily criminal behavior when being raised in social environment that favors the criminal behavior. The theory of Sutherland in regard to the causes of criminal behavior has been introduced under specific social and cultural circumstances. However, today, this theory can be still applied today even if the level and the modes of influence of the social environment on people are different. Moreover, the theory of Sutherland, which is based on the view that ‘criminal behavior is the manifestation of needs and values’ (Tshiwula 33), shows that individuals are not always aware of the criminal aspects of their behavior. Instead, they can consider their behavior as a method for showing their needs, a fact that can lead to the following assumption: the state can prohibit the development of criminal behavior by taking measures for explaining to individuals the distinction between crime and lawful behavior, i.e. an early intervention of the state to the cognitive skills of individuals - in regard to the explanation of the aspects of criminal behavior – can lead to the effective control of the specific activities. Works Cited Crutchfield, Robert. Crime: Readings. Pine Forge Press, 2000 DeLisi, Matt, Beaver, Kevin. Criminological Theory: A Life-Course Approach. Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2010 Gaylord, Mark, Galliher, John. Criminology of Edwin Sutherland. Transaction Publishers, 1988 Morrison, Wayne. Theoretical Criminology. Routledge, 1995 Tshiwula, Lullu. Crime and delinquency. Pearson South Africa, 1998 Read More