The Delinquency Drift and Techniques of Neutralisation Theory of Crime

The Delinquency Drift and Techniques of Neutralisation Theory of Crime

David Matza’s and Syke’s approach (1964) marked a mid-position between classicists’ free will and positivists’ determinism (i.e., crime is the result of forces beyond the control of the perpetrator). Matza’s approach of ‘soft determinism’ or ‘drift’ (see, Delinquency and Drift, 1964) suggests that the delinquent ‘drifts’ between conventional and criminal behaviour and also into delinquency.

He is neither compelled nor is committed to deeds nor freely chooses them; rather he responds to the demands of each (i.e., conventional and criminal behaviour), flirting now with one, now with the other, but postponing commitment and evading decision.

Later on, Matza along with Sykes developed the theory of “techniques of neutralisation” in 1970. In fact, their theory was an attack on Cohen’s theory. Their theory (see, Techniques of Neutralisation, 1970) was that the delinquent justifies or rationalises his deviant actions.

These justifications maybe valid for the delinquents but not for the legal system or society at large. Sykes and Matza, therefore, call them “techniques of neutralisation” and point out their five (neutralisations) major types: denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of the victim, condemnation of the condemners, and appeal to higher loyalties.

These techniques of neutralisation reduce the impact of forces of social control on delinquents even if they do not shield them. Albert Cohen later on agreed with Sykes and Matza and described his ‘reaction formation’ as really a “technique of neutralisation and that the subculture itself is a neutralising factor”.