Sutherland Theory: Understand It In Less Than 60 Sec!

Edwin Sutherland, a pioneering figure in criminology, developed the Sutherland theory, a concept profoundly influencing our understanding of deviant behavior. This theory contrasts sharply with earlier, simplistic models and proposes that criminal behavior is learned through interactions, much like any other social skill. Differential association, a core component of Sutherland theory, suggests that the relative frequency and intensity of interactions with those who hold deviant versus non-deviant values are crucial. The American Sociological Association often references and debates the continuing relevance of Sutherland’s work in contemporary contexts.

Decoding Sutherland Theory: A Quick Guide

This article aims to unpack the core concepts of the "sutherland theory" in an easily digestible format. We’ll break down its components to ensure a clear understanding of this important sociological framework.

Defining Differential Association: The Heart of Sutherland Theory

At its core, "sutherland theory," formally known as differential association theory, posits that criminal behavior is learned. It’s not inherited or simply a product of poverty, but rather a consequence of interactions with others.

What is Learned?

• Techniques of committing crime: This includes the specific skills and methods used to carry out illegal acts.
• Attitudes, values, and rationalizations: Perhaps more importantly, individuals learn the justifications for criminal behavior – the reasons why it’s acceptable or necessary in certain situations. This involves acquiring favorable definitions of crime over unfavorable definitions.

The Role of Definitions

The balance between definitions favorable to law violation and those unfavorable is crucial. If an individual is exposed to more definitions that justify crime than those that condemn it, they are more likely to engage in criminal behavior.

The Nine Propositions: Understanding the Nuances

Sutherland formalized his "sutherland theory" into nine key propositions. These provide a detailed roadmap for understanding how differential association works:

1. Criminal behavior is learned.
2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication.
3. The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups.
4. When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes (a) techniques of committing the crime, which are sometimes very complicated, sometimes very simple; (b) the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes.
5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as favorable or unfavorable.
6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law. This is the principle of differential association.
7. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.
8. The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning.
9. While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values, since non-criminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values.

Deciphering Key Terms

• Frequency: How often someone is exposed to criminal or anti-criminal definitions.
• Duration: The length of time someone is exposed to these definitions.
• Priority: How early in life someone is exposed to these definitions. Definitions learned early on tend to have a greater impact.
• Intensity: The prestige or emotional connection to the source of the definitions. A trusted family member or close friend, for example, would have a higher intensity of influence.

Examples of Sutherland Theory in Action

Consider a young person growing up in a neighborhood where drug dealing is common. They might observe:

• Techniques: How drugs are packaged and sold.
• Rationalizations: The belief that dealing drugs is the only way to make money.
• Attitudes: A disregard for the law and a belief that law enforcement is corrupt.

If this person is exposed to these definitions more often and with greater intensity than pro-social definitions, "sutherland theory" suggests they are more likely to engage in drug dealing themselves.

Another example could be corporate crime. Executives might learn from colleagues that bending the rules is necessary for success and that everyone else is doing it. The intense pressure to meet targets combined with these definitions can lead to unethical or illegal behavior.

Criticisms and Limitations

Despite its influence, "sutherland theory" has faced criticism.

• Difficult to Test: Quantifying "definitions favorable to crime" is challenging, making it difficult to empirically test the theory.
• Causation vs. Correlation: It’s hard to determine if differential association causes criminal behavior or if people simply associate with others who share similar tendencies.
• Ignores Individual Differences: The theory doesn’t fully account for individual traits like temperament or decision-making abilities that might influence criminal behavior.
• Overemphasis on Learning: It may downplay the role of structural factors like poverty, inequality, or lack of opportunity.

Despite these limitations, "sutherland theory" remains a significant contribution to criminology, highlighting the importance of social learning in shaping behavior.

So, there you have it – Sutherland theory in (almost) a nutshell! Hopefully, this helped make the Sutherland theory a bit clearer. Now go impress your friends with your criminology knowledge!