Neutralization Theory

Over the course of this paper, Sykes and Matza’s Techniques of Neutralization theory will by analyzed for critiques. This theory has already been discussed in part one of Theory Application and Critique assignment. The Techniques of Neutralization theory has both positive and negative aspects which correspond to the critiques of the theory. The first critique will focus on how Sykes and Matza only theorized about juvenile delinquents and their negative deviant acts, and the second critique will show that this theory can apply to wide range of crimes such as sexual abuse and corporate crimes.
One negative critique of Sykes and Matza’s Techniques of Neutralization theory is that initially it only pertains to negative deviance of juvenile delinquents

As explained by Heath (2008), all five techniques of neutralization are used justifying corporate crime. For example, due to the organizational hierarchy in corporations, and the extent to which how many people are involved, it is easy for individuals to point fingers at one another, thus denying responsibility (Heath, 2008). Another important aspect of corporate crime is the denial of injury. Many of the people involved in this type of crime participate because there is often a “faceless” character (Heath, 2008, 606). This suggests that when the victim is unknown or there is no interaction with the actual corporation, the attitudes towards committing the crime is more positive (Heath, 2008). As well, many of the people involved will turn the situation around and make themselves out to be the victim to manipulate certain ridicule if they are caught (Heath, 2008). In condemning the condemners, the legitimacy of law or policy those being charged under is called into question, while the most common response as to justifying the reason corporate crimes happen, involves appealing to higher loyalties like family, or for the best intentions of the corporation (Heath, 2008).
Neutralization theory an at minimum, can explain certain reasonings for computer crimes such as child luring. In 2009, D’Ovidio et al. examined techniques of neutralization in support for child luring for sexual exploitation (Gottschalk and Smith, 2011). To rationalize and divert attention from websites attending to child exploitation would typically appeal to higher loyalties by acting as a social movement, rather than linking pedophilia and bringing attention to the support of exploitation (Gottschalk and Smith,