Social process theories argue that criminal behavior in individuals develops as a function of psychological encounters, interactions, and individual socialization. All these encounters are related to the various institutions that include; the family, school, the general community, and societal processes. Socialization is the process by which an individual’s code of conduct is shaped to conform or encounter the cultural standards put in place. The agents of socialization involved in this process include; family, school, media, peers, and authorities like employers. When the socialization process is positive, the individual becomes law-abiding.
To have an effective understanding of the criminological theories it is important to first understand the meaning of criminology in general. In the traditional definition, criminology is basically concentrated on the review of crime as a social phenomenon; in comprehending the causes to better prevent it. The other concern is that the prevention of crime; is based on using the regulations that are used in defining crime itself, its development, and impacts on individuals.
The most appealing social process theory is that of Neutralization by David Matza and Gresham Sykes. This theory operates on the basic rationale that individuals make decisions that maximize their rewards while reducing their costs; through justifying the wrong decisions and criminal activities they take part in. This theory holds that delinquent individuals don’t embrace unconventional values, but rather hold values layered on the conventional ones. This simply means that they grow knowing that crimes like stealing are wrong, but avoid the feelings of guilt and shame by constructing rationalizations for the criminal behavior. This rationalization is built-in social relationships and is used to justify their potential guilt before they violate the law. However, the rationalizations fall into different typical patterns; which are also referred to as the techniques of neutralization.
The first one is commonly used by offenders especially young ones; arguing that the act was really not their choice, but they did it out of peer pressure, drunkard ness, drug influence, poverty, or a combination of a few of these factors. Therefore the justification is that these circumstances thus forced them to commit a crime. The second justification is that the act did not harm anyone directly, and therefore there are no victims. An example is stealing a motorcar from an insured store; where the justification is that they were just borrowing the car; as they would have been paid or recovered it. The other justification is the denial of the victim by arguing that they did really deserve the crime committed against them because they implicatively asked for it. Condemnation of the condemners; which is common in crimes like corruption where the argument is, the police break the law; the rich got their wealth through corrupt means, and that the judiciary system is corrupt. The offenders also plea to higher loyalties to argue that different loyalties like the clergy are more important to moral observance than others.
However, these justifications are fashioned in groups; are transmitted from older to younger generations, and form a part of differential association. The major strength of this theory is that it is supported by other theories like the Sutherlands theory; strain theory that emphasizes that criminal behavior is learned; the classical school theory that argues that committing crimes lies solely on the choice of the individual; and the emphasis that crime is a product of social factors.
Reference
Kornhauser, R. (1978) Social Sources of Delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.