Discussion :

Drift theory (Neutralization theory) 

This theory was first introduced in 1957 by criminologists Gresham Sykes and
David Matza, who contended that juvenile delinquents actually drift between law-
abiding and law-breaking behavior. There is an assumption in place that juvenile
delinquents know the difference between law-abiding and law-breaking behavior, and
that they understand that law-breaking behavior is wrong. Regardless, these juveniles'
actions and behavior drift between the two.
Neutralization theory is also the idea that people who violate the law learn to
neutralize the orthodox attitudes and values of society, allowing them to drift between
outlaw and orthodox behaviour.
“Drift” is the motion “in and out” of delinquency, moving from orthodox and
criminal values. Drift also molds a person personality and is a gradual process.
Sykes and Matza explained that acts that violates norms or go against beliefs can
carry with them guilt and shame, which dissuades most adolescents from engaging in
criminal or delinquents acts. They must find ways to pre-emptively neutralize the guilt
and protect their self-image if they choose to participate in delinquent or deviant
behaviour.
This Neutralization theory has been incorporated into a variety of other theories,
including Control theory, Learning theory and Labeling theory.
Sykes and Matza conclude that delinquents use a series of justifications to
neutralize their deviant behaviour, they acknowledge that their behaviour was wrong but
distort to reality to maintain that certain times or conditions make it acceptable to break
societal rules.
Sykes and Matza developed their theory of neutralization according to four
observations of juvenile delinquent behavior. These four observations are:

1. Despite previous indicators that offenders were part of a subculture that has zero
remorse upon committing a deviant act, the juvenile offenders experienced
notable guilt or shame after committing the act.
2. The juvenile offenders were observed to respect and admire law-abiding people,
indicating that they understand and somewhat adhere to conventional, law-
abiding norms within society.
3. There appear to be certain groups that the offender will not victimize or harm,
such as relatives, friends, or churches of their own faith. This indicates that there
is some value structure to what defines a valid victim of a particular offense.
4. It's highly unlikely that these juvenile offenders are completely immune to the
dominant influences of society regarding conventional social norms. This is true
even if most people immediately surrounding them are law-breakers. As such,
even though the family and/or friends surrounding them may be criminals, the
 juveniles still agree with the broad social expectations that encourage individuals
to conform to law-abiding behavior.

There are neutralization techniques that allows the person or an individual to

occasionallu drift out of orthodox behaviour and get into criminal behaviour such as
stealing or shooting someone. They were able to create these techniques based on the
four observations above.

1. Denial of responsibility – many delinquents try to argue that their illegal actions
are not their fault. Maybe they had a rough childhood, they were framed, or that it
was an accident.
2. Denial of injury – delinquents try to neutralize their behaviour by downplaying
the injuries inflicted on the victim. They might try and say that they weren’t
stealing, they were just merely borrowing. Often family and friends will agree with
their denials. By saying that their child was merely joking around when another
child got hurt, they are enabling the criminal behaviour to continue.
3. Denial of victim – many delinquents try to downplay their crimes by insisting that
their victim “had it coming.” Most common crime that this is used under is rape.
By claiming that the girl was dressed too provocatively or getting drunk at a party,
they feel that she had it coming for putting herself in that situation.
4. Condemnation of condemners – many criminals see the world as a dog eat
dog place. Because many judges and policemen are all on the take and many
parents show favouritism between children or vent their frustrations on those
children, they feel that these people have no room to point any fingers at them.
By placing blame elsewhere, delinquents can neutralize their feeling that their
actions were wrong.
5. Appeal to higher loyalties – young delinquents often feel the strain of who to
place their loyalties to. They are often torn between social groups and abiding the
law. The group loyalties most often win out because their demands are
immediate. These five methods or techniques of neutralization can manifest
themselves in the form of arguments. Some arguments can be: “it wasn’t my
fault, it wasn’t a big deal, they had it coming, you were just as bad in your day,
and , my friends needed me, what was I going to do.”

Matza also identified that drift has also been considered soft determinism and
sees delinquency as sometimes picked and other times resolute. When either
preparation or desperation are present, the will to commit crimes can occur. Preparation
happens when a crime is repeated once the individual understands that the crime can
happen and is possible. Desperation starts the will to first commit the crime due to
certain extraordinary circumstances. He even insisted that there were several ways that
a delinquency can sense injustice. They use competence, comparison,
commensurability, consistency, and cognizance.

Competence – depends on the condemners of the criminals.

Comparison – occurs when juveniles look at the judicial system, observe the laws, and
see that the laws are for them and not adults. Many don’t want to think that they are
different from adults and resent the system that separates them.

Commensurability – “refers to the relation between infraction and saction” (Matza,

1964). Basically, juveniles believe that when they commit crimes they should be
punished. But the punishment should fit the crime.

Consistency – relates to whether the criminal feels like he’s getting the same treatment
as anyone else who committed the same crime.

Cognizance – relies whether or not the delinquent realized that he committed a crim.
Even when they are caught or confess, they stil may not think they have done anything
wrong.
Conclusion :

In Gresham Sykes and David Matza “Drift theory’ also known as “Neutralization
theory” it was describe that juvenile delinquents use a series of justifications to
neutralize their deviant behaviour. This justification includes include passing the blame
to others, insisting that the victim was not harmed or injured, believing that the victim
deserved the outcome or what happened to them, and arguing that the others have
done or committed serious and worse acts and crimes.

Generally, the ability of a person or an individual to commit crimes and violates

the law depends on their strength and self-control, his attachment to his parents, his
involvement in conventional activities and his relationship to his social group. Therefore,
even if an adolescent were already aware of what is wrong and right, he is still engage
and tend to commit crimes and violates the law not because he wants to, but because
he needs to, and that’s were neutralization occurs, were they used it to defend their self
and justify their actions and deviant behaviour. Though some criminologists believe that
certain people especially juvenile delinquents are predisposed to law-breaking
behaviour, while other individuals believe that a person who break the law, do so
exclusively, without ever obeying the law.

Recommendation :

This theory made up by Sykes and Matza explains about the drift between
criminal behaviour and law-abiding behaviour and how an individual neutralize
them. Though this identified how juvenile delinquents justify their wrong doings
and crimes, also they even though theory explains the drift, it lacks in explaining
on why and how some offenders drift into criminal life while others remain there
permanently.