Edwin Hardin Sutherland (Gibbon,

Nebraska August 13, 1883 – October

11, 1950
• He was an American sociologist. He is
considered as one of the most
influential criminologists of the 20th century.
He was a sociologist of the symbolic
interactionist school of thought and is best
known for defining white collar
crime and differential association, a general
theory of crime and delinquency. Sutherland
earned his Ph.D.in sociology from
the University of Chicago in 1913.
 Sutherland's theory of differential
association
• The principles of Sutherland's Theory of Differential Association key points:[1]
• 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 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 the law.

• 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 needs and values,
since non-criminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values.
• An important quality of differential association
theory concerns the frequency and intensity of
interaction. The amount of time that a person is
exposed to a particular definition and at what
point the interaction began are both crucial for
explaining criminal activity. The process of
learning criminal behaviour is really not any
different from the process involved in learning
any other type of behaviour. Sutherland
maintains that there is no unique learning
process associated with acquiring non-
normative ways of behaving.
• One unique aspect of this theory is that the
theory purports to explain more than just
juvenile delinquency and crime committed by
lower class individuals. Since crime is
understood to be learned behaviour, the
theory is also applicable to white-collar,
corporate, and organized crime
• White-collar crime refers to financially
motivated, nonviolent crime committed by
business and government professionals.
Within criminology, it was first defined by
sociologist Edwin Sutherland in 1939 as
"a crime committed by a person of
respectability and high social status in the
course of his occupation".
• Sutherland’s definition of white collar Crime
has evoked criticism from certain quarters.
Coleman and Moynihan pointed out that the
lack of definite criteria for determining who
are ‘persons of respectability and status’ has
made Sutherland’s definition of white collar
crime most controversial.
• Sutherland himself did not stick to this
meaning and included thefts and frauds
committed by middle or even lower middle-
class workers in course of their employment
or work. Some critics have suggested that
such crimes should have been called as
‘occupational crimes’ instead of being termed
as ‘white collar crime’.
• It is further argued that in fact the important
element in the definition of white collar
crime is not the socio-economic status of the
individual, but rather the type of crime and
the circumstances of its commission. These
usually include pilfering, false accounting,
bribery, embezzlement etc.
• Tax-evasion is not an authentic white collar
crime, at least in terms of Sutherland’s
definition because although associated with
work, it is not committed in the course of an
occupation. Some critics further allege that
such violations come within the purview of
the Special Commissions, Tribunals and
Boards instead of normal criminal justice
administrators.
• Therefore, strictly speaking, they cannot
result into conviction of the offender and
hence he cannot be called ‘criminal’ in real
sense of the term.
• Sutherland, however, justifies the special
procedure of trial for white collar criminals
by administrative agencies on the ground
that it would protect the offender from the
stigma of criminal prosecution.
• Another criticism quite often advanced against
Sutherland’s definition of white collar crime is
that it includes even those violations of law
which are not committed in course of
occupation or profession and these violations do
not necessarily belong to upper strata of society
or the so-called ‘prestigeous groups’. For
example, tax evasion is not committed only by
persons of high status but it can be committed
by persons belonging to middle or even lower
strata of society.
• Mens Rea in Socio-Economic Offences
•
• The Indian approach to the problem suffers from the
same kind of inconsistencies as the English one
because our criminal law has its roots (and form?)
and is constantly supplemented by principles of
common law. There are offences in the Indian Penal
Code, for which no element of mensrea is required
(waging war against the government is an example).
But, even in such cases courts have applied the
doctrine of mensrea.
• Mensrea requirement is a common law legacy. However, there are
instances in common law where the doctrine is dispensed with (like
public nuisance contempt of court and libel). This was justified because
• (i) it was difficult to prove mens rea in some cases,
• (ii) as they were penalised under social welfare
legislations, a purposive construction was required to
further the objectives of the act.
• (iii) punishment in these cases is usually light and
• (iv) they are offences which are in the nature of mala
prohibita and not mala in se.
• The 1965 case of Mayer Hans George v. State
of Maharashtra continues to be the locus
classicus on the issue because of the
divergent views on the same issue. The
dissenting minority judgment of Subbarao J
strongly emphasized the common law
presumption of mensrea asserting that a
court cannot “ignore mensrea on a slippery
ground of a welfare measure unless the
statute compels it to do so."
 Presumption requiring mens rea
•
In statutory interpretation, certain presumptions are taken into account
by the court while interpreting the statutes. The presumption relevant
here is that a criminal act in general requires the presence of mens rea.
Almost all crimes that exist independently of any statute require, for
their commission, some blameworthy state of mind on the part of the
actor. Where a statute creates an offence, no matter how comprehensive
and absolute the language of the statute is, it is usually understood to be
silently requiring that the element of mens rea be imported into the
definition of the crime (offence) so defined, unless a contrary intention is
express or implied. Hence, the plain words of a statute are read subject
to a presumption (of arguable weight), which may be rebutted, that the
general rule of law that no crime can be committed unless there is mens
rea has not been ousted by the particular enactment. In the case of
Brend v. Wood, Lord Goddard, C.J. held that :-
• “It is of the utmost importance for the
protection of the liberty of the subject that a
court should always bear in mind that, unless
a statute, either clearly or by necessary
implication, rules out mens rea as a
constituent part of a crime, the court should
not find a man guilty of an offence against
the criminal law unless he has a guilty mind.”
• In Hobbs v. Winchester Corporation,
Kennedy, L.J. said that “there is a clear
balance of authority that in construing a
modern statute, this presumption as to mens
rea does not exist.”
• He said that “such statutes are not meant to
punish the vicious will but to put pressure on
the thoughtless and inefficient to do their
whole duty in the interest of public health or
safety or morals.”
 Presumption not used un Statutory
Offences – an exception
• This situation is one in which a statutory
offence is committed and the presumption
requiring mens rea is not used to decide the
case. There have been many such cases in
English as well as Indian courts. One of the
early ones is R. v. St. Margarets Trust Ltd.. In
this case, a contravention had occurred of
Article 1 of the Hire-Purchase and Credit Sale
Agreements (Control) Order, 1956.
• Another important case in this respect would be that of
Lockyer v. Gibb. In this case, the Divisional Court held that
being “in possession of a drug” contrary to Regulation 9 of
the Dangerous Drugs (No. 2) Regulations, 1964 is an
absolute offence. Although it must be proved that the
accused knew that he had the article which turned out to
be a drug, it need not be shown that he knew what the
article was. Lord Parker, C.J. said that the regulation was a
public welfare provision. If one considered the mischief
aimed at alone, there was every reason for treating a
provision such as this as a provision imposing absolute
liability.
• Mens rea when not essential (Strict Liability)
Although mens rea is a sacrosanct principle of
criminal law, it can be waived in certain
circumstances. There are some special circumstances
under which the law imposes a strict or absolute
liability, and such cases may be treated as exception
to the doctrine of mens rea. Or it can be said that
mens rea is an exception to the maxim 'actus non
facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. But the principle of strict
liability can not be imposed upon those people who
are generally excepted ( like insane, child, etc.)The
following are the exceptional cases in which mens rea
is not required in criminal law :
• 1)Language of the Statute and subject matter of
legislation :- Language of the Statute and the
intention of the legislation as gathered from
statute shows whether the act imposes the strict
liability or there is a requirement of mens rea in
order to prosecute a accused person. This could
be established by the following two modes:-
(a) Express Words :- Whether language of the
statute
expressly gives indication regarding the
requirement of the mens rea or not.
• (b) Fair Implication :- If it is not clearly expressed in the
statute then the language of the statute should be observed
that what kind of liability it intend to impose.
(2) Nature of the act :- Involving acts that are in real sense not
criminal in nature, they are quasi-criminal in nature. They are
prohibited in public interest. It includes public welfare offence.
They
are called as white collar crimes. Committed by persons at high
position e.g. Crime relating foods and drugs, weights and
packages
etc.
• (3)Mens rea is not essential in respect of certain offence in
I.P.C.
Where the nature of offence is such that in commission
bring a very
serious damage to the society which can not be
compensated e.g.
Kidnapping, counterfeiting coins, etc.
(4)When it is difficult to prove mens rea, where the
penalties are petty
fines and where a statute has done away with the
necessity of mens
rea on the basis of expediency, strict liability in criminal
law may be
imposed, e.g. Violation of traffic rules.
• (5) Cases of Public Nuisance :-Under this head
comes lible, defamation
where intention of defamer is not real required .
(6) Cases in which although the proceedings are
of criminal form but
civil rights are to be enforced . e.g. Rights of
property is infringed
by a trespasser, trespasser will be prosecuted.
(9) Another exception that might be mentioned
here is related to the
maxim “ Ignorance of the law is no excuse”.
• Public Welfare Offences and Mens Rea.
In the last few decades, an entire range of
social or public welfare legislation have been
conceived in such a manner that the law
makes the mere omission of commission of
acts punishable. In other words, no mens rea
is required.
• It must be appreciated that one is living in a world of machines.
Very often, these machines are dangerous and may pose a health
hazard to the worker and persons residing in and around that
area. So, it is in the interest of larger good that there are laws,
which lay down standards and regulate the functioning of the
industries. For instance, the Factories Act 1948. This Act is a
labour welfare legislation. The management of the factory is
responsible to comply with the provisions of the Act and they are
liable for breach, even if there is no mens rea or guilty mind.
There are a host of other labour laws for which mens rea may not
be necessary. The legislature is well within its power to legislate
that in respect of a particular offence, the existence of mens rea is
not an essential requirement.