Differential Association Theory A03

Question 1

Shift of focus - strength - Sutherland

Answer 1

• successful in moving the emphasis away from early biological accounts of offending, such as Lombroso’s atavistic theory,
• as well as away from theories that explained offending as being the product of individual weakness or immorality. Differential association theory draws attention to the fact that deviant social circumstances and environments may be more to blame for offending than deviant people.
• This approach is more desirable because it offers a more realistic solution to the problem of offending instead of eugenics (the biological solution) or punishment (the morality solution).

Question 2

Counterpoint

Answer 2

• Having said that, differential association runs the risk of stereotyping individuals who come from impoverished, crime-ridden backgrounds as unavoidably offenders’ - even though Sutherland took great care to point out that offending should be considered on an individual case-by-case basis.
• However, the theory tends to suggest that exposure to pro-crime values is sufficient to produce offending in those who are exposed to it.
• This ignores the fact that people may choose not to offend despite such influences, as not everyone who is exposed to pro-crime attitudes goes on to offend.

Question 3

Wide reach - strength

Answer 3

• Sutherland recognised that some types of offence, such as burglary, may be clustered within certain inner-city, working-class communities, - also the case that some offences are clustered amongst more affluent groups in society.
• Sutherland was particularly interested in so-called white-collar or corporate offences (indeed he coined the term white-collar crime in a speech delivered in 1939) and how this may be a feature of middle-class social groups who share deviant norms and values.
• This shows that it is not just the lower’ classes who commit offences and that the principles of differential association can be used to explain all offences.

Question 4

Difficulty testing - limitation

Answer 4

• Sutherland aimed to provide a scientific, mathematical framework within which future offending behaviour could be predicted and this means that the predictions must be testable.
• The problem is that many of the concepts are not testable because they cannot be operationalised. For example, it is hard to see how the number of pro-crime attitudes a person has, or has been exposed to, could be measured.
• Similarly, the theory is built on the assumption that offending behaviour will occur when pro-crime values outnumber anti-crime ones.
• Without being able to measure these, we cannot know at what point the urge to offend is realised and the offending career triggered This means the theory does not have scientine credibility.