forensic: psychological explanations: DAT Flashcards
differential association theory explanation
suggests offender behaviour is learned through the relationships and association we form with others around us
we learn the values, attitudes, techniques and motives for offending behaviour through association and interaction with different people
everyone’s associations are different eg: one person might associate with people with neg attitudes towards crime and another may associate with people with pos attitudes
who proposed DAT
Sutherland > he sought to develop a set of scientific principles that could explain all types of offending
theory was and is designed to discriminate between individuals who become offenders and those who do not, regardless of social class or ethnic background > strength as it explains white collar crime
offending as learned behaviour
learning occurs through interactions with significant others that the child values and spends the most time with
DAT suggests that it should be possible to mathematically predict how likely it is that an individual will commit offences. We need to know the frequency, intensity and duration of exposure to deviant and non-deviant norms and values
state the two learned factors that cause offending
learning attitudes
learning techniques
explain learning attitudes
when you’re socialised into a group you are exposed to values and attitudes towards the law > some values are pro-crime and others are anti-crime
Sutherland suggests that if the number of pro-crime attitudes outweighs the anti-crime ones then the person will become a criminal
explain learning techniques
the potential offender may learn particular techniques for offending
eg: how to break into a house through a locked window
explain socialisation in prison
offenders may learn specific techniques of offending from more experienced criminals > they may put these into practice when released
learning may occur through observation and imitation
AO3: change of focus
strength of DAT is that when it was first published it changed the focus of offending explanations > Lombroso’s atavistic theory and other theories explained offending as being the product of individual weakness
however DAT pays attention to the fact that deviant social circumstances and environments may be more to blame for deviant people
STRENGTH as this approach is more desirable and offers a more realistic solution rather than eugenics or punishment
AO3: real life app
accounts for offending in all sectors of society
Sutherland recognised that some types of offences (eg: burglary) tend to be clustered in certain inner city w/c areas and white collar crime occurs in more affluent areas > shows m/c social groups may also share deviant norms
STRENGTH as it shows its not just lower classes who commit offences and principles of DAT are applicable to a wide range of offences
AO3: difficult to test predictions of differential association
Sutherland aimed to provide a scientific, mathematical framework to predict future offending > predictions would have to be testable
problem as many concepts are not testable or operationalisable eg: hard to identify number of pro-crime attitudes
also theory is built on assumptions that offending is due to more pro-crime values than anti-crime ones > without measuring these we can’t identify when offending is triggered
LIMITATION as the theory lacks scientific credibility
AO3: nature and nurture
DAT explains offending behaviour in terms of nature and nurture
Sutherland suggests the response of the family is crucial in determining whether an individual is likely to engage in offending > if the family supports offending it will have a major influence on the child
however if offending seems to run in families then it could also be due to a gene or neural abnormality
STRENGTH shows behaviour can be explained by nature and nurture even though DAT favours nurture
