In criminology, differential association is a theory developed by
Sutherland (1939) proposed the differential association. The theory states people learn to become criminals through interactions with others (friends, peers, and family members). Motives for criminal behaviour are learned through the values, attitudes, and methods of others.
Sutherland's theory, differential association theory, maintains that criminal behavior is learned, and it is learned the same way any other behavior is learned: through interpersonal communication and social interaction in small, intimate groups.
Sutherland concluded that if the society is organized with reference to the values expressed in the law, the crime is eliminated; if it is not organized, crime persists and develops (1939:8).
According to Sutherland, if individual experiences repeated attitudes that are positively associated with crime, rather than negatively (in terms of punishment), then they are more likely to engage in criminal behaviour.
Later, in a systematic study of crimes by corporations, Sutherland offered a formal definition of white-collar crime as “a crime committed by a person of high social status and respectability in the course of his occupation” (Sutherland 1949, p.
Sutherland was one of the first theorists to draw attention to these kinds of crimes and argue that white-collar criminals were not much different from people in the so-called lower classes who committed crimes of theft. Sutherland pointed out that, in fact, white-collar crime resulted in a much greater financial loss.
Social disorganization is a theoretical perspective that explains ecological differences in levels of crime based on structural and cultural factors shaping the nature of the social order across communities.
Social disorganization theory suggest that a person's residential location is more significant than the person's characteristics when predicting criminal activity and the juveniles living in this areas acquire criminality by the cultures approval within the disadvantaged urban neighborhoods.
Social Disorganization Theory Definition
Shaw & McKay (1969) – Social disorganization, defined as a sudden influx of a large number of people in and out of a neighborhood, creates a pathological environment that contributes more to crime than the deviant behavior of abnormal individuals.
1. Organized Crime Families. An example of differential association theory is the mafia: people become mafia members by growing up within its culture. Organized crime families exist in almost all parts of the world, although the Italian-American Mafia is the most commonly known due to its depiction in popular culture.
For example, drug trafficking is more difficult to access in some parts of the city than in others. A person who intends to become a drug dealer not only requires drug suppliers, but also a customer base and a street corner where he can sell his drugs. Access to these means, however, is not open to everyone.
Differential association theory is when one learns criminal attitudes and behaviors through those around them. It is suggested that individuals learn to become criminals by associating with criminals. Edwin Sutherland devised the differential association theory to provide guidelines to measure criminal behavior.
According to differential social organization, the crime rate of a group or society is determined by the extent to which that group or society is organized against crime versus organized in favor of crime.
In differential association theory, Sutherland focuses mainly on one's exposure to the definitions of others. In social learning theory, definitions refer primarily to the attitudes formulated by the individual following exposure to the definitions of others.
Sociologist Edwin Sutherland first proposed differential association theory in 1939 as a learning theory of deviance. Differential association theory proposes that the values, attitudes, techniques, and motives for criminal behavior are learned through one's interactions with others.
On the basis of this research they developed social disorganization theory. Their study of social disorganization centered around three sets of variables: (1) physical status, (2) economic status, and (3) population status.
The strengths of social disorganization theory include its ability to explain crime across different areas and its recognition of the role of the environment in shaping behavior. It acknowledges the complexity of the causes of crime, rather than focusing solely on individual behavior.
One of the problems with the theory is that it is based upon an assumption of stability over time e.g., that a bad neighborhood largely stays a bad neighborhood – that is those neighborhoods in the second concentric circle, stay high crime locales; and that there is an inevitability concerning this.
Criticism Of Sutherland s Definition:
He made a view that punishment need not necessarily be given through a criminal court. According to him, the white-collar offence is crimes because they have been harmful to the social and legal sanctions in the form of various punishments are available to deal with them.
Rational Choice Theory, created by Cesare Beccaria in 1764, explains white collar crime as a life of balancing choices and choosing the one with the most reward. Although Beccaria is best known for his work on the death penalty, he contended that crimes are committed through making rational choices.
The theory of white collar crime was originally developed in a 1939 address by Edwin Sutherland, a notable sociologist. Prior to Sutherland's groundbreaking analysis, most theories of criminology focused primarily on street crime and other crimes committed by members of lower social classes.
[7] He wanted to make sure justice was served no matter what your social status is because earlier these elite criminals could get away with anything using their power. This gave a wider scope to existing theories about crime and challenged many conventional theories.
There are two general ways of understanding white-collar crime. The offender-based perspective considers the status, power, and respectability of the perpetrator, while the opportunity perspective focuses on the way in which offenders are in powerful position and have the resources needed to commit their offenses.