Neutralizing Law-Breaking: A Local's Guide To Restoring Order

People break the law for many reasons, and while some may be unaware that they are doing so, others may be driven by a moral conviction. The latter is known as civil disobedience, which has been a powerful force for social change throughout history. However, it is important to note that breaking the law often comes with consequences, and individuals who break the law can face penalties, fines, or even jail time. Interestingly, research has shown that people who break the law often employ psychological methods to neutralise their inner protests and justify their actions. These neutralisation techniques were first proposed by David Matza and Gresham Sykes, who identified five common methods: denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of the victim, condemnation of the condemners, and appeal to higher loyalties.

Denial of responsibility: Insisting that they were victims of circumstance

Denial of Responsibility: Locals as Victims of Circumstance

The concept of "denial of responsibility" is a technique of neutralization, a theoretical series of methods by which individuals who commit illegitimate acts can temporarily neutralize certain values within themselves, such as morality and the obligation to abide by the law. This hypothesis was first proposed by David Matza and Gresham Sykes, who suggested that individuals are always aware of their moral obligation to follow the law, and when they do commit illegitimate acts, they must employ mechanisms to silence their urge to follow these moral obligations.

One of these mechanisms is the denial of responsibility, where an offender insists they were victims of circumstance and that the situation was beyond their control. This technique is particularly relevant when discussing how locals may attempt to neutralize their law-breaking activities.

Locals who break the law may deny responsibility by portraying themselves as victims of unfavorable social conditions or circumstances beyond their control. They may argue that their actions were not truly their own, but rather a result of external factors or influences. For example, they might claim that they were stressed, under the influence, or experiencing a negative emotional state that led to their actions. This type of denial shifts the blame away from the individual and onto external factors, allowing them to avoid taking full accountability for their actions.

In some cases, locals may even deny the fact that an inappropriate act occurred at all. This is a refusal to acknowledge the wrongdoing and can take the form of statements such as "it never happened" or "your allegation is not true." This denial of fact is a way for individuals to distance themselves from their actions and avoid accepting any responsibility.

It is important to recognize that these denial techniques are common responses when confronting someone about past inappropriate behavior. By understanding these mechanisms, it becomes easier to identify when someone is attempting to neutralize their law-breaking activities and shift the blame away from themselves.

While it is necessary to hold individuals accountable for their actions, it is also crucial to consider the underlying social conditions that may contribute to law-breaking behaviors. Addressing these social issues through improved social policies and educational initiatives can help reduce the incidence of criminal activities and promote a stronger sense of personal responsibility within the community.

Denial of injury: Claiming their actions did not cause harm

Denial of injury is one of the five "techniques of neutralization" identified by David Matza and Gresham Sykes, which are used to justify breaking society's moral codes. Denial of injury involves acknowledging that an action was wrong but claiming that no harm was caused by it.

• A student who cheats on a test may argue that no harm was done if the professor doesn't use a strict grading curve, as their higher score won't affect anyone else's grades.
• A person who throws out mail belonging to previous tenants might claim that the previous tenants would have thrown it out anyway, so no harm was done.
• A driver who speeds might argue that they didn't cause any harm because no accident occurred.
• A person who shares prescription medication with others could claim that they didn't cause any harm because the medication helped the people they gave it to.

While these rationales may seem reasonable to the individuals involved, it's important to recognize that breaking the law can have unintended consequences and cause harm in ways that aren't immediately apparent. For example, in the case of speeding, even if no accident occurs, it still increases the risk of an accident and can be considered negligent behavior. Negligence is a legal concept that refers to the failure to behave with the level of care that a reasonable person would have under the same circumstances. To determine negligence, factors such as the foreseeable likelihood and severity of harm, as well as the burden of taking precautions to avoid harm, are considered.

In summary, while denial of injury can be a way for locals to neutralize their law-breaking, it's important to recognize that laws are in place to protect people and prevent harm. Breaking the law, even if no apparent harm is done, can still have negative consequences and impact the safety and well-being of others.

Denial of the victim: Arguing the victim deserved it

Neutralization techniques are a theoretical series of methods that allow those who commit illegitimate acts to temporarily neutralize certain values within themselves, such as morality and obligation to abide by the law, which would normally prohibit them from carrying out such acts. In other words, it is a psychological method for people to turn off "inner protests" when they do, or are about to do, something they themselves perceive as wrong.

One such technique is the denial of the victim, where the offender believes that the victim deserved the crime committed against them. This could be due to their ethnic background or sexual orientation, for example. This technique is a way to reject the victim and embellish the crime.

Locals who have broken the law could use this technique to neutralize their actions by arguing that the victim of their crime deserved it. They could claim that the victim's ethnic background, sexual orientation, or other personal characteristics made them deserving of the crime. For example, they could argue that the victim's race or gender expression made them a target for their actions. This technique would allow the offender to shift the blame from themselves to the victim and justify their illegal actions.

It is important to note that this technique is a form of rationalization and justification for deviant behavior. It does not change the fact that the actions taken were illegal and caused harm. The use of neutralization techniques can be a sign of a flexible interpretation of norms, where individuals retain a moral code but are still able to violate it.

Overall, the denial of the victim is a powerful neutralization technique that can be used by offenders to justify their actions and minimize the blame placed on them. However, it does not change the fact that their actions were illegal and caused harm to the victim.

Condemnation of the condemners: Maintaining that those who condemn do so out of spite

The concept of "neutralization techniques" was proposed by criminologists David Matza and Gresham Sykes in the 1950s while studying juvenile delinquency. They observed that delinquents often expressed guilt over their actions, respected law-abiding individuals, and were not immune to the demands of conformity. This led them to develop the hypothesis that individuals are always aware of their moral obligation to abide by the law and that they employ certain mechanisms to silence their moral obligations when committing illegitimate acts.

One of these neutralization techniques is "condemnation of the condemners," where an individual maintains that those who are condemning their actions are doing so out of spite or are unfairly shifting the blame. This technique allows offenders to rationalize or justify their behaviour and turn off their "inner protests" when they commit acts they perceive as wrong.

The "condemnation of the condemners" neutralization technique involves offenders accusing their critics of being the true wrongdoers. They may claim that those who are condemning their actions are motivated by spite, envy, or some other negative emotion. This technique allows offenders to deflect attention away from their own wrongdoing and shift the blame onto their condemners. It is a way to rationalize their actions and maintain a positive self-image despite engaging in illegitimate behaviour.

For example, an individual who has broken the law might argue that the police or the legal system is corrupt or flawed and that their condemnation is invalid. They may claim that the real crime is the injustice perpetrated by those in power. By condemning the condemners, the offender attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the condemnation and justify their actions, at least in their own eyes.

This technique is often employed by those who feel that their actions are justified by circumstances or higher loyalties. They may believe that their actions are necessary to uphold a higher moral principle or loyalty, such as friendship or patriotism. In their eyes, those who condemn them are failing to recognize the validity of their justifications. By condemning the condemners, they can maintain their sense of moral righteousness despite breaking the law.

It's important to note that the use of neutralization techniques does not necessarily indicate a lack of moral awareness. Matza and Sykes' hypothesis suggests that offenders are aware of their moral obligations but employ these techniques to temporarily neutralize them. This is in contrast to other theories that propose delinquents have replaced societal moral codes with their own permanent set of values. The condemnation of the condemners technique can be a way for offenders to reconcile their actions with their internalized social norms, allowing them to drift between illegitimate and legitimate lifestyles.

In conclusion, the condemnation of the condemners is a neutralization technique where individuals justify their law-breaking by shifting the blame onto those who condemn them. It is a psychological mechanism that allows people to silence their inner protests and maintain a positive self-image despite engaging in behaviour they perceive as wrong. This technique is particularly interesting as it reveals the complex interplay between an individual's sense of morality and their actions, even when those actions are illegal or socially unacceptable.

Appeal to higher loyalties: Justifying the offence with a higher law or loyalty

The 'appeal to higher loyalties' technique of neutralization was first proposed by criminologists David Matza and Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. This technique involves an individual justifying their illegitimate actions by claiming to have acted in the interest of others or based on a higher law or loyalty, such as friendship or family. This justification allows them to temporarily set aside their internal moral objections to committing such acts.

Helping People in Need – Appeal to Altruism

Some cybercriminals, or threat actors, have tried to justify their actions by claiming altruistic intentions. For instance, they may donate a portion of their illegal proceeds to charities or engage in philanthropic activities. This was observed in the case of the cybercrime group DarkSide, which acknowledged the questionable nature of their cyber extortion activities while also highlighting their charitable donations. Similarly, the group HolyGhost used religious symbolism and a manifesto to portray themselves as morally superior and helping the "poor and starving" with their ill-gotten gains.

Societal Progress

Another justification used by threat actors is the argument that their actions force organizations to improve their cybersecurity measures and procedures. They present themselves as catalysts for technological developments and procedural innovations, contributing to societal progress. For example, the group Maze criticized companies for their irresponsible handling of personal data and positioned themselves as agents of change, forcing these companies to strengthen their security practices.

Political Values and Ingroup Loyalties

Threat actors may also frame their actions in terms of political values or sympathies. For instance, the group BlackMatter implied anti-capitalist sentiments by targeting companies instead of individuals and suggesting that their actions lead to the development of new cybersecurity technologies. Additionally, Conti expressed ingroup loyalty to the hacking subculture by showing solidarity with another hacking group, REvil, following a law enforcement takedown.

Orders or Peer Pressure

In some cases, offenders may claim that they acted under orders or peer pressure rather than their own will. This justification shifts the blame from the individual to external influences or the need to conform to a group.

Limitations and Criticisms

While these justifications may provide a temporary psychological reprieve for offenders, it is important to note that they do not eliminate the illegal or immoral nature of the acts. Additionally, the effectiveness of these neutralization techniques in truly justifying law-breaking to oneself or others is questionable. Furthermore, the internalization of social norms and the flexibility of the system of norms play a complex role in an individual's decision-making process, as proposed by Matza and Sykes.

Frequently asked questions