<Course>
In comparison with the first six months of 2014, the rate of violent crimes in the United States for the first six months of 2015 increased significantly. Violent crimes include rape, murder, robbery, aggravated assault, and non-negligent manslaughter (qtd. in “Violent and Property”). Aside from violent crimes, other types include property crimes (e.g., arson and forgery), statutory crimes (e.g., drunk-driving), and inchoate crimes (e.g., attempted robbery and conspiracy). No matter how many types exist, crimes do happen all over the world every single day. In an attempt to understand and explain why crimes exist and how people develop criminal minds, Edwin Sutherland, an American sociologist and criminologist, spent some time studying the topic. Eventually, he published a book entitled Principles of Criminology in which he explained his theory called differential association theory. A closer look at this theory and how it explains real life crimes is vital in the understanding of why crimes, a deviant behavior, continue to exist.
The differential association theory explains the different facets of crime. A crime is defined as a “behavior in violation of a criminal law” (Sutherland, Cressey, and Luckenbill 4). This means that a certain behavior, whether it is immoral or deviant from the perspectives of certain people, cannot be considered as a crime unless it is outlawed by authorities. Now, the differential association theory is presented by Edwin Sutherland as a “developmental theory which attempts to explain what there is about the biographies of persons that lead to criminality” (Sutherland, Cressey, and Luckenbill 95). From this perspective, Sutherland explains a crime using nine propositions. First, a crime is a product of a learned criminal behavior (Sutherland & Cressey 123). Just like learning how to brush one’s teeth, a learning process is involved when a person develops a criminal behavior. Second, a criminal behavior is learned through observation (Sutherland & Cressey 123). This means that a person has to witness the crime first hand in order to learn and replicate the same behavior. Third, a criminal behavior is learned from the members of close, personal groups (Sutherland & Cressey 123). Although the television and video games, which are often blamed by many whenever someone commits a crime, Sutherland’s third proposition explains that these factors are less likely to influence criminal behavior compared to what is observed from close family members and intimate groups. Fourth, a crime happens not just by learning how to commit it but by acquiring the “motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes” relating to the crime through constant communication with close and intimate groups (Sutherland & Cressey 123). This means that learning and seeing the act of committing a crime isn’t enough for a person to be a criminal. A person must also acquire the same ideology as what his/her intimate group has. Fifth, a crime happens based on conceived motivation or whether the person sees the law as favorable or not (Sutherland & Cressey 123). For instance, if a state forbids mercy killing but a person believes that it is necessary, he/she may commit mercy killing despite the fact that his action will be against the law. The sixth proposition states that crime happens when exposure to criminal behavior is more frequent or stronger than exposure to non-criminal behavior (Sutherland & Cressey 123). For example, if a person came from a family of drug addicts and frequently hears that the behavior is fine, instead of being discouraged through the reminders of the community, he/she will most likely encourage to take drugs, too (family members vs. community). The seventh proposition, on the other hand, explains that a crime happens as a result of “frequency, duration, priority and intensity” of exposure. Moreover, the eighth proposition explains that the learning process of criminal behavior is just like learning other skills: practicing the behavior overtime leads to effectiveness and efficiency of performing the crime (Sutherland & Cressey 124). Lastly is the ninth proposition. This explains that a pro-criminal and anti-criminal behavior is not based on the same needs and values (Sutherland & Cressey 124). For example, gaining wealth through hard work is not based on the same needs and values that encourage gaining wealth through stealing.
Taking a look at the circumstances of three crimes will help in evaluating the differential association theory. The first crime to be evaluated is the one committed by Keith Hunter Jesperson, also known as the Happy Face Killer. He is a serial rapist and killer who victimized eight women during the 1990s (“Keith Hunter”). As a child, Jesperson was already exposed to violence. His father was said to be alcoholic, domineering, and violent, often beating him (“Keith Hunter”). Later on, he developed the same violent behavior. Report says that Jesperson “would capture birds and stray cats and dogs around the trailer park where he lived with his family, severely beating the animals and then strangling them to death, something he claims his father was proud of him for” (“Keith Hunter”). As a child, he often thought about what it was like to do the same to humans. At age 10, he tried to apply his criminal behavior to another boy, and it was one of his two attempted murders at a young age (“Keith Hunter”). In high school, he felt rejected, especially by women. Although he got married at age 20 and had three children, they eventually got divorced, and his murder spree followed. The second crime was committed by Dylan Klebold along with Eric Harris. In April 1999, they went on a shooting spree at the Columbine High School, which killed 13 people and injured 20 others, and they committed suicide right after (“Dylan Klebold”). For his family, he is an unlikely killer. His parents own a real estate management, and they live in an upper middle class lifestyle. He was intelligent and he was part of a school program specific to gifted students (“Dylan Klebold”). Both Dylan and Eric felt like outcasts in Columbine School, and they developed hatred for it. Together, they enjoyed playing violent games and different things that are “German” (e.g., hailing “Heil, Hitler after playing games). In fact, the date of the crime was April 20, 1999, Adolf Hitler’s birthday. A year before the shooting, they were arrested for theft, mischief, and trespassing (“Dylan Klebold”). Although there were signs relating to their growing hatred towards the school (e.g., personal writings and videos), nobody expected Dylan to go as far as killing. After his first arrest, he was enrolled in a diversion program characterized by counseling and community service, and at the end of this program, he was called “a bright young man who has a great deal of potential” (“Dylan Klebold”). However, the end of his story proved otherwise. The third crime was committed by the famous thief named Clyde Barrow. He came from a poor family of farmers. He always wanted to be a musician; specifically, he wanted to learn how to play guitar and saxophone (“Clyde Barrow”). However, his future was quite different from what he dreamed of. At an early age, he started committing criminal behaviors due to the influence of his brother (“Clyde Barrow”). This behavior was further encouraged when he met a waitress named Bonnie Parker who eventually became his romantic and crime partner. They eventually became part of various gangs, stealing and killing. After being on the run from authorities and leading their own group of criminals, they were killed by officers in 1934.
These three crimes suggest that the differential association theory, although helpful in explaining a pattern of development and occurrence of criminal behaviors, is not a scientific idea because the propositions do not always apply to all crimes, and in general, the theory is not testable. When looking at the life and circumstances that Jesperson (Happy Face Killer) and Clyde went through, almost all of the nine propositions of the differential association theory were followed. Both were influenced by close family members and group and were encouraged to commit murder and stealing. In addition, both of them formed a sense of motivation according to the same motivations of their influencers (Jesperson was motivated by his father while Clyde was motivated by his brother, partner, and gang). Clearly, their behaviors were learned, and they were able to observe their influencers commit these criminal acts. Also, since they were exposed to these behaviors at a young age, their chances of imitating them were quite high (seventh proposition). However, not all of the nine propositions apply to the three crimes previously discussed. For instance, the third proposition states that television and video games cannot encourage criminal behavior more than family or close individuals. Although Dylan was exposed to violent television programs and video games, Eric was the only one from his group that influenced him to commit the crime. There was no record that any of his family members were violent or have criminal tendencies. In addition, he was even exposed to a diversion program that aimed to influence him to do better before he actually committed the shooting spree. Furthermore, for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be proven by evidence and must be testable. In the case of differential association theory, drafting a test design (with dependent and independent variable) to check its validity will be very challenging. It is quite unethical to use a particular set of individuals and expose them to variables that are in line with the nine propositions in order to see if they will commit a crime. The differential association theory, therefore, can be best classified as a philosophical idea. Philosophy which means “love of wisdom” defines the activity being taken by people to seek and “understand fundamental truths” (“What is”). This means that the nine propositions that make up the differential association theory serves as a philosophical pattern that help understand a fundamental truth that crimes may happen due to certain factors or triggers, but not all crimes occur just by the presence of these factors. With this theory, preventing the occurrence of crimes may be possible to a certain extent by making sure that people are not exposed to criminal behaviors for a prolonged period. However, since the differential association theory only explains one pattern, eliminating all crimes cannot be possible in general.
Works Cited
“Clyde Barrow.” Bio. A&E Television Networks, 2016. Web. 6 March 2016.
“Dylan Klebold.” Bio. A&E Television Networks, 2016. Web. 6 March 2016.
“Keith Hunter Jesperson.” Murderpedia. Murderpedia, n.d.. Web. 6 March 2016.
Sutherland, Edwin H., and Donald R. Cressey. A Theory of Differential Association. Criminological Theory: Past to Present. Ed. Francis T. Cullen and Robert Agnew. Los Angeles, LA: Roxbury Company, 1960. Print.
Sutherland, Edwin H., Donald R. Cressey, and David F. Luckenbill. Principles of Criminology. Oxford, OX: General Hall, 1992. Print.
“Violent and Property Crime in the US-Crime in America.” Crime in America.net. Crime in America.net, Web. 5 March 2016
“What is Philosophy?” Department of Philosophy. Florida State University, n.d.. Web. 6 March 2016.
