Guest Editors’ Introduction

On October 29, 2010, criminology lost one of its pioneers. Gresham M’Cready Sykes (known as Grex to friends and family) was a true luminary. His insights about those who commit crime (i.e., techniques of neutralization) and the ways that prison affects the incarcerated (i.e., pains of imprisonment) have shaped the discipline for over half a century and will undoubtedly continue to do so. This special issue of Criminal Justice Review is a tribute to his creative capacity and academic insights. While we could have focused on any number of his works, we have decided to devote this issue to work that was inspired by his classic article, “Techniques of Neutralization” (Sykes & Matza, 1957). We believe that focusing on neutralization theory is most fitting for this special issue because this short and eloquent work is arguably his greatest contribution to the discipline, although a strong argument could be made for his insights on the pains of imprisonment. ¹ In addition, this work has greatly shaped our own view of offenders and has guided much of our research.

Although Sykes was a sociologist by training he believed strongly that limiting the study of crime to a single discipline or methodology was misguided. According to his wife, Carla Sykes: ²

With this perspective in mind, our goal in organizing this issue was to bring together research from varying theoretical (e.g., psychological, sociological, and criminological) and methodological (e.g., quantitative and qualitative) perspectives that were tied together and inspired by his insights about how those who commit crime use neutralization techniques to carry out their crimes free from guilt or negative self-images.

In an age where the shelf life of most articles is less than a decade, it is truly remarkable that neutralization theory is still being cited, tested, and incorporated into other theories some 50 years after first appearing in print. This is even more impressive when seen in the context of how quickly the original article was conceptualized and written. According to Carla, “the main idea of the theory was literally born in the hallways of Princeton when David (Matza) and Grex were discussing the concept of rationalization in between classes. Throughout that week, they met a few more times and literally drafted what soon became the Techniques of Neutralization in a matter of days. . . . The theory was literally conceived in the hallway and brought about by David and Grex’s drive and passion to understand what causes people to do things they know are wrong or even criminal” (C. Sykes, personal communication, July 15, 2012). Developing and writing a theoretical work that can withstand peer review and decades of scholarly criticism in a matter of days illustrates Sykes’s gift for understanding human nature and skill at crafting clearly organized and masterfully written works. What was a product of a few days work and six pages of text has led to hundreds of empirical studies using it and reviews that span up to 100 pages (e.g., Maruna & Copes, 2005).

One reason that we believe neutralization theory has remained viable in the discipline is because of its succinctness and the fact that it simply rings true. Few theories are as easily relatable to our everyday experiences. Undoubtedly, we all have used one or more of the five neutralization techniques to overcome the guilt of our norm-violating behavior. This is not to say that the theory has gone without criticism, as it certainly has. Much of the criticism lies with the difficulty researchers have had in establishing the temporal order of neutralizations and delinquency or crime. Additionally, much of the research that addresses the role of neutralizations on delinquency has produced moderate or mixed results. Such theoretical and methodological limitations have led some to abandon the idea that neutralization theory is sufficient as a stand-alone theory of crime initiation. Despite these criticisms, there are numerous scholars who defend the theory and many more others who agree that neutralizations should be incorporated (to some degree) into other more general theories of crime. In fact, criminologists have incorporated the concept of neutralizations into such diverse theories as reintegrative shaming, control theory, general strain theory, the rational choice perspective, and the sociology of accounts.

Further testament to the power and popularity of neutralization theory is the diversity of crime prevention and rehabilitation programs in which it has been incorporated. Proponents of situational crime prevention argue that “neutralizing the neutralizations” can be an effective way to reduce crime, especially in the workplace. Programs built around the idea of removing excuses have proven successful especially at reducing crimes in the workplace. Several scholars have even shown how understanding neutralizations can aid law enforcement in carrying out their day-to-day jobs. Specifically, by understanding the ways offenders neutralize their crimes interrogators can more easily gain confessions from suspects. Finally, the idea of overcoming neutralizing beliefs for the successful desistance of crime appears in numerous cognitive rehabilitation programs. The majority of these programs are based on the idea that offending is partly due to a mind-set that justifies and rationalizes crime. By targeting this way of thinking, many believe that they can deter future offending. Its ability to be incorporated into more general theories of criminal behavior and its value for crime prevention and rehabilitation suggest that the theory will continue to evolve and to expand.

For this continuation and evolution to occur, we believe that it is necessary for scholars to tackle directly some of the lingering questions about the nature and content of neutralizations. In their review of the theory, Maruna and Copes (2005) argue that the theory is still “badly undertheorized” and offer nine aspects of the theory that need further refinement. These unresolved issues include determining whether the use of neutralizations are better explanations of initiation into crime than persistence or desistance, whether a person’s acceptance of neutralizing beliefs is stable over time, and whether a person’s background or personality characteristics facilitate the use of neutralizations. While recent research has provided some answers to the lingering issues, many remain unanswered. The articles that we selected for this issue fill in the gaps for some of these issues and, we hope, will stimulate new lines of inquiry. Namely, the articles included here provide new insights into the stability of neutralizations and their role in contributing to future delinquency (Morris and Copes, 2012), expand on the locations where white-collar offenders learn specific neutralizations (Klenowski, 2012), highlight gender differences in the frequency and content of neutralization use (Vieraitis, Piquero, Piquero, Tibbetts, and Blankenship, 2012), explore differences between white-collar and other types of offenders in the use of neutralizations (Stadler and Benson, 2012), and show how neutralizations help persistent offenders make sense of differing perceptions of self (Cromwell and Birzer, 2012). While we certainly have not closed the book on neutralizations, these insightful articles do offer theoretical and methodological advancements to the theory.

We close this introduction with heartfelt words from Carla Sykes. At the conclusion of her last written correspondence, Carla wanted to impart some final words to those who knew Grex personally, those who continue to study his research regarding crime and punishment, and those who contributed to this special issue. These are her words:

We thank Gresham Sykes for his part in shaping the discipline (and our careers) and Carla Sykes for allowing us to see a different side of him and for her role in editing and guiding his work. Criminology as a whole is better for having them.