1.2 Learning from others
This refers to the influence of people in your intimate social groups such as family, friend and geng
members.
It is supported by Sutherlands theory of differential association:
Sutherland suggests that activity and mannerisms are naturally absorbed in the environment you are
in.
This theory was developed to describe the conditions which produce criminal behaviour. It argues
that criminal behaviour is learnt by exposure to criminal norms. The group of people that the person
is exposed to will influence their values and attitudes towards law violation.
In Sutherland’s terminology if people encounter more and stronger, favourable definitions towards
law violation then they are more likely to become criminal.
People learn through association with friends, family and other intimate groups. One of the 9
principles suggest that there are different attitudes to different kinds of crime. He also highlighted
the learning of techniques to commit crimes
9 Principles:
1.Criminal Behaviour is Learned:
Sutherland believed that criminal behaviour was not inherited or a result of any other biological
condition. In other words the individual, without prior influence from others, in incapable of
inventing criminal behaviour.
2.Criminal Behaviour is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication:
Sutherland believed that such communication usually involved verbal interaction; however it could
also involve the use of gestures without word. This point supports the first one by once again
claiming that individuals cannot become criminal by themselves.
3.The Principle part of the learning of criminal behaviour occurs within intimate personal groups:
Sutherland felt that intimate personal groups provided the largest influence on the learning of
criminal behaviour. He felt that impersonal agencies of communication such as newspapers and
films(media) played a relatively unimportant role in the ‘birth’ of criminal behaviour. (Contrast with
modern theories on the medias influence).
4.When Criminal Behaviour is learned, the learning includes ,the technique of committing the
crime, which are sometimes very complicated, and the specific direction of motives, drives and
rationalisations, and attitudes:
A criminal has to learn the techniques of the trade from someone, he also learns the attitudes taken
and excuses made for behaving in a criminal fashion.
5.The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as
favourable or unfavourable:
Groups of people may see certain laws as pointless of discriminatory and therefore feel they can
flaunt them or that it is right to break them, for example underage drinking laws.
6. A person becomes a delinquent because of an excess of definitions favourable to violation of
law over definitions unfavourable to violation of law.
This is the principle of differential association. Individuals become criminal due to repeated contacts
with criminal activity and a lack of contact with non-criminal activity.
7. Differential associations (number of contacts with criminals over non-criminals) may vary in
frequency, duration, priority and intensity.
According to Sutherland, a precise description of a person’s criminal behaviour would be possible in
quantitative form by analysing the number of contacts with criminals, which would lead to a
mathematical ratio being reached.
8. The process of learning criminal behaviour by association with criminal and anti-criminal
patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning.
In this point, Sutherland claims that criminal behaviour is learned just like every other behaviour. In
other words he felt there was nothing ‘special’ or ‘abnormal’ about criminal behaviour, or criminals
for that matter, thus going against the claims of biological and pathological theorists.
9. Whole criminal behaviour is an expression of general needs and values. It is not explained by
those general needs and values since non-criminal behaviour is an expression of the same needs
and values.
A thief generally steals in order to obtain money. However such an action is no different from the
work of an honest labourer, so this need in itself cannot explain theft.
Theory is based on two core assumptions:


Deviance occurs when people define a certain human situation as an appropriate occasion
for violating social norms or criminal laws.
Definitions of the situation are acquired through an individual’s history of post experience.
Evaluation:
Methodology:
There is no reason to support his theory directly but it is simply a description of a thery in his
textbook on criminology.
Generaliseability:
Difficult to generalise because is not based on research or evidence, even though it is common
sense.
Validity:
Lacks validity because there is no evidence to support it.
Nature/ Nurture:
Supports the nurture side of the debate because it argues that criminality is caused by the influence
of other people. Your interaction with intimate social groups and the number of favourable
definitions for law violation.