In this chapter the main focus is on shoplifting and the neutralization aspect of it. This study talks about how people blame the “devil” for shoplifting, this basically meaning that they are not talking full responsible for their crime. This study also covers the way these people neutralize, meaning (to remove or reduce) the guilt of their crime. This whole theory neutralization comes from Gresham Sykes and David Matza and its purpose of this theory was to help explain juvenile delinquency. It later became an expansion of Edwin Sutherland’s proposal that individuals can learn to become a criminal by developing, among other things such as the “motive drives rationalization, and attitudes favorable to violations of the law”. What this mainly means is that if people can neutralize their guilt for their deviance with these rationalizations or justifications such as blaming the devil rather than themselves for shoplifting then they are likely to engage in deviant activities. This study also discusses reasons for shoplifting, emotional responses about the act and aftermath, attitude towards the victim and their reasons and justifications for shoplifting.
In conclusion the study had an approach to tackle nine neutralizations that are used when describing shoplifting. Nine neutralizations are 1. Denial of Responsibility ( which is denying that the individual is responsible of its actions) 2. Denial of Injury ( my actions didn’t hurt nobody) 3. Condemning the Condemners ( blaming the system) 5. Appeal to Higher Loyalties ( doing it while others such as friends are around) 6. Defense of Necessity ( I have to do this regardless) 7. Its Common 8. Justification by Comparison ( if I didn’t steal I could have been doing something worse) 9. Postponement (consequences are dealt with later on) Questions
1. Which one of these nine neutralizations can be the most reasonable?
2. At what stage can be shoplifting be understandable?
3. Can stealing a book from the school bookstore be justifiable as Defense of Necessity?
4. What are crimes can be used for Defense of Necessity?
5. Do you think shoplifting is morally wrong?
6. What is justification by comparison mean?
Chapter 44 Burglary “ the offender’s perspective” In this chapter, which is called “Burglary”, is a study, which addresses several issues that’s critical to understanding of this crime and the prevention and control of the crime. During this study two main questions it tries to emphasis are; how do residential burglars choose their targets? What determines a burglar’s perception of a particular site as a weak target? What this means is a finding ways burglar choosing their targets and how making relevant decisions has much to do with the opportunity for committing this crime. In this study the author interviewed multiple burglars that are experienced in what they do and in these interviews it talked about multiple ways they commit these burglaries and what situations deter them from committing the act. Some include the thieves knowing the “time of burglar, burglar alarms, inside information, locks on door and windows, occupancy probes, dogs, and opportunity and burglary”. All these should deter a burglar from burglarizing the house. In this study I found the “Dog” part to be the most effective deterrence for these burglars. In the article it stated that most burglars would bypass a house with a dog because of the threat it can cause by attracting noise. In conclusion this article teaches us burglars may be more opportunistic than most of us might believe. The opportunistic burglar chooses targets based on their perceived vulnerability to burglary at a given time, at least that’s what it said in the book. We also must understand that the average burglar is not a professional; in fact most of these burglars are young and unskilled. That’s why dogs and locks on most doors can be a good deterrence for these unskilled thieves.
