Does Serious and Persistent Offending Require Moral Neutralization? A Quantitative Examination

• In Event: Expanding Control Theory: An Exploration of Social Control, Self-Control, and Neutralization Strategies to Explain Crime

Abstract

Qualitative research has raised intriguing questions regarding the relevance of moral neutralization to serious and persistent offending. Given their likely immersion in a criminal street culture, do individuals involved in serious street offending feel any need to neutralize their bad behavior? Add, if they do, does the continuity of their offending depend on successful neutralization? Qualitative researchers have arrived at different answers to these questions. For example, Topalli observes that such individuals feel little need to neutralize their criminal conduct, while Jacobs and Copes observe that even those involved in serious and violent offending seek to neutralize their bad behavior and that such neutralization makes it easier for them to continue offending. In this study, I seek to adjudicate between these competing views. Analyses of quantitative data from a large survey of justice-involved youth indicate that, in general, moral neutralization contributes to continuity in serious offending. But this effect is diminished significantly among individuals who possess relatively long histories of problem behavior. The findings suggest that, with sufficient time and experience with offending, neutralization becomes less and less relevant. Implications for neutralization theory are discussed.

Author

• Timothy Brezina, Georgia State University