Differential association

• Differential association (Sutherland 1924) aims to use scientific principals to explain all forms of crime
• Differential association (Sutherland 1924) shows individuals learn pro-crime and anti-crime attitudes and values which determines whether they will offend or not
• Differential association (Sutherland 1924) disregards the influence of class and ethnicity on crime instead focusing on socialisation and who you associate with
• Differential association (Sutherland 1924) states crime is learned through association with others who are in intimate social groups
• Differential association (Sutherland 1924) claims learning is directional either for or against crime
• Differential association (Sutherland 1924) states that if pro-crime attitudes outweigh anti-crime ones then the individual will become and offender
• differential association (sutherland 1924) shows learning experiences as differing in frequency and intensity between individuals
• Differential association (sutherland 1924) shows crime as often learned through conditioning
• differential association (sutherland 1924) claims need does not explain crime as not all crime is committed out of necessity
• Differential association (sutherland 1924) has 2 ways of learning offending; learning values and learning techniques
• Learning attitudes (sutherland 1924) is how individuals are socialised to have pro-crime and anti-crime attitudes
• Learning techniques (Sutherland 1924) is how an individual learns to commit crime
• Learning attitudes and techniques is common in prisons causing high reoffending rates
• Strengths; drew attention away from biological explanations for crime and considers the social situation people face which developed studies into criminal behaviour beyond a biologically reductionist viewpoint
• Strength; can apply to different crimes EG working class crimes such as burglary and white collar crime can both be explained as those committing them are exposed to different pro-crime and anti-crime values explaining why different people commit different crimes
• Weakness; could be socially sensitive as it may stereotype people from an impoverished background as they are more likely to be exposed to pro-crime values however they may not turn to crime
• Weakness; unscientific as pro-crime and anti-crime values are not concrete scientific and measurable concepts