eval

• A major advantage of Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory is that it offers a refreshing approach towards the explanation of crime - one where the environment, as opposed to the individual, is blamed. This means that the extreme policies of eugenics (the solution for criminality from a biological perspective) are rightfully not an option as a method for dealing with offending behaviour. Therefore, this theory provides a fair and realistic explanation of crime which does not hold the individual entirely accountable, and rightfully so!
• It is incorrect to assume that simply because an individual has been exposed to more procriminal attitudes compared to anti-criminal attitudes, then this does not necessarily mean that they will become criminal. Such a determinist approach may lead to increased crime itself through the realisation of self-fulfilling prophecies or, in addition, may lead to ‘scientific justification’ for discrimination and justification. - ignores the impact of free will and is deterministic - soft environmental
• The theory fails to explain why some individuals who have had exposure to both pro-crime and anti-crime associations do not go on to commit crimes themselves.
• x - the theory has many untestable concepts because they cannot be operationalised. eg. it is hard to see how the number of pro-crime attitudes can be measured. and the theory is built on assumption that offending behaviour will occur when procrime values outnumber anticrime therefore we do not know when offending career may have been triggered without measuring them. means that the theory does not have scientific credibility.