When being GOOD is BAD!

In neutralization theory, Sykes and Matza claim that neutralizations provide offenders with a means of preserving a noncriminal self-concept even as they engage in crime and deviance. Sykes and Matza’s vision assumes that most criminals believe in conventional norms and values and must use neutralizations in order to shield themselves from the shame attached to criminal activity. Recent research by criminologist Volkan Topalli fi nds that Sykes and Matza may have ignored the infl uential street culture that exists in highly disadvantaged neighborhoods. Using data gleaned from 191 in-depth interviews with active criminals in St. Louis, Missouri, Topalli fi nds that street criminals living in disorganized, gang-ridden neighborhoods “disrespect authority, lionize honor and violence, and place individual needs above those of all others.” Rather than having to neutralize conventional values in order to engage in deviant ones, these offenders do not experience guilt that r equires neutralizations; they are “guilt free.” There is no need for them to “drift” into criminality, Topalli fi nds,  because their allegiance to nonconventional values and lack of guilt perpetually leave them in a state of openness to crime. Rather than being contrite or ashamed, the offenders Topalli interviewed took great pride in their criminal activities and abilities. Bacca, a street robber who attacked a long-time neighbor without provocation, exemplifi ed such sentiments: Actually I felt proud of myself just for robbing him, just for doing what I did I felt proud of myself. I didn’t feel like I did anything wrong, I didn’t feel like I lost a friend ’cause the friends I do have . . . are lost, they’re dead. I feel like I don’t have anything to lose. I wanted to do just what I wanted to do.
Topalli refers to streetwise offenders such as Bacca as “hardcores,” who experience no guilt for their actions and operate with little or no regard for the law. They have little contact with agents of formal social control or conventional norms because their crimes are not  directed toward conventional society— they rob drug dealers. Most hardcores maintain no permanent home, staying in various residences as their whim d ictates. Their lifestyles are almost e ntirely dominated by the street ethics of violence, self-suffi ciency, and opportunism. Obsessed with a constant need for cash, drugs, and alcohol in order to “keep the party going,” on the one hand, and limited by self-defeating and reckless spending habits on the other, they often engage in violent crime to bankroll their street life activities. They do not have to neutralize conventional values because they have none. Rather than neutralizing conventional values, hard-core criminals often have to neutralize deviant values: they are expected to be “bad” and have to  explain good behavior. Even if they themselves are the victims of crime, they can never help police or even talk to them, a practice defi ned as snitching and universally despised and discouraged. Smokedog, a carjacker and drug dealer, described the anticipated guilt of colluding with the police in this way, “You know I ain’t never told on nobody and I ain’t never gonna tell on nobody ’cause I would feel funny in the world if I told on somebody. You know, I would feel funny, I would have regrets about what I did.” Street criminals are also expected to seek vengeance if they are the target of theft or violence. If they don’t, their selfimage is damaged and they look weak and ineffective. If they decide against vengeance, they must neutralize their decision by convincing themselves that they are being merciful, respecting direct
 appeals by their target’s family and friends. T-dog, a young drug dealer and car thief, told Topalli how he neutralized the decision not to seek revenge by allowing his uncle to “calm him down.” The older man, a robber and drug dealer himself, intervened before T-dog could leave his house armed with two 9mm automatics: “That’s basically what he told me, ‘Calm down.’ He took both my guns and gave me a little .22 to carry when I’m out to put me back on my feet. Gave me an ounce of crack and a pound of weed. That’s what made me let it go.” In other cases, offenders claimed the target was just not worth the effort, reserving their vengeance for those who were worthy opponents. Do these fi ndings indicate that neutralization theory is invalid? Topalli concludes that the strength of the theory is its emphasis on cognitive processes that occur prior to offending. He suggests that neutralization theory’s current emphasis on a conventional cultural value orientation must be expanded to accommodate the values of the street culture.