Sutherland's Theory of Differential Association and White-Collar Crime

Theory of Differential Association and White-Collar Crime

According to Edwin Sutherland, criminal behavior is learned rather than inherited or born from spontaneous generation, rejecting purely positivist views. He also posits that low IQ does not inherently imply criminal behavior. Learning occurs through differential association—the groups and social circles to which an individual is linked. If these groups predominantly support criminal ideas, the individual learns criminal behavior; conversely, if the group adheres to law and order, the individual adopts those behaviors. Differential association acts as both a source and a consequence of learning, applicable to both antisocial and prosocial conduct.

The Nine Propositions of Differential Association

• Criminal behavior is learned through identical mechanisms as virtuous behavior or any other activity.
• Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with others through communication, requiring active learning and intent.
• The turning point occurs within the individual's most intimate relations, such as family and immediate social environment.
• Learning criminal behavior includes two aspects: technical offense skills and motives, rationalizations, and justifications.
• Justifications are learned through definitions favorable to crime.
• An individual becomes criminal only when definitions favorable to violating the law outweigh those unfavorable to it.
• Differential associations vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.
• The process of learning criminal behavior involves all standard learning mechanisms.
• Criminal conduct cannot be explained by general needs and values, as lawful behavior also satisfies these same needs and values.

Sutherland and White-Collar Crime

Sutherland studied white-collar crime and demonstrated that the primary difference between white-collar offenses and street crimes lies in their administrative treatment. While white-collar behaviors often resulted in civil or administrative liability, similar acts by others were met with criminal liability.

Reasons for Lack of Criminal Punishment

• The high social status of the businessman.
• A systemic trend toward non-punishment.
• Societal resentment regarding the widespread, diffuse effects of such crimes.

While modern democratic societies increasingly pursue these crimes, the enforcement remains inconsistent and often lacks objectivity.