As a Criminology Professor, one of my objectives in the classroom is to encourage the connection between theory and behaviour. There are numerous, and often repetitive, theoretical models intended to help us understand and explain criminality. Some of these focus on personality and upbringing. Others look at social conditions and neighbourhood deterioration. Still, others attempt to link criminality to the evils of capitalism (the dinosaurs may be extinct but there’s a whole breed of belly-dragging Criminologist that refuses to make its way to the tar pits).
One of the best sociological models to shine on the sponsorship scandal is known as “Drift Theory”. Conceived in the 60’s by David Matza and Gresham Sykes, Drift Theory demonstrates how otherwise law-abiding citizens can so easily move between conforming behaviour and blatant criminality. The theory suggests that many offenders, most of the time, embrace pro-social values and respect the law. But through a series of rationalizations and justifications, they are able to willingly engage in highly illegal behaviour and still come away with a clear conscience. In effect, offenders learn techniques that allow them to neutralize their values and beliefs in order to do crime.
Sykes and Matza claim that they do so by employing one or more of the five “techniques of neutralization.” Oh yes, and even though Sykes and Matza developed this model specifically to look at juvenile offending, it seems to work remarkably well in the case of the Liberal Party of Canada.
First, is the Denial Of Responsibility. Offenders typically seek to blame someone else for the allegations made against them. In the case of Adscam, there is supposedly a significant distinction between the Paul Martin Liberal Government and the Jean ChrÃ
