Definition of Techniques of Neutralization The term “techniques of neutralization” is used in criminal procedures mostly by people who are accused of having committed crimes. This refers to theoretical series of theoretical methods. Also, they are used by people who have committed illegitimate acts to defend or neutralize several values that could prevent them from indulging in such acts. These values include obligations to act according to the law, morality among many others. Techniques of neutralization are psychological methods that are used by people who want to commit crimes. They use these methods to justify the wrong acts that they intend to do. These methods are seen as being part of inner denial (Braithwaite, 2010, p. 5). The argument for Techniques of Neutralization in crime and its Justification The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate ways of living. They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties. These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664). Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 667). A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at portraying them as non-rapists. They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several themes were singled out as a justif