TOPALLI, Volkan. When being good is bad: an expansion of neutralization theory.

CRIMINOLOGY. Volume 43, Nº3, 2005. p. 797-836.

- teoria da neutralização vai contra a teoria da subcultura. “Sykes and Matza rejected this
perspective, arguing that if individuals truly believed in the precepts of an oppositional subculture
they would engage in crime and other unconventional behaviors without misgivings or guilt. The
underlying assumption of neutralization theory was (and is) that delinquents, despite their
involvement with offending, maintain a strong bond to conventional society and are invested in
maintaining a perception of themselves as good.” (p. 798) criminosos não rejeitam valores sociais
convencionais.

- The theory therefore fails to address the decision-making processes of, to take one example,
criminal street offenders. (p. 798). A ética do crime agiria de maneira distinta, segundo ele.

- “A significant body of research has supported their approach, and since then the applicability of
neutralization techniques to individuals other than youth offenders has been significantly expanded
(for a comprehensive review of neutralization theory and such applications see Maruna and Copes,
2004)” (p. 799)

- algumas técnicas de neutralização de criminosos são usadas para defender “moralidades das ruas”
e não os valores mais amplos da sociedade. Como a legitimidade do ato de “caguetar” alguém. (p.
801). A questão é: será que os códigos de conduta “das ruas” ou “do crime” são tão diferentes
assim dos códigos de conduta “convencionais” para meus interlocutores? Certamente tais
diferenças existem mas, em alguns casos, existe uma aproximação entre eles. É preciso
especificar não só de que “rua se está falando”, como também de que “recorte social” fazemos
referência. Em certas regiões morais do Rio de Janeiro, não me parece possível definir tão
claramente esses dois universos. Eles mantém relações muito próximas entre si em vários
aspectos. Por aqui, a legalidade não é capaz de gerar, necessariamente, uma moralidade, como
dentro do universo anglo-saxão que me parece ser a referência dos dois autores (VER A
REFLEXÃO DO KANT SOBRE ISSO.

- Acho que a resposta está aqui: “This is not to say that middle-class male youths are not invested in
some of the same accoutrements and ethics of toughness and violence that offenders are. In fact,
Matza (1964) identifies many such street ethics as important subterranean components of
mainstream youth culture. Certainly there is evidence of this interest in the types of films, music,
and videogame entertainment that middle class youth consume on a yearly basis. However,
although middle-class youth appreciate the tough image and social credibility of street life and
street attitudes they are far less likely to engage in the kinds of serious criminal violence
demonstrated by hardcore offenders, which is an interesting parallel to Anderson’s concept of
“decent” people (1999). Even when they do, the frequency and intensity of such activities pales in
comparison to what we witness in the kinds of criminals represented in this study.” (p. 802)

- estudos sobre criminosos hardcore tomavam como recorte empírico criminosos na prisão. Isto
enviesa os dados sobre a neutralização sobre seus crimes. É um limite metodológico na produção
dos dados. Autor então argumenta que seu estudo toma criminosos que estão soltos. Lá, eles estão
constrangidos por “forças institucionais” (p. 803 e segs.)

- “However, such persons are not representative of those who habitually commit serious violent
crimes and by their behavior exhibit little loyalty to the conventional world order. Indeed, research
on persistent street offenders confirms that these individuals maintain little or no guilt for their
offending behavior” (p. 805). Preciso deixar claro que, parte deles, são “futuros criminosos”
que, até aquele momento, não entraram numa dinâmica sistemática de crimes mais pesados.
Outros candidatos, todavia, já tiveram parte de suas trajetórias marcadas pelo “mundo do
crime”. Tudo isso nos ajuda a compreender como as moralidades que informam tais sujeitos
são situacionais. E, no meu caso, complexificam ainda mais essa divisão entre “hardcore street
offenders” e “soft middle-class offenders”. Na real, a questão me parece mais profícua se
colocada da seguinte forma: existem certos crimes que exigem “técnicas de neutralização”,
enquanto outros simplesmente não. Isto é mais profícuo que tal divisão. Os dois autores
corroboram a teorização da Lucía e do Werneck. ESSE É O PONTO!!!!

- Hardcores não sentem culpa. Eles, na real, se vangloriam dos seus atos criminosos de roubos,
assaltos, etc. O seu perfil é: “Most hardcores maintain no permanent home, staying in various
residences as their whim dictates. Their lifestyles—almost entirely dominated by the street ethics of
violence, self-sufficiency and opportunism—focus on hedonistic activities (sex, drugs, partying)
and material goods, ignoring both the concerns and rights of others and their own futures (Shover,
1996, Wright and Decker, 1997, 1994). Obsessed on the one hand with a constant need for cash,
drugs, and alcohol to “keep the party going” and limited by self-defeating and reckless spending
habits on the other, they often engage in violent crime to bankroll their street life activities.” (p.
807). Parte dessas características são encontradas em alguns candidatos, mas elas não se
“encaixam” tanto assim em suas vidas presentes e futuras. Talvez o mais próximo disso seja o
Bruno e, em parte, o Felipe quando ele tava com a milícia.

- “Although many papers on neutralization theory focus on the types of neutralization techniques
employed (for example, denial of victim, condemning the condemners and the like) the focus of this
work is not on the different techniques but the reasons they are used to begin with.” (p. 811)

- os caras precisam manter uma imagem pública, uma performance de hardcore (p. 816)

- o PM vale o mal que ele faz do Léo: “Katz acknowledges the importance of maintaining a
hardcore reputation when he observes that one “who wields the powers of terror, without backing it
with material violence, risks humiliation” (1988: 80–103).

- (Miller, 2001; Topalli et al., 2002; Jacobs et al., 2000). n cultures of modern honor betrayal and
assault are punishable by death (Cooney, 1998).

- FODA ISSO. Quando autor mudar o foco do “tipo de neutralização” para “os motivos da
escolha daquela motivação”, ele libera a teoria da neutralização para ser aplicada em outros
grupos sociais para além dos jovens de classe média que cometeram crimes. O parâmetro das
moralidades da “classe média” são relativizados: “Neutralization theory can be used to explain
the paradoxical behaviors of serious street-allied offenders as well as those of more conventionally
attached criminals (and even nonoffenders). The strength of the theory—its emphasis on cognitive
processes that occur before offending—can more fully be tapped by abandoning its current
emphasis on a conventional cultural value orientation (an approach advocated by Hazani, 1991). In
the absence of such a limitation, neutralization theory can be applied to all types of offenders
regardless of the degree to which conventional or unconventional values are important to them.” (p.
823)

- EXATAMENTE! “Reconceptualizing neutralization theory in this way allows for a more

thorough and inclusive understanding the behavior of criminals. For those attached to conventional
society, neutralizing allows them to engage in offending without relinquishing their image of
themselves as good. For those dedicated to street culture, the process allows them to drift (see
Matza, 1964) into a state in which the pressures of criminal life can be temporarily abandoned to
allow for conventional behavior without sacrificing intrinsically valuable hardcore self-concepts.
Intriguingly, the notion that drift can occur in both directions (from conventional to unconventional
mindsets and vice versa) suggests that the dichotomy between conventional and unconventional
attachment is artificial.” (p. 823) Se os parâmetros morais são situacionais, como aponta a
Lucía…...

- EXATAMENTE 2! “The potentially critical consequence for the explanation of criminal behavior
is twofold: first, that there may be no clear separation between conventional and nonconventional
(that is, street-oriented) cultural values and, second, that allegiance to a given value system need not
be absolute or exclusive. It makes more sense to conceive of value systems as lying along a
continuum that allows for simultaneous, differential attachment to conventional and unconventional
rules of behavior. Where an offender (or anyone for that matter) lies along the continuum depends
on a number of factors, both situational and dispositional.” (p. 823)

- Anderson’s (1999) concept of the code of the streets goes further. Though both “street” and
“decent” people inhabit the same physical space, their allegiance to the code can vary situationally.
(1999 Code of the Streets. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.)