Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory: Explaining the Malvo and Muhammad Murders

Introduction

Criminological theories are a rollercoaster of explanations and, at times, become integrated into one another and, in turn, have the possibility of formulating new theories (Gibbs, 1987; Hauhart, 2012; Siegal, 2007; Skoll, 2009).  However, a lot of the modern criminological theories stem from the earliest understandings of criminal activity (Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 2011; McCord, 1993; Nelson & Richardson, 1971; Skoll, 2009).  For example and, once again, the chronological order of theoretical schools is often analyzed and becomes the basis for new theories (Cressey, 1952; Glaser, 1960).  Many criminologists use the foundation of the criminological theory schools not only as a starting point to shape and explain criminal behavior, but also as a means to further develop the existing theories (McCord, 1993; Walker, 2007). Nonetheless, crimes in contemporary society do have new approaches and reasons for explaining individual or group criminality (McCord, 1993; Walker, 2007).  Due to the evolution of technology and comprehensiveness in criminal justice and criminology, some researchers have been able to exude criminality without referring to prior criminological theories (Siegal, 2007, p. 2).  Moreover, the means in which these technological and other understandings can be verified is much easier to do when compared to the methods used when some of these foundational theories became illuminated, which is part of the reasons for the newly formed theories (Nezhurbida, 2013; Pfohl & Gordon, 1986; Siegal, 2007).  

  

Furthermore, the drawbacks of criminological theory are the rhetoric that is often associated with it (Nelson & Richardson, 1971; Rabin, 2009).  Meaning that criminological theory can be considered to be an eloquently written piece of literature that some social scientist conjured up because he or she thought it was a plausible idea.  The concept of explaining criminal behavior is grounded in the administration of a society’s laws.  Without laws, criminological theory would not exist to the extent that it does today (Siegal, 2007; Skoll, 2009; Wilson & Petersilia, 2011; Walker, 2011).  Currently, it is an instrument that helps form the criminal justice apparatuses and, in turn, gives the administrations of justice, social services, and other criminal justice elements merit for when they are applied (Siegal, 2007; Walker, 2011).  Using criminological theory as a foundation for these components of society allows other to understand behavior through the use of language and the physicality of the understandings (Bennet, & Hess, 2004; Hall, 1973; Rabin, 2009; Siegal, 2007).  In particular, it is not a pseudoscience, but more so an ideation that uses sociological, anthropological, and psychological variables to explicate the behavior of a person who has stepped outside of the acceptable boundaries that a society has made (Rabin, 2009; Siegal, 2007; Skoll, 2009).

 

Another interesting discussion deals with how criminological theory comes to light, if criminal behavior is unnoticed or reported then the theories or language that describe the reasons for this behavior do not exist, again, only rhetorically (Cooney, 2006; Hall, 1973; Rabin, 2009).  To be more precise, for criminological theory to be considered valid it has to be identified by at least one other person who comprehends what the laws and generally accepted norms are within the society that the behavior is being undergone in (Sutherland, 1937; Wilison & Petersilia, 2011).  Again, if there is no identification of the illegal or unethical behavior by a socially conformed individual then criminological theory only exists in a rhetorical fashion (Hall, 1973; Rabin, 2009).  That is, the explanations are still evident, however they are not authentic or put into practice unless other people can physically and verbally identify a person’s unlawful activity. 

Even with the cynical perspective that this author is projecting, the fact remains that codified rules have been implemented, people have identified and been able to adequately explain criminality, as well as used the understandings as a basis for justice systems and other socially acceptable processes for it when it comes to policing, judicial, and correctional applications.  This is where criminological theories start to dismiss many of the aforementioned conceptualizations by this author.  Since there are laws, and socially accepted norms, it is reasonable to conclude that illegal tendencies are a learned behavior (Siegal, 2007; Skoll, 2009; Sutherland, 1937).  Also, the learning is a two-part system, meaning that since there is a prevalent understanding of what laws and unethical behaviors are, the criminal behavior of a person has to come from educational lessons or perverse forms of acceptable behavior by another person who is already engaging in the estranged activity (Siegal, 2007; Sutherland, 1937).  Edwin Sutherland’s differential association expounds this theory, and does so in such a fashion that it diminishes the relevance of other criminological theories because of the breadth of laws and socially accepted norms that are known by the masses.  In regards to this, his theory will be used as a reference point for explaining a particular string of murders that occurred in the early part of the twenty-first century, and will simultaneously infer that the previously mentioned articulations, laws, and rhetoric can be validated and philosophically interpreted. 

Crime

Not long after the millennium there was a series of assassinations in Virginia, Maryland, and the Washington D.C. area (CNN, 2004).  John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo were using a sniper rifle to shoot at people within the trunk of their vehicle, and ended up shooting a total of twelve people and killing ten of them (CNN, 2004).  More specifically, Muhammad, the older of the two, was a radical Muslim that had committed prior crimes earlier in his life and eventually grew into a disgruntled citizen that distanced himself from American values.  During his earlier life he had kidnapped his children and moved away with them, upon migrating around the United States he came into contact with Malvo, which at the time was teenager.  At the time that these two were becoming familiar with each other, Muhammad became even more radical in his beliefs and thus started to indoctrinate Malvo to his irrational and perverse thoughts (CNN, 2004).  Being at an easily influenced age, as well as not having a role model in his life, many forensic specialists suggested that Malvo was vulnerable to the subjugation that Muhammad was employing (CNN, 2004).  This, in turn, resulted in corrupting Malvo’s outlook on life and he then began to learn, and take on, the beliefs that Muhammad had accepted and lived by. 

According to the defense attorneys and other professionals during the courtroom proceedings, it was this molding and teaching of unusual thinking patterns that led Malvo to engage in the serial murders (CNN, 2004).  Also, it should be noted that Malvo’s fingerprints were found on the rifle that was confiscated by the authorities.  This fact alone suggests that Muhammad had enough influence on Malvo and, therefore, did not have to be the one who pulled the trigger or directly shoot at the victims.  Additionally, both men were held liable for terrorism, weapons charges, and capital murder in the various jurisdictions in which the shootings occurred; albeit, this article will focus on the murder charges and use Sutherland’s theory to explain the two offenders’ intent.  In Virginia, capital murder is a Class One Felony, the highest and most vicious crime that a person can be accused of within the statutory laws of the state (CNN, 2004).  The criminal procedural laws within this state do incline that if a person is found guilty of such a charge that a lethal penalty can be applied (the death penalty to be exact), and the death sentence can be applied to juveniles in the state of Virginia (CNN, 2004).  Since the murders took place in other jurisdictions, both Malvo and Muhammad were charged in these regions as well, and basically faced the same charges in the state of Maryland (CNN, 2004).  Specifically, the statutory and criminal procedural laws in Maryland are quite similar, and Malvo and Muhammad were convicted of murder in the highest degree and sentenced to consecutive life sentences.  However, and as previously mentioned, Muhammad was convicted in Virginia, which included a sentence to death.  As for Malvo, since he was still considered a juvenile by law and in the eyes of members of the jury the death penalty was not inflicted in Virginia nor in Maryland (CNN, 2004). 

Strikingly, neither Malvo nor Muhammad’s behavior was criminally processed in a federal court.  Even though the United States Supreme Court entertained an appeal by Muhammad, it was denied and he was put to rest by lethal injection not long after.  Malvo is still serving his life without parole sentence, and to this day has had no successful appeals.  In respect to the aforementioned content, the following section will explain differential association and how it applies to the murder convictions that Malvo and Muhammad were convicted of. 

Differential Association Theory

           

             Edwin Sutherland’s differential association theory posits that a person’s criminal behavior is learned by either their affiliations in environmental settings, by-products of the person’s interactions, or other associations with deviant individuals.  Larry Siegal (2007) lays out the elements of Sutherland’s differential association theory in eight bullet points.  In verbatim, they are:

·         Criminal behavior is learned

·         Learning is a by-product of interaction

·         Learning occurs within intimate groups

·         Criminal techniques are learned

·         Perceptions of legal code influence motives and drives

·         Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity

·         The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms involved in any other learning processes

·         Criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values because noncriminal behavior is also an expression of those same needs and values

In accord, this article will use all of the eight components of differential association theory to explain the murderous actions of Malvo and Muhammad in a systematic manner, precisely Malvo’s learned behavior more than Muhammad’s engagement.  Moreover, and as previously mentioned, this interpretation of criminological theory and the crimes being used will also simultaneously validate the philosophical depictions that were mentioned in the beginning of this article; however, they will not be expressed in a scriptural fashion. 

Criminal Behavior is Learned: Differential Association and the Multicides

Sutherland suggests that learning deviant behavior is similar to learning other simple activities, such as writing, painting, or reading (Siegal, 2007; Sutherland, 1937).  Therefore, the behavior of Malvo can be attributed to the teachings that Muhammad projected upon him.  To be more precise, the indoctrination that Muhammad instilled within Malvo was racially charged, violent, radical, perverse thoughts about American values, and general criminal thinking.  According to Malvo’s attorneys, he was brainwashed and told that what he was doing was acceptable by Muhammad’s standards, as well as having a higher purpose than its actual significance.  Obviously, Muhammad had projected his personal beliefs onto Malvo and, in turn, was able to get him to not only conform to his perverse ideologies, but coerce him enough to commit serious violent crimes.  Furthermore, Sutherland posits that criminal behavior is not learned simply by being surrounded by criminogenic environments (Siegal, 2007, pp. 222-224).  This is to say that Malvo’s prior environment was not the primary inducement for his serial killings, and that the influence that Muhammad had on him was the major reason for his unlawful behavior.  Suggesting that Malvo’s prior environment, or lack of a role model, would not be a reasonable indicator according to Sutherland’s theory.  Sutherland also posits that criminal activity cannot be learned without the assistance of others, therefore, Malvo’s criminality can be attributed to the unusual thinking patterns that Muhammad exhibited, as well as Muhammad’s prior deviant behaviors. 

Second to this, it was said during the trial that Malvo suffered from abuse and neglect from his prior guardians (CNN, 2004).  These occurrences could have some contributions to the criminal mind that Malvo had established.  Nonetheless, Muhammad may have used this as another tool to further corrupt Malvo’s thinking.  Which, in turn, further solidifies Sutherland’s theory and confirms that criminal behavior is more complex than other scholars have posited.  The intimate group that Sutherland presents would be the relationship that Malvo had with Muhammad because it was only the two who were driving the vehicle and engaging in the shootings.  Malvo’s prior relationships, unless they were criminally bound, were not a significant factor in the decision making that he produced (Siegal, 2007; Sutherland, 1937). 

The criminal techniques that Sutherland discusses also has relevance in the particular instance.  For example, it is suggested that criminals learn and become better at their criminal techniques by associating with the people who are experienced in such activity, as well as engaging in the activity over-and-over again (Siegal, 2007; Sutherland, 1937).  This is exactly what had occurred in the Malvo and Muhammad collaboration.  At some point, Muhammad had to have shown Malvo how to operate a sniper rifle, as well as coached him through the methods so that he would be able to operate the firearm properly.  These procedures, the coaching and showing Muhammad the procedures for handling such a powerful weapon, do exhibit the criminal technique component that Sutherland posits.  Without the assistance of Muhammad, Malvo may not have ever committed such serious offenses or been effective in carrying them out. 

Sutherland’s cultural conflict ideation fits perfectly into these heinous crimes too. Specifically, due to the fact that Muhammad had rejected cultural rules, norms, and laws.  Muhammad’s radical thinking and style of behavior was surely an impact on Malvo’s thinking and criminality.  Since Muhammad was an extremist in anti-American values, as well as vengeful about the racial tension that he had endured, it is more than reasonable to suggest that these conflicts of the customs that are prevalent added to the differential association that was ongoing between the two criminal offenders (Malvo and Muhammad).  Also, since Malvo was somewhat being cared for by Muhammad, it is plausible to incline that Malvo thought that the unusual rhetoric and behavior of Muhammad was normal and that the decisions he (Malvo) made should be in congruence with the aforementioned cultural conflicts that Muhammad conveyed.

Using Sutherland’s duration, frequency, intensity, and priority characteristics is the most difficult to explain when discussing his theory and the murders that were committed by Malvo and Muhammad.  In particular, the difficulty arises because the criminal actions were quite brief, albeit, the actions were very intense, frequent (all the murders occurred within in a short period of time), and did have priority according to the beliefs that were sustained by both Muhammad and his counterpart (Malvo).  That is, Muhammad had indoctrinated Malvo so quickly and strongly that the homicides and perverse thinking occurred simultaneously.  The frequency, intensity, duration, and priority took on a role of great importance according to the testimony and actions of the two offenders.  The learning and expelling of these characteristics also posits that these elements of Sutherland’s theory can be acted out not only simultaneously, but also in such a learned fashion that the criminal offender may not even realize that he or she did all these components in a short frame of time.  For instance, the learning of the criminal behavior may become so normalized that the criminality may be blindly conducted.

Imitation, as Sutherland describes and in this author’s opinion, can be interpreted as the general idea that differential association is based on.  That is, learning criminality is a process of involvement that incorporates two or more parties (Siegal, 2007; Sutherland, 1937).  The rational choice of committing a criminal act becomes a series of patterns that are taught by the more experienced criminal, which is what occurred in the Malvo and Muhammad relationship.  Nevertheless, the argument that can be made is that part of the learning process does have procedures that are based on imitating the mentor (criminal doing the teaching). Yet Sutherland posits that the experiences, the tutoring so to speak, are the major contributors for an individual’s criminal activity (Siegal, 2007; Sutherland, 1937).  Using the intent of Muhammad and the testimony or facts of the criminal proceedings, it is again acknowledged that Muhammad had formulated a plan, captured Malvo, and then indoctrinated him so that the perverse beliefs and heinous actions were carried out.  Once again, these strategies do expound the elements within differential association, specifically the variables that Muhammad had used to teach Malvo. 

Finally, Sutherland dismisses the other strains or spatial influences that many other researchers posit (Siegal, 2007; Sutherland, 1937).  In addition, he suggests that the other influencers that other criminologists have described are not as merited because they can also lead an individual into surpassing the barriers in a legitimate manner (Siegal, 2007; Sutherland, 1937).  Reiterating this into the Malvo and Muhammad killings is somewhat of a skeptical process.  Meaning that the Muhammad did have perverse thoughts and hatred toward particular consensuses, and then collaborated with Malvo to carry out a type of justification for the peculiar thinking (the murders).  Although, Sutherland presents information about how the “learning of deviant norms through contact with an excess of definitions favorable toward criminality produces illegal behavior. (Siegal, 2007; Sutherland, 1937).” In regards to the murders that were committed by Malvo and Muhammad, this description of learning and constant excess of favorable definitions can be applied to their crimes.  Specifically, Muhammad had favorable definitions for not only his anarchical and terroristic thoughts, but also about how his and Malvo’s actions were validated because of his thoughts.  He then used Malvo, indoctrinated him, and carried out the favorable definitions that he had personally set.  Malvo, in this case, was a victim of Muhammad’s favorable definitions, by being taught and told that his actions were necessary and righteous the serial killings became justified in their minds.

Conclusion

Overall, Sutherland’s theory can be directly tied to the actions of Muhammad and Malvo.  By examining the facts of the case, and then dwelling deeper into the frames of mind that both offender had, an undoubted confirmation of the validity of differential association can be inferred.  Even with the aforementioned philosophical rhetoric and this author’s cynical perspective of criminological theory, the fact remains that Sutherland’s theory does hold its weight when being applied to this particular incident (Malvo and Muhammad’s murders).  The learning, or indoctrination, certainly occurred with Malvo, and his criminal actions are a permeation of the initial party’s (Muhammad) criminal and terroristic ideations.  If it were not for Muhammad, then the actions by Malvo may have not been learned or carried out. 

Moreover, Sutherland lays out a fantastic description of why other theories are not appropriate for explaining criminal activity.  Particularly, because some methods do not take into account that learning from other people, a coalescence, is merited, and that many other theories posit that individual thinking, or spatial influences, are the main proponents for criminality.  Sutherland obviously disagrees with such explications, and infers that learning the techniques and becoming barraged by favorable definitions for particular activity has more validity when criminal behavior is decided to be acted upon. 

Malvo and Muhammad displayed each element of Sutherland’s differential association theory and, in turn, not only verified the theory, but also threw many other criminological theories to the wayside.  Some scholars would argue that other theories have relevance in these particular criminal offenses, however Sutherland lays out how such factors as strains, criminogenic settings, and biological characteristics are not relevant when discussing criminal behavior. The concepts of differential association implies that criminal behavior is learned, and by reviewing other crimes within contemporary society it is quite evident that the learning of specific behavior certainly occurs.  Regardless of the situation, there has to be some fashion of learning the criminality that is being undergone.  If not, then other research is simply relying on other variables that somehow have the ability to initiate criminal thinking or behavior without being learned.  Sutherland and this author disagree with this statement, even with biological theories the criminal behavior has to be processed and understood by the individual, and this most likely occurs because the criminality is learned from another person, regardless if the learning is short lived or quickly conducted.  All in all, differential association has its significance in the world of criminology, however, the only fallacy is that is does not account for people who are severely mentally ill and then engage in illegal behavior.  But this ideation becomes diminished because if a person who has such an illness cannot understand the cultural norms, or have the cognition to comprehend what criminality is, then culpability cannot be given.  It is simply a criminal act of spontaneity and innate ignorance.

References

Bennett, W. W., & Hess, K. M. (2004). Criminal investigations. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Cressey, D. R. (1952). Application and verification of the differential association theory.

            The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 43(1), 43-52.

           

Cooney, M. (2006). The criminological potential of pure sociology. Crime, Law and Social

Change, 46(1), 51-63.

Gibbs, J. P. (1987). The state of criminological theory. Criminology, 25(4), 821-840. doi:

             

Glaser, D. (1960). Differential association and criminological prediction. Social Problems, 8(1),

            6-14.

Hall, E. T. (1973). The silent language. United States: Anchor Publishing.

Hauhart, R. C. (2012). Toward a sociology of criminological theory. The American Sociologist,

            43(2), 153-171.

Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F. T., Ball, R. A. (2011). Criminological theory: Context and consequences.

            Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

McCord, J. (1993). Descriptions and predictions: Three problems for the future of criminological             research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(4), 412-425.

Nelson, E. K., & Richardson, F. (1971). Perennial problems in criminological research.

            Crime & Delinquency, 17(1), 23-31.

Nezhurbida, S. (2013).  Systems approach to comparative criminological studies: Conceptual

issues. Jurisprudencija, 20(1), 267-282.

Pfohl, S., & Gordon, A. (1986). Criminological displacements: A sociological deconstruction.

            Social Problems, 33(6), S94-S113.

Rabin, R. (2009). The rhetoric of mental illness. United States: Kendall Hall.

Siegal, L. J. (2007). Criminology: Theories, patterns, and typologies. Belmont, CA: Thomson

            Higher Education.

Skoll, G. R. (2009). Contemporary criminology and criminal justice theory: Evaluating

            justice systems in capitalist societies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sutherland, E. H. (1937). The professional thief.  Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Walker, J. T. (2007). Advancing science and research in criminal justice/criminology: Complex

systems theory and non-linear analyses. Justice Quarterly, 24(4), 555-581.

Walker, S. (2011). Sense and non-sense about crime, drugs, and the community. Belmont, CA:

            Wadsworth.

Wilson, J. Q., & Petersilia, J. (2011). Crime and public policy. New York: Oxford

            University Press.

(2004, May). Sniper Malvo sentenced to life without parole. CNN.com. Retrieved from

             http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/10/sniper.malvo/index.html

Source:  Public Domain