Violent retoric and neutralization theory in the exercise of the right of assembly in Spain
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5944/eeii.vol.6.n.10.2019.23253Keywords:
the right of assembly, neutralization theory, violence and legitimacyAgencies:
UNEDAbstract
The right of assembly is an extremely current socio-legal reality, since its practice is becoming more and more part of everyday life in democratic countries. The world economic crisis has significantly increased the practice of this right in our country, making it more necessary than ever to warrant the effective and efficient practice of this right. This means that violence, force or any other similar term, that jeopardizes peace and social calm during the practice of this right, has no place in our fundamental regulation of coexistence. We ask in the present paper:
For what reasons do these subjects exercise the use of violence, at the expense of many legal and social regulations that prevail in our society, instead of other alternatives? How can they justify this kind of violent behaviour? Is the use of violence a question of free choice or is it an irrational behaviour caused by depersonalization when the subject forms part of a group?
In this study we would like to point out some of these questions. This study claims to increase the understanding of the right of assembly and demonstration, and in the appearance of the phenomenon of violent criminal behaviour during gatherings and demonstrations.
Finally, we will approach the individual entitled subjects of this right, by means of a qualitative analysis, that will allow us to explore and explain the reality in the way its main subjects experience it.
Downloads
References
Agnew, R. (1994). The Techniques of Neutralization and Violence. Criminology. 32.
Akers, R.L. (1985). Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Bandura, A., Walters, R.H. (1988). Aprendizaje social y desarrollo de la personalidad. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
Cohen, S. (2001). States of Denial: Knowing About Atrocities and Suffering. Cambridge, Reino Unido: Polity Press.
Copes, H. (2003). Societal Attachments, Offending Frequency, and Techniques of Neutralization. Deviant Behavior 24:101-127.
Copes, H., Vieraitis, L., Jochum, J. (2007). Bridging the Gap Between Research and Practice: How Neutralization Theory Can Inform Reid Interrogations of Identity Thieves. Journal of Criminal Justice Education v.18:444- 459.
Cressey, D. R. (1953). Other people’s money: a study in the social psychology of embezzlement. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Maruna, S., Copes, H. (2005). Excuses, Excuses: What have we learned from five decades of neutralization researches? Crime and Justice: A review of research. Nº 32. Págs. 221-320.University of Chicago Press.
Minor, W.W. (1981). Techniques of neutralization: A reconceptualization and empirical examination. Journal of research in Crime and Delinquency. Nº 18. Págs. 295-318.
Serrano Maíllo, A. (2009). Introducción a la Criminología. (6º Ed). Madrid: Dykinson.
Sykes, G.M, Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of Neutralization: a Theory of Delinquency. American Sociological Review. Nº 22. Págs. 664-673.
Topalli, V. (2005). When being good is bad: An expansión of neutralization theory. Criminology. Nº. 43. Págs. 664-670.
