Which of the following techniques according to Sykes and Matza justifies an offender’s actions by denying the injury?

The concept of denying injury is a significant component of Sykes and Matza's techniques of neutralization, which describe how offenders justify their actions to alleviate feelings of guilt or moral conflict. By denying injury, offenders argue that their actions did not cause any harm to the victim or society, thus minimizing the severity of their offenses in their own minds. This form of justification allows individuals to rationalize their behavior, believing that what they did was not wrong or harmful, as no tangible damage was done.

In this way, the offender can detach themselves from feelings of guilt, allowing them to continue their criminal behavior without the burden of remorse. This technique fosters a mindset that facilitates criminal actions while maintaining a self-image that is less tarnished by societal norms against harming others.

The other options involving denying responsibility, blaming the victim, or condemning the condemners offer different rationalizations but do not specifically address the act of asserting that no injury occurred, which is the essence of denying injury. Each of these other techniques serves its own purpose within the broader framework of neutralization, but the particular focus on the absence of harm is what distinctly categorizes the correct answer.