Sutherland and Cressey, in a brilliant defense of the theory, takes one of the most extreme instances of such exceptions, viz. kleptomania, and attempts to show that his theoretical premises are valid even in this instance.
Kleptomania, they insist, is a group product in which typical motives are learned in group interaction. A person might in some situations identify himself as a kleptomaniac, since that construct is now popular in our culture, and a full commitment to such identification includes the use of motives which, in turn, release the energy to perform a so-called compulsive act.
The more positive the conviction that one is a kleptomaniac the more automatic his behavior will appear. However, kleptomaniac has also been reported with poorly socialized people who become accustomed to a given life style against the laid down norms yet they rarely interact with others. Secondly, the fact that the acts are recurrent does not mean they are prompted from within but only that certain linguistic symbols have become usual for the person in question.