Matza argued that instead of crime being a feature of deviant values shared in criminal subcultures, in fact we all had so-called "subterranean values" that, for the most part, we managed to control and inhibit. He argued that criminals use techniques of neutralisation because they know that their actions are deviant, that they do share the value consensus of the rest of society and wish to "neutralise" their transgression as soon as possible. Thus they try to explain their deviant actions in such a way as to return quickly to being a normal, compliant member of society. They will deny responsibility, deny injury, appeal to higher loyalties, etc. However, critics suggest this is just people making excuses to try and get away with their crimes. It is not that they share mainstream values but that they are aware that they have behaved in a deviant way and wish to avoid punishment by appealing for mitigation.