The basic propositions of neutralization theory are that delinquents as well as nondelinquents are morally committed to conventional norms, but delinquents differ from nondelinquents in using techniques to neutralize conventional norms when participating in morally offensive behavior. During September and November 1991, a nationwide sample of 2,918 adolescents was administered a questionnaire that examined their reaction to a number of delinquent acts. A total of 2,699 youth returned the questionnaires. The respondents were divided into nondelinquent, low- delinquency, and high-delinquency juveniles. Results show that in most cases neutralization theory correctly predicted higher delinquent permissiveness when the acts portrayed involved unknown persons, an institution, or an organization as the victim. Compared to nondelinquents, delinquents considered acts that cause physical/emotional injury to an unknown victim as more often permissible. Delinquents considered acts that cause physical/emotional injury to a known victim as impermissible. When delinquent acts cause material damage, delinquents found the act more often permissible. Policy implications of the findings are discussed. 6 tables and 8 references