Denial of injury allows individuals to justify their actions by claiming:

The concept of denial of injury is rooted in the techniques of neutralization that individuals use to rationalize their deviant behavior. When someone claims that no one was harmed in the act, they are minimizing the impact of their actions and negating the moral responsibility typically associated with wrongdoing. This allows them to maintain a self-image that is not tainted by the stigma of being a perpetrator of harm. By asserting that their actions did not result in any injury, individuals can excuse or justify their behavior, seeing it as less serious or even acceptable in certain contexts.

The other choices provide different rationalizations that do not align specifically with denial of injury. For instance, claiming there was no intent to commit a crime centers around the idea of mental state or mens rea, while following superior orders shifts the responsibility onto authority figures. Similarly, portraying oneself as a victim of circumstances focuses on external factors rather than the implications of the action itself. In contrast, denial of injury directly addresses the outcome of the act and its perceived impact on others, making it a distinct rationale within the broader framework of neutralization techniques.