The measurement of crime is a method in which the specific actions of certain people which include being deviant or a criminal are defined by those in power within the criminal Justice system (White, Haines & Asquith, 2017). The labelling theory is a theory that can be used to outline how power defines who is criminal and how the criminal justice system responds to crime. According to (Benburg et al 2006), people are treated as outsiders because their actions have been labelled as criminal by those who have power within society. These institutions include police, the justice system, prisons and schools (Gooch, G., & Williams, M. 2007). Another theory that can be used to outline how those with power determine who is seen as criminal and how …show more content…
1975). According to (Benburg et al 2006), certain types of people are treated as outsiders because their behaviour has been labelled as deviant by more powerful groups in society. By labelling individuals as deviant this challenges the criminal justice views on certain crimes which were previously not seen as criminal however the labelling of the individual to that criminal behaviour allowed it to become criminal (Benburg et al 2006). This perspective on crime measurement stresses that crime is not in fact objective but is determined by the nature of interactions and labelling by members of the criminal justice system in their dealing with members of the general public (White, Haines & Asquith, …show more content…
Marxist criminology as defined by (Gooch, G., & Williams, M. 2007), is a theory that sees crime and deviance as defined by the upper class and used as a means of societal and to an extent monetary control. Marxist criminology diverts attention from the focus on street crime and working-class crime towards social harms perpetrated by the powerful towards society (White, Haines & Asquith, 2017). Marxist aims to highlight inequalities of the upper-class society and to show how these inequalities impact the criminalisation process. The theory argues that those with power are capable of influencing the nature of societal reaction of behaviours deemed to be criminal (White, Haines & Asquith,
Labelling theory, stemming from the influences of Cooley, Mead, Tannenbaum, and Lemert, has its origins somewhere within the context of the twentieth century. However, Edwin Lemert is widely considered the producer and founder of the original version of labelling theory. This paper, not a summary, provides a brief history of labelling theory, as well as, its role in the sociology of deviance. It attempts to explore the contributions made by labelling theorists, the criticism towards labelling theorists, and the discussion surrounding its reality as an actual theory. In essence, the main focus of this paper besides proving an understanding of Howard Becker, is to describe and evaluate `labelling theory` to the study of crime and deviance, by way of an in depth discussion.
What are theories of crime? Why are they important? In this paper, will discuss two crime theories. Social learning theory and the labeling theory. We will compare both crime theories. It will also explain how these theories are related to specific crimes. The two theories discussed will also explain the policy implications. Finally, we will address what types of programs can be created to mitigate specific crimes related to the causation theories.
The Marxist perspective theory falls under Sociological Positivism. Bartollas and Miller (2014) posit that the Marxist perspective sees the government and the legal process as instruments that the elites, or bourgeoisie, use to control the masses. Turk (1982) states that capitalism is the root cause which forces juveniles to commit crime. In addition, Turk (1982) posits that the main reason for conflict relates to wealth. This is because the elites, who make up a small portion of the population, control most of the wealth in the country. The working class, on the other hand, comprises the largest portion of the population and is continually exploited to the point of breaking down where they are forced to turn to crime to survive. Quinney (1977) states the Positivist view calls for treatment and rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents since youth’s behav...
Drawing from tenets of Marxist theory, critical criminology believe that crime results from the mode of production by capitalist and the economic structures they have created. Social classes have been divided into two: those whose income is secured by property ownership; and those whose income is secured by their labor. The resultant class structure influences the opportunities of an individual to succeed in life and his propensity to engage in crime. Although it encompasses the macro-economic factors that are rarely included in micro-economic analysis of crime, it does not substitute those macro factors, like unemployment, to micro factors, like being jobless. However, it combines the macro and micro factors in analyzing how micro factors of crime are integrated into the macro structures.
These hypotheses depend on the general thought that the imbalances in the public eye between various social classes are what cause criminal conduct and wrongdoing when all is said in done. Radical criminology is a kind of social clash hypothesis that spotlights on the way that social conditions caused by enabled well off people are what cause struggle and non-rich people to carry out wrongdoings. The left-pragmatist criminology hypothesis trusts that the wrongdoing is an issue that the white collar class working America countenances and arrangements made are made by high society America and just stifle the average workers to create additional contention. The women's activist criminology hypothesis trusts that wrongdoing and struggle inside society are enormously in light of sexes and sexual orientation segregation. A type of social clash hypothesis that really advances an answer is the peacemaking criminology hypothesis.
The radical criminologists focus their attention on social arrangements of society, politically and economically of structures and institutions of capitalism. (Bohm & Vogel, 2011) The radical criminology sees crimes as a result of unequal distribution of wealth, power and other resources that make people winners and losers that prey on the weaker people. “The radical criminologists believe that the more unevenly wealth is distributed in society, the more likely people can find a person weaker than themselves” (Bohm & Vogel, 2011, p. 125). The main reason behind the radical criminology is that poverty and discrimination build up frustration in the minds of the people, and crime is the result of this frustration.
Labelling theory: The theory that the terms crime, deviance, or punishment are labels, variously applied by act of power and not some natural reflection of events – American criminologist Howard Becker
If the agents of social control define youngsters as delinquents for breaking the law, those youngsters become deviant. They have been labelled as such by those who have the power to make labels stick. However Becker argued ‘deviance is not a quality that lies in behaviour itself but in the interaction between the person who commits an act and those who respond to it’. From this point of view, deviance is produced by a process of interaction between the potential deviant and the agents of control. Becker then examined the possible effects on an individual being labelled as deviant and that a deviant label can lead to further deviance.
By using the labelling theory, criminal behaviour can be more easily explain and explored, as it can give insight into how and why individuals chose crime over morality. This insight “ is very important for criminologists, law enforcement bodies and health care professionals who try to rehabilitate criminals” (UKessays 2015), as they can assess the very beginning point of the crime, and attempt to help, not only the individual in question, but other children and people, who can be seen going down the same path of crime from the labels and the stereotypes projected upon
To explain the causes of criminality, criminological theories and concepts are applied to criminal behaviour. “One of the most crucial steps in the process of building a stable pattern of deviant behaviour is likely to be the experience of being caught and publicly labelled as deviant”. (Becker 1963, p. 31). From a labelling theory perspective, if a person is defined as being deviant or criminal, they will fulfil that label accordingly. These events are a part of a social process that causes negative labelling, stigmatization and a shift of self-concept and self-image.
Looking at Howard Becker’s Outsiders, one finds analysis of how assumptions based on class and race may play into the labeling process. However, it is important to first recognize that Becker also mentions labeling can have different effects, depending on the situation. An individual can commit an act which may be considered deviant if another individual commit the same or a similar offense. This is where Becker elaborates on how race and class can have a factor in what is labeled deviant and what is ignored or downplayed. On class, Becker explains that a middle class delinquent offender is much less likely to be “taken to the station; less likely to be when taken to the station to be booked; and it is extremely that he will be convicted and sentenced” (Becker 1963) than an individual who commits the same offense of an even lower class.
Labelling theory was suggested by Edwin Lemert (1912- 1996) in 1951 and it was then developed by Howard Becker (b.1928) in 1963. This theory is related to the Social Action perspective. The labelling procedure includes deviancy and crime, certain acts are criminal because they have been labelled in that way, these labels are created by the powerful in society, such as the government. Frank Tannenbaum (1893- 1969) stated the self-fulfilling prophecy could occur when somebody is labelled as a 'criminal'. Self-fulfilling prophecy is when a prediction of something which then becomes a fact. If you have the label of 'delinquency' or 'crime' then the individual may find it difficult to get a job therefore earning less money which could result in them returning to crime. People in society will expect 'criminals' to behave in a certain way. The people with this label may find it challenging to fit into society. Moral panics is a definition which is given when a group of people become known as a threat to societies beliefs.
Throughout the years criminologists have tried to come up with explanations for what makes individuals more prone to engage in criminal activity. The explanations can range from labels given to individuals to the bonds individuals have with others. Over the years, the theories have been tweaked and integrated to help gain a better understanding of why individuals commit crimes. Some theories also call for explanation on how to reduce crime in the future as well. Everything in society is caused by something, which produces the effect. The cause is generally what goes unknown most of the time. This paper will analyze Labeling Theory and Social Bond Theory. First I will clearly describe
Labelling theory outlines the sociological approach towards labelling within societies and in the development of crime and deviance (Gunnar Bernburg, and D. Krohn et al., 2014, pp. 69-71). The theory purposes that, when an individual is given a negative label (that is deviant), then the individual pursues their new (deviant) label / identity and acts in a manner that is expected from him/her with his/ her new label (Asencio and Burke, 2011, pp. 163-182).
I now know that criminology prefer to highlight the correlations between crimes’ social climates and criminals’ psychological states of mind. While some argues that criminal behavior is a result of individuals’ association with criminal peers, other claims that crime is a reflection of an individual’s genetic disadvantages. I have come to learn that there are no universally agreed formulas on decoding crimes and criminal behaviors. What we have, however, is a manual full of academic opinions and subjective views that have emerged alongside of the development of criminology. At the same time, the volume of conflicting perspectives that I have stumble upon in studying criminology reminded me again that the success of our current assessment models has yet to be determined. Thus, the study of criminology is an appropriate practice that will further prepare me to conduct meaningful research on legal studies and to provide accurate and in-depth findings in the near