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. Criminal labelling encourages the continuation of criminal behaviour, and is most applicable to youths, although labelling theory does have its limits.
The societal reaction
…show more content…
Criminal records, sex offender and domestic violence registers, conspicuous clothing for offenders carrying out community sentences are all examples of criminal labelling. There are some examples around the world of public criminal labelling, in the USA state authorities broadcast the identities of people convicted, charged or arrested without charge, on a publicly searchable database on the Internet. In the UK, offenders that are completing community service are required to wear high visibility orange vest while they complete their service. They are highly visible and bright and clearly alert their status as the criminal or deviant member of society to the public. (Hadjimatheou 2016, p.568)
This sort of public labelling as a criminal would incite emotions of shame and a damaged self-esteem. Public criminal labelling seems to be justified by the criminal justice system, if the crime committed is severe. It could be argued that society believes that if the crime is of a violent nature and the criminals guilt is proven, then negative labelling and stigmatization is societies way of punishing the criminal for their deviation from societal norms. The more visible and identifying the negative label, the more discrediting the negative label is to
…show more content…
Interestingly, they found that first juvenile arrests seemed to increase law enforcement responses to those youth compared with other youth who offend at the same level but had managed to evade a first arrest. The labels that had been placed upon the youths as being an arrested criminal had affected the law enforcers reaction to them. This is highlighting societal reaction to an individual who has been labelled as deviant. This reaction to the labelling and stigma is a part of the process that results in secondary deviation and continued criminal behaviour. (Liberman, Kirk and Kim 2014, p.
The adult system’s shifts leaked into the juvenile system, causing an increase in incarcerations even when delinquency rates were declining at the time. Juvenile reform legislations prompted more compulsory sentencing and more determinate sentences for juveniles, lowering of the upper age of juvenile jurisdiction, considerable ease in obtaining waivers to adult court for juvenile prosecution, and made it easier to gain access to juvenile records as well. Furthermore, it led to greater preoccupation with chronic, violent offenders, which in turn led to a redirection of resources for their confinement. Thereby, the absence of reliable criteria for identifying such offenders tends to stereotype all delinquents and is more likely to raise the level of precautionary confinements. These three major shifts in juvenile justice policy demonstrate the power and depth of traditional beliefs about the causes and cures of crimes in U.S. society. It also shows how the system can bend for a time in the direction of new approaches to prevention and control. Today, we are presently in a time of conservative responses where the prevailing views about crime express beliefs about prevention, retribution, and incapacitation that are profoundly rooted in our
Youth crime has been a topic of major debate dating back to the 19th century. Laws have been continuously written to fit what society feels is the best way to handle youth in conflict with the law. What people sometimes fail to see is the true cause of their delinquent actions. These teens commit these crimesthe focus of this essay is to relate the story of two Ottawa Valley teens in conflict with the law to different sociological theories. First I will give a brief summary of the article and then connect it with theories such as cultural conflict, control theory, strain and labelling theory.
People can easily be judged based on their community, how they dress, how they talk, and who they surround themselves with, it is human nature. There becomes a problem when whole groups of people are labeled as delinquents based on how they are perceived by the rest of society, and they start to be confined to that role. This is the basis of labeling theory described in the book Criminology Goes to the Movies Theory and Popular Culture by Nicole Rafter and Michele Brown as a concept of perception of criminality as a permanent identity of people based on their background. This theory is shown on the movie American Me about the rise of the Mexican mafia, and the influence of its members. The movie presents how Mexican communities have to embrace
The youth control complex is a form of social control in which the justice system (the prison system) and the socializing and social control institutions (school system) work together to stigmatize, criminalize, and punish inner city youth. Accordingly, these adolescents’ are regarded as deviant and incompetent to participate within U.S. society. On that note, deviance is created based on socially constructed labels of deviances; otherwise, deviance wouldn’t happen without these labels. Once an individual engages in a deviant behavior, it results in a response, often times, some type of punishment from the justice system. The youth control complex creates social incapacitation (social death) among juveniles. This ubiquitous system of social
Morris (2000) argues that we should see youth crimes as a social failure, not as an individual level failure. Next, Morris (2000) classifies prisons as failures. Recidivism rates are consistently higher in prisons than in other alternatives (Morris, 2000). The reason for this is that prisons breed crime. A school for crime is created when a person is removed from society and labeled; they become isolated, angry and hopeless (Morris, 2000).
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.
Bernburg, J., Krohn, M. D., & Rivera, C. J. (2006). Official Labeling, Criminal Embeddedness, and Subsequent Delinquency: A Longitudinal Test of Labeling Theory. Journal Of Research In Crime & Delinquency, 43(1), 67-88. doi:10.1177/0022427805280068
Criminological theories interpret the competing paradigms of Human Nature, Social Order, Definition of Crime, Extent and Distribution of Crime, Causes of Crime, and Policy, differently. Even though these theories have added to societies understanding of criminal behaviour, all have been unable to explain why punishment or treatment of offenders is unable to prevent deviancy, and thus are ineffective methods of control. The new penology is a contemporary response that favours the management of criminals by predicting future harm on society. However, all criminological theories are linked as they are a product of the historical time and place, and because of their contextual history, they will continue to reappear depending on the current state of the world, and may even be reinvented.
Although we have a general definitions of crime, some criminologists argue that crimes is better placed within the concept of social harm, Stuart Henry and Mark Lanier (1998) as quoted in Muncie, Talbot and Walters (2010). pp 16-17 were leading authors who done just that. Criminologists such as “Tifft, 1995 an...
The adjustment from incarceration to society causes a series of problems, making rehabilitation difficult. When the juvenile’s leave home to be detained, all ties with society, the support systems they had, the gangs they associated with, school they attending are no longer in close proximity, which is essential for successful rehabilitation (James, Stams, Asscher, Katrien De Roo & van der Laan 2012). Another problem association with the reintegration is that juveniles are in a particularly fragile state in that they are not only transitioning from society to detention, but from adolescence to adulthood, both of which are overwhelming adjustments. Research has shown, however, that if youths stay out of trouble within the first few months
their acts as criminal and extending this judgement to them as people. Having been labelled, there is an expectation that this criminality must be expressed. With this attached stereotype, the general population will perceive them to be criminal and treat them accordingly. This produces unanticipated effects: the label of criminal is intended to prevent individuals from participating in criminal activities but it actually creates the very thing it intended to stop. It produces a self-fulfilling prophecy which is defined as a false definition of a situation, evoking a new behaviour that makes the original false assumption come true (Burke, 2005).
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.
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
The main aim of this essay is to describe two general theories of offending and then consider the extent to which they explain youth offending. This essay will firstly outline the context of the labelling theory then go on to discuss the way in which a label becomes a person’s master status in life. The essay will then compare the differences with primary and secondary deviance and define the term self fulfilling prophecy. The second stage of the essay will describe the learning theory, explaining the background including all the terms, classical conditioning, operant conditioning and social learning theory. Furthermore, it will then go on to explore the research and describe the extent to which both theories explain youth offending. Finally, the essay will compare and contrast the two theories and evaluate any of the assets or implications.
The main focus of the essay will be the implications of labelling theory and how it affects individuals. It also will be focusing on the creation of particular categories of criminals when labelling theory is applied, in addition it will outline what labelling theory is, how it affects people and how it effects the creation of criminal categories. The purpose of this essay is to allow a better understanding of labelling theory and its implication on creating criminal categories.