Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
society and criminals
correlation between race and crime rates
strengths of labelling theory crime
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: society and criminals
People have many ideas and stereotype when they are asked what comes to mind when thinking about offenders. Many people would believe that they come from disadvantaged communities, are working-class young men, unemployed and from ethnic minorities. Disadvantaged communities can be explained as a community which lies below the average of income and above the average of unemployed individuals (Robertson, 2011). It is also important to understand the term 'young'. Young and juvenile were often seen as similar. The 1828 Select Committee on Criminal Commitments and Convictions defined juvenile between the ages of 0 to 17 (King, p.121). Trial procedures for young offenders were only established in the mid-nineteenth century and the minimum age for holding an individual responsible for committing a crime was raised from the age of 8 to 10 in 1964 (Farrington, 1986:191). As we are also looking at 'young' men, many individuals with a large range of differing backgrounds and experiences fall into this description. Gender, class and ethnicity are also factors which will influence this (Kirton, 2009:439). This essay will illustrate arguments for and against the statement of whether it really is only young men from disadvantaged backgrounds who commit crime.
It is mainly believed that young men commit all or most of the crimes (Messerschmidt, 1993:1). Many people directly assume this without looking at the actual statistics. There are two main reasons which help influence many people's beliefs about who commits crime. One of these is the labelling theory.
The labelling theory looks at the way social groups form and handle different explanations for deviant behaviour (http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/socialtheory/n161.xml). Labelling...
... middle of paper ...
...e-curve is changing. It shows that twenty-five to thirty is the average age where individuals tend to commit a crime. It is only a quarter of individuals that are in their teenage years that commit any offending, therefore, crimes are not mainly committed by young men (Farrington, 1986:235). It is also seen that individuals who commit a crime may come from disadvantaged backgrounds, yet not all of them do, and if there were records of people committing everyday offences, people from disadvantaged backgrounds may not be seen as the majority of people who commit crime. Many assumptions can be made and deceiving information can be portrayed due to media's interpretation,yet looking at the statistics and evidence, it can be concluded that it is not only young men from disadvantaged backgrounds who commit crime but also adults, women and individuals from higher classes.
Opinions such as those found in the Smith Family Youth Unemployment Report (2003) which hypothesize that juvenile crime is directly connected to the high rates of youth unemployment in Australia cannot be neither accepted nor critiqued until there is a clear understanding of what the terms “Youth Unemployment” and “Juvenile Crime” mean in the context of this essay. In this essay youth unemployment is generally taken to include the entire 15-24 age cohort – not just 15-19 year old teenagers – who are no longer at school or university and who are without a job. I have chosen to include 20-24 year olds under the banner of “Youth”, as it gives a fairer picture of the performance of all young people in the labor market and takes into account the pattern of employment both during and after leaving school or university.
The sample size and exclusion of individuals, such as under 16’s or those in group residence, creates bias and an untrue reflection on population as crimes they experience are not taken into consideration (HO, 2013).
Bohm and Brenda L. Vogel, the Labeling theory is used to explain why people commit crimes and conceive themselves as criminals. Overall the Labeling theory consists of social groups creating rules and then applying those rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders. This theory is split into two types of deviances: primary deviance and secondary deviance. Primary deviance is the initial criminal act, for example, a man robs a bank. A secondary deviance is committing a crime after the first criminal act and accepting the label of a criminal. Following the previous example, after the man robs the bank, he decides to do it again because he now sees himself as a criminal bank robber and wants to continue doing it and is okay with being seen that
The theoretical study of societal reaction to deviance has been carried out under different names, such as, labelling theory, interactionist perspective, and the social constructionist perspective. In the sociology of deviance, the labelling theory of deviant behaviour is often used interchangeably with the societal reaction theory of deviancy. As a matter of fact, both phrases point equally to the fact that sociological explanations of deviance function as a product of social control rather than a product of psychology or genetic inheritance. Some sociologists would explain deviance by accepting without question definitions of deviance and concerning themselves with primary aetiology. However, labelling theorists stress the point of seeing deviance from the viewpoint of the deviant individual. They claim that when a person becomes known as a deviant, and is ascribed deviant behaviour patterns, it is as much, if not more, to do with the way they have been stigmatized, then the deviant act they are said to have committed. In addition, Howard S. Becker (1963), one of the earlier interaction theorists, claimed that, "social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitute deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labelling them as outsiders". Furthermore, the labelling theoretical approach to deviance concentrates on the social reaction to deviance committed by individuals, as well as, the interaction processes leading up to the labelling.
Labeling theory of deviance suggests that when one is labeled constantly on the basis of any minority it gives rise to deviant behavior in order to prove the strength of the minority. The minority has been labeled so by people for a long time. They have been labeled because of their race. The gang is labeled anti-social because of their criminal behavior which turns them further to deviance. The use of the labeling theory can be seen being implemented very judiciously
Hendrick, H. (2006) ‘Histories of Youth Crime and Justice’, In B. Goldson and J. Muncie (eds) Youth Crime and Justice. London: Sage
A consistent feature of the statistics, not only in England and Wales but across Europe and America, is that far fewer women are convicted of crime than men – a fact which has changed little over the years. Female offenders also show a different pattern of offending being less involved in violent offences and proportionately more involved in theft. In general most now accept that girls and women do commit fewer offences than boys. GENDER AND PATTERNS OF CRIME Writing in 1977 Carol Smart stated: Our knowledge is still in its infancy. In comparison with the massive documentation on all aspects of male delinquency and criminality, the amount of work carried out on the area of women and crime is extremely limited.
Serious crimes such as murder, burglary and rape have raised questions as to whether the young offenders should face severe punitive treatment or the normal punitive measures in juvenile courts. Many would prefer the juveniles given harsh punishment in order to discourage other young people from engaging in similar activities and to serve as a lesson to these particular offenders. However, results from previous studies indicate such punitive measures were neither successful nor morally acceptable. Instead, the solutions achieved have unfairly treated the youths and compromised the society status (Kristin, page 1).
There has always been alarm and despair over escalating juvenile crime. In the 1950s there were reports about the mushrooming problems with youthful gangs in the big cities. In the 1960s we began to hear about a surge of juvenile crime in areas that had been regarded as virtually crime free. In the suburbs as well as the inner cities, youngsters were dropping out of school, using drugs and committing crimes. In the 1970s and 1980s, juvenile court dockets became increasingly jammed with criminal cases. According to the Department of Justice, the percentage increases in arrests from 1985 to 1994 have been greater for juveniles than for adults. During 1994 alone, 2.7 million juveniles were arrested. During the latter part of this century, juvenile courts that customarily provided social services in order to rehabilitate rather than punish lawbreakers were faced with an onslaught of children who were not simply wayward youths, but hardened repeat offenders. The 1980s witnessed an increasingly desperate outcry for courts to take more extreme measures to contain juvenile crime, which is assuming ever more serious forms.
In 1999, youth under the age of 15 accounted for 67 percent of all juvenile arrests for arson.
Crime and criminalization can be ambiguous; crime is only crime until certain authorities deem the actions illegal. However, social inequalities can lead to increased crime rates, notions such as gender, age, race, and class influence crime and provide criminologist with the date to determine who is most likely to commit a crime and where.
The labelling theory became dominant within society during the 1940’s and 1950’s, when a group of graduate students from the Chicago school tried a different approach to applying theory to deviant behaviour. Within this group was a highly influential young man, Howard S.Becker who became the person most recognised for his work with the labelling of crime (Williams.F. McShaneM. 2010.p110). Becker argued that labels could be applied through the social reaction of others when a deviant or criminal act had been committed he stated that “Labelling is the process of identifying, categorising and stereotyping social categories such as delinquents” (Davies.M.et.al.2010.p30). When an individual becomes labelled a criminal, people do not consider all the praiseworthy things they may have done previously, they just see that they have committed some form of deviance and are now judged within societ...
The accuracy and reliability of criminal statistics is something that has been of great discussion through criminology for decades. Whilst some believe that crime statistics are a misuse of time and resources, others believe that there is some use for them within the criminological community. The inaccuracies of criminal statistics are highlighted in abundance within academic articles and research, many of which highlight the main source as the dark figure of crime. Many also suggest other inconsistencies within official statistics to be influenced by law enforcement agencies and society. But whilst there is much research to suggest that criminal statistics are unreliable and of no use, there are some that suggest that this may not be entirely
Label theory is based in the idea that behaviors are irregular when the society labels them as irregular. The label theory implies that a person commits a crime in some time of a life, but that person is not seen as deviant, while other people are deviant. Label theory explains how a behavior of a person conflicts with the norms of the society. For example, A black young men, who lives in a neighborhood controlled by gangs may be labeled as a gang member. In consequence, that young man can start to act as gang member or became one. He incorporates the label that was given to him.
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).