Criminology and the Labeling Theory - Essay Example

Criminology, the study of crime, has been around for many years. A lot of research on this topic has been conducted, much of which has produced different theories in regard to criminals and their behaviors. One of the prominent theories in criminology is the labeling theory, which focuses on the effect a label placed on a criminal by society has on the person and their actions. The labeling theory also believes that while an individual may commit one criminal act, his or her tendency to commit additional acts comes from society's label. This theory has been very popular in the last half century and has had an important impact on criminology in both positive and negative ways. The labeling theory was developed from the interactionist perspective of criminology. Interactionists believe that a person does not become a criminal on their own. Interactionist theories "assume that everyone has the potential to violate the law and that criminality is not an innate human characteristic," according to Schamlleger (2005, p. 245). While social constraints are the primary cause of crime, this alone does not cause someone to act unlawful. Instead these deviant behaviors must be learned and reinforced, which is why the process of socialization is an important factor in determining if someone is going to become a criminal. This means that interactions with society, peer groups, family, the education system, and other social groups play a prominent role, as these interactions provide the individual with morals, values, and a slate of norms in which to adhere to. In addition, this theory believes that a person's position in society will influence their involvement in crime, with those in higher positions in society less likely to partake in criminal behaviors. The labeling theory helped criminologist differentiate between primary and secondary deviance. An offender's initial act of deviance is considered primary deviance. However, continuing these acts is considered secondary deviance, especially if these acts occur as a result of being around other deviant individuals (Schmalleger, 2005). For example, while someone may initially rob a gas station as their primary deviance, secondary deviance may come from being sentenced to jail, meeting fellow criminals, and engaging in additional deviant behavior with them that would not occur if the individual was not associated with them. However, the individual does not have to have direct interaction with other deviant individuals for it to be considered secondary deviance. The action of simply being labeled a criminal can result in secondary deviations (Schmalleger, 2005). Noting and studying labeling in regards to secondary deviance is important, because the negative labels put on an individual eventually become internalized. The individual labels himself as deviant, and therefore performs deviant behaviors to fit these labels (Schmalleger, 2005). In the 1960s and 70s, criminologists began to question the labeling and interactionist theory. It was during this time that there were a lot of social problems that were causing criminologists to question their loyalty and support to these and other earlier proposed theories. Some of these social problems included the civil rights movement, which gave blacks and whites equal rights, and the war in Vietnam, which was hugely unpopular. Criminologists began to question how they could support theories and interpret laws that discriminated against people and reinforced or caused human suffering. It was at this time that things in the world of criminology began to shift, as a new perspective, Marxist criminology, began to develop. This criminology theory strongly questioned the labeling theory and other theories before it. It was founded upon the writings concerning capitalism by Karl Marx. He was an individual who believed that capitalist societies were divided into two social classes, a small, rich, elite and a large, poor, working class. The elite class served as the ruling class and exploited the poor class for their own benefit and wealth. Due to all the social problems and uprisings occurring at the time, many criminologists didn't believe that past theories were important or relevant in the current context of society and all the changes that were rapidly occurring (Sparks, 1980). Criminologists under the Marxist perspective began to question whether the laws that were in place were there in order to ensure that the ruling class continued to stay in power. They began to view criminal law as a tool used to ensure that the capitalist society hierarchy remains intact and in power (Sparks, 1980). Those who believed in the Marxist theory noted the correlation between rates of poverty and rates of crime (Glaser, 1979b). A further look in to this theory led researchers to question who had decided that the behaviors of criminals were actually unlawful behaviors. Criminologists no longer viewed why people behaved in deviant ways but instead began to examine who determined these ways were deviant (Sparks, 1980). They viewed criminal law as a way for the elite social class to protect its own interests. They noted that the elite commit crimes similar to the poor, yet their crimes are not as harshly punished, are often overlooked, and sometimes are not even considered unlawful. For example, a company executive who embezzles money is less severely punished than someone who steals money from a bank. In addition at this time, some criminology theorists began to argue that criminals with deviant behavior shouldn't be punished for their crimes, but instead celebrated for the diversity they bring to society (Sparks, 1980). Marxist criminologists believe that a capitalist society with its criminal justice system will remain that way until the lower classes are oppressed and drained of enough resources that a social revolution happens. One of the ways the elite work to prevent this from happening is by offering the justice system and social welfare programs. When people have no food, money, shelter, or other necessities, they become desperate and start participating in deviant behaviors in order to merely survive and live to see tomorrow. The capitalist elite don't want too many people to reach this point for fear of a revolution, so they maintain a justice system to show there will be punishment for those breaking the laws and confine them so they cannot continue to do so. In addition, they also have a social welfare system, which provides individuals with the minimum amount of food, shelter, and other items that are necessary to live on, so these people will not turn to deviant behaviors to obtain these things. In addition, some Marxists argue that the control exhibited by the elite class is done so through a variety of institutions which include the education system, the religious sector, and mass media (Keel, 2005a). Marxist theorists tend to believe that the act of crime will no longer occur, once a social revolution does take place between the poor and the capitalist elite (Sparks, 1980). There are some criticisms of the Marxist criminology theory, as some critics argue that not all conflicts in society occur as a result of discrepancies in social class or economic status (Keel, 2005a). In addition, crime continues to occur in non-capitalist countries that value a social form of government (Keel, 2005a). Other critics argue that conflict is and always will be present in human interactions and relationships. Due to this deviance will continue to occur regardless of other circumstances such as education, economics, social class status or other factors (Keel, 2005a). During the 60s and 70s labeling also helped to contribute to moral panics. These moral panics are times when society gets in an uproar concerning a social issue and a mass movement is started. Usually a large segment of the population begins believing that a small group is participating in deviant behaviors that are corrupting the moral fiber of the country and must be stopped immediately. Usually these are instigated by media reports. Examples of current moral panics are the lack of privacy in regard to cellular phones and the Catholic Church sex scandal, in which young boys are being sexually abused by the church priests. Another criminology theory that has developed from labeling is the feminist criminology theory. During previous times, there was no differentiating between men and crime versus women and crime. Instead, they were all linked together. Even when criminologists and other researchers actually started to examine females in regard to crime, they approached it from a masculine viewpoint in which they believed that all females committed crimes because they had penis envy. Since then, a new theory of criminology, feminism criminology has developed that dismisses the penis envy theory and examines more deeply the deviant behaviors and their causes in women. Feminist criminology has reviewed many crime statistics which argue that women are less likely to commit crimes than males (French, 2005). Research has also determined that penalties for women who partake in deviant behaviors are less severe than their counterpart males. However, the reason for this has not yet been determined (French, 2005). While progress is being made on studying the females and crime, most feminist criminology supporters still tend to analyze and criticize how and why women were ignored, distorted or stereotyped in previous research and theories (French, 2005). While the labeling theory has had a profound effect on the development of new theories regarding criminology, it has also contributed to the discussion and debate of past theories. In addition, it has had both positive and negative effects on the overall field of criminology and society. Some of the positive ways that the labeling theory has benefited criminology has been through the development of new theories that don't discriminate against others and don't support lawful inhumane behaviors. Another positive benefit has been the development of a variety of social programs to benefits criminals. These social programs are designed to intervene before an individual develops deviant behaviors that would make him a criminal, and to rehabilitate those criminals who have already participated in deviant behaviors. By creating more social programs, society is saying that there is hope for criminals. They are not doomed to be labeled criminals forever. With the proper education and rehabilitation and job training, a criminal can leave the judicial system for a final time and be a productive member of society. Those programs that are aimed at preventing a person from becoming a criminal work at teaching individuals what kinds of deviant behaviors are unacceptable, and giving them resources to use in situations in which they would most likely turn to deviant behaviors as a way to solve a problem. On the other hand, the labeling theory also has had a somewhat negative effect on our society. People still view those who have participated in deviant behaviors at criminals, and people on an individual basis do discriminate against them. Most criminals are required to report their past deviant behavior on job applications, and in the United States, sex offenders are required to register themselves and their residence with the state and inform the state if they move. This information is then published on the internet, making it accessible to anyone. This kind of labeling is detrimental to an individual who is trying to overcome his or her past but is continually stigmatized by the views others place upon them because of their previous actions. Most likely labeling them will lead to further deviant behaviors. Another negative effect the labeling theory has had on criminology and society is that it has brought about no change in what is considered criminal or deviant behavior. The ruling class, as stated in the Marxist criminology perspective, still determines what is lawful and what is not. They continue to exploit lower social classes in order to garner success and wealth, especially in monetary means. While the labeling theory has been an important part of the ideas and research conducted in criminology, there are many other theories that have questioned its ability to describe and predict criminal behavior. In addition, there have been both good and bad things that have come from this perspective. More research, especially quantitative, research is needed about the theory to make it viable when compared to other criminology theories. References Bernard, T.J. and Snipes, J.B. (1996) Theoretical integration in criminology. Crime and Justice [online], 20. Available from: [Accessed 9 January 2006]. French, M. (2005) Feminist criminology, female crime, and integrated theory [online]. Available from: [Accessed 9 January 2006]. Glaser, D. (1956a) Criminality theories and behavioral images. The American Journal of Sociology [online], 61 (5). Available from: [Accessed 9 January 2006]. Glaser, D. (1979b) A review of crime-causation theory and its application. Crime and Justice [online], 1979 (1). Available from: [Accessed 9 January 2006]. Keel, R. (2005a) Conflict theory(ies) of deviance [online]. Available from: [Accessed 9 January 2006]. Keel, R. (2005b) Feminism [online]. Available from: [Accessed 9 January 2006]. Livesey, C. (n.d.a) Interactionism [online]. Available from: [Accessed 9 January 2006]. Livesey, C. (n.d.b) Radical criminology [online]. Available from: [Accessed 9 January 2006]. Meier, R.F. (1976) The new criminology: Continuity in criminological theory. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology [online], 67 (4). Available from: [Accessed 9 January 2006]. Schmalleger, F. (2005) Criminology today. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Pg. 245 Sparks, R.F. (1980) A critique of Marxist criminology. Crime and Justice [online], 2. Available from: [Accessed 9 January 2006]. Sociology at Hewett (n.d.) Overview of labelling theories [online]. Available from: [Accessed 9 January 2006]. Wikipedia (2006) Moral panic [online]. Available from: [Accessed 9 January 2006]. Read More