Deterrence and Labeling Theory in Crime Reduction - Essay Example

Deterrence and Labeling Theory As I set out to decide whether the deterrence theory or the labeling theory works best in crime reduction, I will uncover that individuals live their lives with the intention that deterrence will reduce recidivism. Crime reduction is the process through various means of reducing criminal activity within a certain proximity. Although, labeling theory is a response from society or individual’s when an offender or non-offender is apprehended by the Criminal Justice System. For example, you have an offender who was apprehended (served 1-3 years), released, apprehended (2-5 years), released, apprehended (6-12 years), released for the third time. This offender is now released back into society, he or she has now redeemed themselves, obtain a high school diploma, obtain a job and now supporting themselves. Now looking at this example, this individual has now been labeled by the Criminal Justice System as a criminal, thief, jail bird, and a misfit that will never comply with what is expected of them. This pattern deters an individual from recreating their lives into something decent and following a positive path because they are now assuming the role of what society wants them to be. The deterrence theory focuses on reducing deviances in the public as a whole, by means of public notices, special task forces and the death penalty; by making criminals, and others, afraid, the Criminal Justice System believes they will refrain from committing crimes. The labeling theory involves giving deviants negative labels that are often based on the crimes that they have committed. The purpose of the labeling theory is to influence how a person views themselves, with the hopes that, to rid themselves of these negative remarks, they will better themselves. The similarity between the two theories is that they each bring about negative feelings with the sole purpose of altering how a person acts, behaves, and alters their current behavior. The biggest difference between the two theories is that while the deterrence theory aims at stopping crimes from happening through warnings and instilling the fear of the justice system into a person, the labeling theory targets individuals, altering their frame of mind in regard to themselves. Deterrence theory is not a new concept adapted by the Criminal Justice System. Beccarie and Bentham (2009) stated that they were only interested in the treatment of the offenders. They wanted to understand why the sentencing was so harsh and unfair. They were more concentrated on reforming the legal and penal process associated with the courts (p. 17). I gather from the above passage that Beccarie and Bentham wanted to do away with corporal punishment, and that they truly believe that everyone should be labeled as human beings that think rationally. They also felt that we as humans think rationally, which provides a balance for one to think thoroughly to make a sound decision within our lives. However, I tend to disagree with part of the statement because we as humans are capable of thinking irrationally; needless, I have to say that sometimes a harder sentence may be in order because a person may refuse and continue to use his irrational state over true reliable reason. They say that what may be of reason to me may not be of reason for the next individual; then results in the reshaping of the Criminal Justice System to assist redeveloped programs to work efficiently and effectively to help the offenders understand the severity of their criminal habits. I realize from experience that deterrence can be an extremely expandable or collapsible concept to measure and validate as there are no tangible primary results, which produce no solid empirical theory; nevertheless, all methods are relating to deterrence theory, which relies upon something else to conform to a theory or the theories as a whole. The labeling theory address individual reaction to deviance; although, O’Connor (2006) expresses that labeling and reacting to offenders as “criminals” can lead to more consequences and deepening the criminal behavior and making the problems worse. It is believed that it is not the harm that makes an act “criminal”, but whether to label is conferred to the act (P. 1). In my opinion, Labeling Theory is the misuse of government power. This also refers to individuals who are working in high political agencies. Labeling theory tends to stigmatize individuals with labels, which can incorporate for problems for the individual being labeled by his/her peers, society and the Criminal Justice System. As I formulate my opinion, I feel that neither theory is satisfactory. I say this because the many experiences that I have encountered in my life. I believe that both theories are flawed, and they are not effective, unless they work together. I believe that no theory can function as only one unit. All the readings that I have read on each theory seem to have a link to an outside theory where they are conjoined to make the theory develop a hypothesis and based on empirical validity, which can be measured or tested. Labeling Theory does not deter or provide deterrence for everyone to reduce recidivism; however, if an individual has experienced a turn around with their lives then maybe a change in the way society and the individual views themselves would help prevent the concept of labeling. Labeling an individual; nevertheless, the conflict between delinquent and community will still continue if changes are not made starting with the Criminal Justice System. Deterrence Theory would be my choice if I had to choose to help prevent recidivism because I see this theory used most often in the Criminal Justice System. Deterrence attempts to target the offenders rather than the crime; although, I feel that if a judge interacts with an offender frequently the punishment is now based on the character and crimes that were committed. At the end of the day, I see no real comparisons with deterrence and labeling theories. Both theories argue that neither punishment for crimes should be fair and equal to offenders and then labeling theory would not occur. I take a stand on this because if a person suffers from low self-esteem, suffers from mental illness, etc… these individuals are not coherent with regards to their surroundings or what may be going on in their environment. They might be unaware that what they are doing is actually a criminal act. As I conclude, deterrence and labeling theory has paved a way throughout the nation and the Criminal Justice System, showing that these theories must work together to help combat a criminal occurrence and assist the Criminal Justice System to maintain functionally with the Judicial System. For example, the city has posted speeding signs to indicate to slow down when you see the signed posted in front of public schools; however, you still have individuals who will still continue to speed and ignore the warning signs, and I must say that being away does not deter some and definitely does not leave a dent on an individual who does not respect the law. According to Bursik and Gramick (1990), these individuals do not care if they are labeled by society or the Judicial System. Some of these individuals enjoy this calculation by pleasure versus pain (P. 838). I agree that some individuals thrive off of the pleasure and that the pain means nothing to them. Some of them do not define their criminal acts as pain because they become institutionalized by the judicial system. Deterrence is incorporated within society and the structure for our Judicial System. Needlessly, labeling theory will also deter some individuals from repeating offenses; nevertheless, I will take a stance and remain with deterrence theory. In the case of someone who has been arrested for for physically assaulting a person might change their ways upon realizing that the death penalty could be an option for them if they continue their ways and possibly cause more harm. My opinion reflects that both theories are flawed with not adequately addressing how to deal with offenders and how to introduce them back into society without all the unconstructive labeling and criticism. However, the deterrence theory focuses more on crime and society as a whole, without the need to make individuals feel negative about themselves or allowing others to feel negative and label these offenders. Therefore, the deterrence theory is definitely the best to use in crime reduction. References Akers, R., L., & Sellers, C. (2009). Criminological Theories (5th Ed). New York: Oxford University Press. Bursik, R., J., & Gramsmick, H., G. (1990). Conscience, significant others, and rational choice: Extending the deterrence model. Law and Society Review Vol. 24, Number 3, 837-861. O’Connor, T. (2006). Labeling theories of crime. Retrieved on September 18, 2009, from http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/crim/crimtheory14.htm. Read More