Labeling Theory - R v Kevin BENNETT - Essay Example

CRIMINOLOGY Student’s Name Code & Course Professor’s name University City Date CRIMINOLOGY Merton in his strain theory on crime tells us that citizens often are pressured by social structures to commit crime (Crossman, 2017). This theory well explains R v Kevin BENNETT case filed by Regina at New South Wales District Court (R v Kevin BENNETT, 2013). Bennett who is the criminal has passed through struggles from his childhood. Regina who is sentencing him explains to the judge that Bennett was left in a bin by his mother and was identified by the police who took him to foster parents. Bennett lived with the grandparents who later died (R v Kevin BENNETT, 2013). His situation without parents and the need to provide for himself in relation to Merton is like a structural strain that interferes with how he perceives his needs. The pain and frictions Bennett is experiencing is also an individual strain that he faces as he is trying to look for individual needs. Strain theory explains in its concepts about how deviance is based on individual’s motivation to cultural goals and how the person achieves the goals (Crossman, 2017). According to Merton, there are five types of deviance based upon these criteria: In the analysis of R v Kevin BENNETT case, Bennett clearly operates using a concept of strain theory known as rebellion. In this the individual neither abide by the cultural goals nor the cultural ways of achieving such goals. The Psychologists states at the hearing that Bennett operates at the periphery of the society (R v Kevin BENNETT, 2013). In fact he doesn’t recognize that the robbery and the assaults he is doing to be wrong to the community. He therefore has replaced both the two society elements by his own different means. On the contrary Bennett value wealth which is society goal but he is using other unwanted means to obtain money. He has been involved in robbery with violence thrice stealing a laptop, money and iPad. These are wealth but the robbery he is using as a means to obtain his wealth is against the society ways (R v Kevin BENNETT, 2013). This therefore is clearly reflected in another concept of the strain theory that is innovation. Merton explains that innovation is whereby an individual accepts the cultural goals but does not follow the legitimate ways of attaining such goals (Sampson, 1993). Bennett is therefore considered deviant. This theory of strain is thus fascinating as one can decide to be deviant as he pursues the accepted values and goals of the community. The offender owns items he got in illegal ways but he sells them to make money which is a widely acceptable goal in the country. It’s therefore true according to strain theory that deviance can be brought about by the outcome of abiding by one value though breaking the other to achieve the first (Agnew,1997). Merton also mentions that the use of deviant behavior including theft, black market selling of items can be due to structural strain occurring between unequal ways to obtaining resource and the cultural goals of economic success (Agnew,1997). Everybody is the country aims for economic success, Bennett inclusive. Work and education is required to attain this success. However, not everybody is able to obtain the various means to achieve this; a good example is the offender who is disconnected from the family. He lacks education and employment and he is considered as a marginalized person and therefore experiences this strain as he is aiming similar goals to others. This is why he opt to us unsanctioned ways mainly robbery with violence to achieve the success (R v Kevin BENNETT, 2013). According to Merton, ritualism which is another concept in his strain theory explains how people who reject accepted society goals still continuously participate in ways of achieving them. This response shows that this is not deviant in practice since the person is acting in ways that he thinks is in line with achieving the goals. According to Bennett, he reported to the psychologist that what is he was doing (theft of vehicles) to him was the right thing. He is “going through the motions" of what is expected maybe because he feels it is expect or normal. In real sense it is because he doesn’t have hope or expect anything from the society. In the measurement of injustice, particular strains perceived are observed by various ways. Researchers check out the attributions and justice literature in order to estimate the injustice of objective strains (Dodge and Schwartz, 1997). They also involve their knowledge to the group which is to be examined. The report from the psychologist in R v Kevin BENNETT case is a clear indication of this since the offender’s background is well explained from his childhood. The judge therefore rates the level of injustice for the offender by looking at injustice strains. Bennett’s case the likelihood of strains including earlier exposure to drugs and isolation from the parents was noted by the judge. He was then regarded as an aboriginal offender and this mitigated his sentence. The strain theory also mention that there are preventive group members asked to rate the injustice of such strain. Hall in this case was able mention that the strains that the offender was experiencing, she mentioned about the death of Bennett’s grandmother which made him so vulnerable to unethical behaviors (R v Kevin BENNETT, 2013). Victims are always asked to rate the injustice of strains they do experience hence are measured. These ratings help the judge to compare both the victim and strain characteristics. Unjust ratings results from attributional biases (Dodge and Schwartz (1997). seeHerbertandCohen1996; Turner and Wheaton 1995 Even though strain theory has been used to identify the connection between society values, social structural conditions and people behavior, deviance is seen as a social construct that characterizes behaviors in unjust ways. People are therefore controlled by policies instead of using the policies to find solutions to problems within the social structure itself. Bennett’s crime is as a social pressure and he was sentenced for not abiding by the policies. These policies according to the critiques of strain theory suggest that they are to be used to solve the problem the offender is facing. This is seen as a weakness of strain theory. (O'Grady, 2011), states that some crimes including assault which Bennett have no explanation regarding material acquisition. However for the case of R v Kevin BENNETT, it is well figured out that robbery with violence is because of the need for material acquisition. Considering the labeling theory which states that people behave in ways that is a true reflection of how others label them. The theory still holds in the case R v Kevin BENNETT because it is observed from the proceedings that at the age of twelve, the offender was taken to custody in a juvenile court. This tells us that Bennett had been labeled a criminal because the offences he was charged with in a juvenile court can be regarded as petty. For example affray, property destruction, assault which could be dealt with by imposing punishment on him (R v Kevin BENNETT, 2013). Labeling theory in the first place assumes that no act is intrinsically criminal (Liazos, 1972). From this perspective, we are able to link this with the labeling theory which elaborates further that sociology of deviance and crime fosters deviant character in accordance with how someone is treated as being criminally deviant. This labeling at some point is bias bringing negative repercussions to the labeled individual. This is supported by the remarks read in the psychologist report who informs the panel that Bennett’s detention in juvenile prison enhanced his delinquent behaviors. He greatly took part in antisocial subculture. The labeling theory further explains that deviant as a process in criminality occurs when non-deviant associate with deviants (Manders, 1975). The offender while in the juvenile custody associated with other criminals and it is not by chance that he developed some antisocial acts from the prison. Those who enforce law including the police the court are the main source of labeling. Bennett even before this case (R v Kevin BENNETT) had previously appeared before the judge in High court of Bugmy. The judge and the police who took him to the court labeled him as a criminal (R v Kevin BENNETT, 2013). This is clearly shows how negative the offender has been labeled and therefore he cannot remove it but instead engage in deviant behaviors that are in accordance with the label he has been given. The powerful groups within the social structure often apply the deviant labels to the marginalized and subordinate groups (Becker, 1963). Activities like affray are considered as innocent behaviors that children have as they mature. In contrary, among the poor similar activities are regarded as delinquent acts and such children like in Bennett’s case are labeled negatively (Margot, 1992). Bennett is from a poor background because he has nobody to provide for him. This is explained as a concept of the labeling theory that labels of deviance can be assigned to individuals based on the class differences within the society. It is therefore very difficult to remove deviant from a person that has been labeled. This is why Bennett from his childhood has had a lot of criminal record with the court. He is therefore stigmatized criminally and cannot be trusted. This is followed by the acceptance of the labeled character as being deviant and he thereafter tends to involve in activities that fulfills his label (Liazos, 1972). Labeling theory linked to criminal justice postulates that deviance believes are worsened by labeling as well as punishment got from authority (Braithwaite, 1989). Fewer rules and light punishments should therefore be made in order to reduce deviance for those who break the laws. For example, decriminalization of drugs would help to reduce the number of criminals convicted with drug abuse. This brings in the risk of secondary deviance. This is because it is the addiction that leads the addicts into causing crime. It is therefore making sense to treat the addiction at the expense of enhancing stigmatization of the labeled addict (Lemert, 1974). Labeling theory also states naming offenders often make them perceive themselves as evil outsiders by excluding them within the society. The negative consequences of labeling are mainly focused to identify the main role of the process of labeling. John Braithwaite (1989) distinguishes between disintegrative shaming which involves labeling of both the crime and criminal as bad. Bennett falls in this category. He is sentenced because he is not fit to be in the community and he did a labeled act (R v Kevin BENNETT, 2013). Reintegrative shaming however labels the act only. This helps to prevent stigmatization to the offender. There are however critiques of this labeling theory in criminology. To state a few, the theory only emphasizes on the interactive processes causing labeling. It doesn’t mention the structures and the ways in which the deviant behaviors are caused. It fails to illustrate how processes including attitude, opportunities and economic structure leads to deviant acts. In the R v Kevin BENNETT case, we are only able to explain using labeling theory the ways in which the offender was labeled (R v Kevin BENNETT, 2013). The theory doesn’t consider the reasons or factors why the criminal was labeled deviant as was explained by the strain theory (Becker, 1963). The labeling theory does not clearly satisfy the users because it fails to illustrate if it is actually labeling that causes increased deviant acts. It is difficult to accept that it is only labeling that causes deviant acts because there are many other factors that could be responsible for such acts. For example when delinquents interact with non-delinquents and when people learn new opportunities for a criminal. The theory is therefore too deterministic as some individuals do not accept the labels and later change to be responsible and well behaved in the society. This even show that the theory does not recognizes that committing crime can be as a result of personal choice (Braithwaite, 1989). The labeling of a person is talking more on the negatives of deviant person than the positives (Erickson, 1964). For example Bennett must be having some good characters apart from the ones he is sentenced for. There is thus a deeper illustration of crime than just labeling and the interactive processes. . Just like the strain theory, the labeling process is also associated with social construction of deviant behavior. It not only involves the stigmatized behavior but also those behaviors that are not acceptable as cultural norms. For example Scheff shows in his labeling theory that a label of mental illness is often placed on those who exhibit deviant actions not allowed in the society (Erickson, 1964). From the above, strain theory is therefore showing us the reason why individuals cause crime. The approached in this theory concentrate on how people redefine their cultural goals or how they accept the same goals. Labeling theory also tries to use sociological position in explaining crime. However the labeling theory tells us why individuals do not stop committing crime. They often proceed with deviant acts. The theory in the first place does not give vivid reason why such crime is committed. Both theories use social perspective in explaining crime with one showing the beginning of crime and the other showing its continuation. Reference List Agnew, R and Brezina, T. 1997. Relational problems with peers, gender and delinquency. Youth and Society 29: 84-111. Crossman, A. 2017.Understanding Structural Strain Theory.March,2 2017 Becker, H.S. 1963.Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press, 1963. Braithwaite, J. 1989. Crime, Shame, and Reintegration. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Dodge, K.A., and Schwartz, D. 1997. Social Information Processing Mechanisms in Aggressive Behavior. In J. Breilling J. Maser (Eds.), Handbook of antisocial behavior. (pp.171-180). New York, Wiley Erickson, K.T. 1962. "Notes on the Sociology of Deviance." [1962]. In The Other Side: Perspectives on Deviance, edited by Howard S. Becker. New York: The Free Press, 1964. Lemert, E. M.1974. "Beyond Mead: The Societal Reaction to Deviance." Social Problems 21 (April 1974): 457-68. Liazos, A. 1972. "The Poverty of the Sociology of Deviance: Nuts, Sluts, and Perverts." Social Problems 20, Summer (1972): 103-20. Manders, D. 1975. "Labelling Theory and Social Reality: A Marxist Critique." Insurgent Sociologist 6 no. 1 (1975): 53-66. Margot, P. 1992. Childhood temperament. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines 33:249-279 O’Grady, W. 2011. Crime and Criminals. Amazone Primes R v Kevin BENNETT (2013) NSWDC 222 (8 October 2013) Sampson, R.J. and Laub, H.J. 1993. Crime in the Making. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Read More