Labeling Theory in Criminology - Thesis Example

Labeling Theory Thesis Introduction Criminology is a discipline that studies the reason people engage in criminal behavior and the reason they act in specific circumstances. By gaining knowledge of the reason individuals perpetrate crimes, one can formulate strategies to regulate criminal activities or reeducate and rehabilitate the offenders. There are numerous criminological theories. Theories in criminology are preliminary explanations of issues concerning criminal behavior and the criminal justice system (Akers, 2013). A theory is defined as “a set of interconnected statements or propositions that explain how two or more events or factors are related to one another” (Akers, 2013, 2). Criminological theories are nonfigurative and nonconcrete, yet they require more than arm-chair assumptions. Knowing the reasons individuals stray from or comply with legal and social norms is an important aspect of a liberal learning. Almost all policies or measures implemented concerning crime are derived from certain fundamental theories of crime (Tibbetts & Hemmens, 2009). As a result, it is vital to understand and assess the main criminological theories, not just for the academic criminologists, but for the criminal justice or legal practitioners and educated residents as well. Edwin Sutherland (1947) provided a definition of criminology, which states that it is “the study of the entire process of law-making, law-breaking, and law-enforcing” (Meier, Kennedy, & Sacco, 2001, 15). Theories of crime are classified based on this definition. One leading type of theory deals with the first and third component of this mechanism—law-making and law-enforcing. These theories explain the purpose of laws and the reason the criminal justice system exists. Another leading form of theory focuses on law-breaking. These theories explain deviant and criminal behavior. Labeling Theory Even though there were past examples, labeling theory, at times referred to as ‘the societal reaction perspective’, developed into a leading criminological theory in the 1960s, mainly in the U.S. (Winfrey & Abadinsky, 2009, 224). Labeling scholars derive their ideas from symbolic interactionist principles, those that highlight the interactional and subjective aspects of human experiences. Based on the works of Charles Horton Cooley and George Herbert Mead and expanded eventually in the writing of Harold Garfinckel, George Homans, and Herbert Blumer, with variants named role theory, ethnomethodology, and exchange theory, the focus in symbolic interactionism is on examinations of personal significance or values of social interaction as viewed from the perspective of the individual (Vito & Maahs, 2011, 191). A person sees the value of his/her task or activity through other people’s response. Labeling theory claims that individuals are delinquent or criminal primarily because they have been called or labeled as delinquent by social control institutions. The concept of deviance is not intrinsic in the behavior itself, but instead in the response and label tied to the person; specifically, crime or deviance is a label (Jackson & Hay, 2012). Frank Tannenbaum referred to the practice of assigning a label to offenders ‘the dramatization of evil’ (Miller, 2009, 254). He described this process of criminalization as “a process of tagging, defining, identifying, segregating, describing, emphasizing, making conscious and self-conscious; it becomes a way of stimulating, suggesting, emphasizing, and evoking the very traits complained of” (Miller, 2009, 254). Together with Edwin Schur, Howard Becker, and others, the labeling thinkers and Tannenbaum tried to move criminological research from deviance to the social control process (Miller, 2009). Basically, this overturns the established practice of analysis; instead of arguing that criminal behavior brings about societal response, it suggests that societal response brings about deviance and crime. Schrag (1971) sums up several of the fundamental principles of labeling theory (as cited in Hagan, 2010, 178): No act is intrinsically criminal. Criminal definitions are enforced in the interests of the powerful. A person does not become a criminal by violation of the law, but only by the designation of criminality by authorities. Due to the fact that everyone both conforms and deviates, people should not be dichotomized into criminal and noncriminal categories. The act of ‘getting caught’ begins the labeling process. ‘Getting caught’ and decision making in the criminal justice system are a function of the offender as opposed to offense characteristics. Age, socioeconomic class, and race are the major offender characteristics that establish patterns of differential criminal justice decision making. Labeling is a process that eventually produces identification with a deviant image and subculture and a resulting ‘rejection of the rejecters’. The labeling theory is based on three premises: first is the belief that deviance and crime is relative; second is an emphasis on the way conflict, influence, and authority influence society; and third is the value of self-image (Bernburg et al., 2006).The first premise is a universal idea that no action is naturally criminal or evil. Whether an action or behavior is regarded criminal or delinquent relies on several aspects such as the place and time of the crime, the criminal and the victim, and the outcomes of the action. For instance, suppose the use of hallucinatory drugs. In several societies, these drugs are legally allowed, even though in other places they are regarded illegal substances. In a particular society, the position of an action can alter. For instance, numerous presently illegal drugs were licit in the past, and alcohol was prohibited for a short period of time (Lopes et al., 2012). Even acts, like murder, are not consistently categorized as homicide. In war, these actions are recognized. Death from a disease brought about by a polluted environment is widely seen as an environmental threat that is essential for the economy (Lopes et al., 2012). Basically, the core of this perspective is that no action is naturally evil. Whether such actions are viewed as criminal relies on the society wherein they take place, the specific historical setting, and the conditions of the action. Labeling theory claims that the core aspect is the response of the society to the action, not the action itself (Watts, 1996). As emphasized by Becker, “… deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an ‘offender’. The deviant is one to whom the label has successfully been applied; deviant behavior is behavior that people so label” (Miller, 2009, 255). The labeling theory stresses the power of the elite or the influential groups in society to identify, describe, and respond to deviance. The same as conflict theory, labeling thinkers claim that powerful people like the upper class will decide on and implement laws in a way that fulfills their self-interests. Becker called those who classify and implement laws and policies as ‘moral entrepreneurs’ (Miller, 2009, 255). On the other hand, ‘rule creators’ are focused on the process of criminalizing specific kinds of behavior that they believe are deeply deviant (Miller, 2009, 255-6). They normally embrace a principle that seems more and more relapsing or inflexible. They also have a tendency to hand over the implementation of their chosen rules to others. Then there are the ‘rule enforcers’ who are the experts implementing the policies uncompromisingly, despite its implications (Hagan, 2010). They should defend their position and gain the approval of their superiors or those directly above them. They confront the dual problem of proving that the issue remains but showing that it is being addressed competently. Becker knows that rule enforcers, in reaction to the demands of the work, will choose the policies they want to implement. Essentially, labeling thinkers do not compare selectivity with arbitrariness (Hagan, 2010). Instead, selective implementation will be aimed at those who do not have the position, influence, and power. Labeling theorists claim that people in the criminal justice system implement policies for the benefit of the elite in society. Rules are selectively implemented so that it focuses on specific sectors of society (Vito & Maahs, 2011). Hardly any people are reprimanded, and those who are caught are more likely to be minority citizens, poorly educated, low-income, jobless, young, and male inhabitants of crime-prone urban areas (Dick et al., 2004). The last portion in the labeling framework is based on the general model of ‘symbolic interactionism’. The claim of this model is that individuals communicate by means of images, words, and signs that embody other symbols (Dick et al., 2004). Essentially, one label could comprise an entire cluster of meanings or values. Labels like ‘psychotic’ or ‘crack head’ raise or bring to mind a specific image (Vito & Maahs, 2011, 189). This process of symbol exchange helps individuals identify and make sense of their identity. In short, individuals read symbolic signs from other people and integrate them into their self-concept (Miller, 2009). Charles Horton Cooley named this practice as the ‘looking-glass self’; specifically, a person’s own self-image is the outcome of the symbolic labels and opinion of other people (Vito & Maahs, 2011, 190). Consequently, the self-image can determine actions or behavior. People try, consciously or unconsciously, to match their image. In other words, the labels that other people apply to define an individual can turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Proponents of symbolic interactionism claimed that this is never a straight, one-dimensional course (Hagan, 2010). The individuals being given labels could react, and resolve, their self-image. Two main notions in labeling theory are the concepts of primary deviance and secondary deviance introduced by Edwin Lemert. Primary deviance points to the original criminal action itself, whereas secondary deviance is focused on the psychological reorientation the person goes through as an outcome of being castigated and labeled as a criminal (Hagan, 2010). As soon as this stigma or shameful position is given, the person could find it extremely hard to remove the label and may intensely relate to this new delinquent identity. Therefore, delinquent behavior is considered as having been formed in society by social control institutions protecting the interest of the elite. Lemert believes that the general method of exploring deviance is overturned. He argues (Hagan, 2010, 178): This is a large turn away from the older sociology which tended to rest heavily upon the idea that deviance leads to social control. I have come to believe that the reverse idea, i.e., social control leads to deviance, is equally tenable and the potentially richer premise for studying deviance in modern society. Labeling theory has been greatly critiqued over the recent decades. The most detrimental critique is that the core components of the theory seem to have almost no empirical substantiation. Studies seem to repudiate the following principles of the labeling model (Vito &Maahs, 2011, 191): The characterization of primary deviance as relative, sporadic, and unimportant; The idea that the nature of the persons predicts official reaction more than the nature of the act; and The effect of official sanctions on future behavior (deviance amplification). Proponents of the labeling theory cannot give an explanation of the reason some individuals take part in primary deviance, whereas others do not. Rather, they depict anything that takes place prior to a formal response as erratic, random, and quite irrelevant ( Bernburg et al., 2006). Research on deviance shows that this is an imprecise image because even young children show stable, structured, and prolonged misconduct; moreover, they are not likely to merely ‘mature’ from such behavior (Jackson & Hay, 2012). The pattern is that deviance or misconduct persists over time, irrespective of whether a child is formally labeled. Numerous detractors also criticize the absolute relativeness given to deviance. This depiction of criminal behavior creates a ‘loser’ image that refutes the wicked aspect of specific criminal acts, as well as the obligation, accountability, and autonomy of the actor (Jackson & Hay, 2012). Another principle of the labeling theory is that the criminal’s social standing instead of the specific crime determines whether the individual will be captured and reprimanded. Without a doubt, there is a certain extent of racial prejudice in the criminal justice system. For instance, in spite of bureaucratic attempts to avoid it, capital punishment in the U.S. is beset by racial prejudice (Miller, 2009). Several studies also reported that race affects decisions to imprison or the harshness of sentencing or punishment. Even in cases racial prejudice is observed, nonetheless, it is a much fragile determinant of court or police judgment when evaluated against crime severity and previous record (Miller, 2009). In short, the nature of the action is a more vital determining factor of whether or not the authorities conduct an arrest or whether an individual is imprisoned. The core idea of the labeling theory is that the stigma brought by criminal justice punishments will heighten potential deviant acts. In certain instances, punishments could deter criminal behavior. Undeniably, there are also several findings indicating that punishment also could raise future criminal acts. Particularly, there is proof that incarceration heightens the possibilities of potential deviant acts (Bernburg et al., 2006). This is troubling, since the U.S. currently imprisons more than two million criminals (Dick et al., 2004). Yet, although imprisonment could raise future criminal behavior, it is not definite that this is because of the traditional labeling perception. For instance, it is possible that imprisonment reduces employment opportunities which consequently are associated with deviance. Studies suggest that the same variables, such as parenting style, personality traits, weak ties, and deviant peers that create primary deviance also determine eventual deviance irrespective of whether an individual has been formally labeled. The absence of empirical validation for the labeling model does not imply that official response or labels do not generate detrimental outcomes (Vito & Maahs, 2011). However, it is apparent that the label itself is much less relevant than other variables. As stressed by Cullen and Agnew, “Labeling theory wishes to pretend that being raised in criminogenic conditions for 10, 15, or 20 years… pale in comparison to the effects, albeit over a more limited time, of being arrested and perhaps jailed” (Vito & Maahs, 2011, 191). By concentrating mainly on the social control process, labeling theory has evident weaknesses as a universal theory of crime; yet this emphasis on societal response improved or revised an excessively positivistic, traditional framework of criminological theory. Criminal Justice Policy/Practice Labeling theory narrates a tale with a satirical riddle. In attempting to deter deviant acts, the criminal justice system in fact creates or encourages more criminal behavior. As witnessed, though, this argument has lacked empirical verification. Another paradox is that in spite of the absence of empirical substantiation, labeling was widely known and recognized for a short duration of time and shaped the opinion and judgment of numerous legislators or policymakers (Akers, 2013). The labeling theory’s policy implication is quite obvious—do not interfere in majority of juvenile delinquency issues as much as possible. As expressed by Edwin Schur, take part in ‘radical non-intervention’ (Winfree & Abadinsky, 2009, 231). For instance, labeling scholars criticized the punishment or sentencing by juvenile courts of status crimes, or, those offenses perpetrated by juveniles that would not be regarded offenses if perpetrated by adults, such as absenteeism (Winfree & Abadinsky, 2009). Schur argued that these are moral verdicts that worsen a wicked situation. A fugitive taken to a juvenile agency can become a robber due to the labeling practice. Congress ratified in 1974 the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, which seemed to abide by the policy recommendations of the labeling model. The legislation demanded the deinstitutionalization of those classified as status criminals and push states to get rid of status crimes from the universal theory of deviance (Winfree & Abadinsky, 2009). During this period, ‘diversion programs’ became widely used. Labeling scholars warn against excessive intervention. Instead of appealing to social institutions to try to reeducate and rehabilitate individuals experience deviance, they claim, ‘less is better’ (Vito & Maahs, 2011, 191); in other words, the more social control agencies make an attempt to ‘help’ individuals, the more they will be labeled and disgraced. For instance, a special education course intended to support deficient readers could encourage them to label themselves and other people as retarded or dim-witted. Likewise, mental health rehabilitation services formed with good intentions could encourage others to label patients as criminal or mentally sick (Lopes et al., 2012). The impact of labeling theory can be seen in the formation of restitution and diversion institutions. Diversion programs are intended to get rid of both adult and juvenile criminals from the regular or ordinary networks of the criminal justice system by putting them in courses intended for rehabilitation (Dick et al., 2004). A teenager whose driving under the influence of alcohol brings about harm to a pedestrian could, prior to a trial, be engaged in an alcohol rehabilitation course. If s/he successfully finishes the course, sanctions against him/her will be terminated. Hence, s/he escapes the disgrace of a criminal label. These courses or programs are widespread all over the U.S. Generally, they provide family, educational, medical, and counseling services (Jackson & Hay, 2012). One more label-preventing program that has been widely popular is restitution. Instead of confronting or experiencing the stigma of an official trial, a criminal is requested to either give monetary reparation to the victim or carry out some helpful community services as a replacement for a court-ordered sanction. In spite of their noble intentions, programs that are designed to reduce stigma have not been completely successful (Bernburg et al., 2006). Detractors claim that they replace one form of stigma with another—for example, going to a mental health institution instead of a criminal court trial. Furthermore, restitution and diversion courses normally monitor and single out recidivist and violent criminals. Ultimately, there is hardly any proof that the rate of recidivism of individuals put in different programs is lower compared to those placed in usual programs (Tibbetts & Hemmens, 2009). Other scholars have tried to reconcile labeling theory and deterrence theory. Labeling theory believes that formal punishments will intensify deviant acts, whereas deterrence theory argues the opposite. Australian criminologist John Braithwaite, in his work Crime, Shame, and Reintegration argues that both theories could be to some extent accurate (Watts, 1996). He claims that successful sanctions disgrace a criminal, yet does so in a rehabilitative and re-integrative way. He mentions societies like Japan, where formal procedures disgrace criminals and reintegrate them as part of the society after the dishonoring is done. On the contrary, punishment that brings stigma to the offender produces societal outsiders, who are much at risk of potential deviant acts (Watts, 1996). Lawrence Sherman made the same observations from his examinations of policing. He claims that punishment could generate a variety of outcomes. He asserts that police sanctions can promote non-cooperation or disobedience, deterrence, or be unimportant (Vito & Maahs, 2011, 192). Social ties and policing influence a person’s reaction; biased and/or disrespectful police behavior, for instance, generates disobedience instead of deterrence. These new developments in labeling theory have strengthened the developing model of restorative justice. A lot of people see restorative justice as another method of dealing with crime and deviant act (Akers, 2013). The core emphasis of this principle is that the objective of the criminal justice system must be to correct or amend the damage inflicted by the crime. The model stresses victim-criminal conciliation, where the victims are given the chance to interact with offenders (Akers, 2013). The general contributions of the labeling theory were numerous. It emphasized the significance of labels concerning crime and deviance, generally demonstrating that their historical origins were to be located in class and status conflicts. It allowed consistent questioning of previously ignored deviance labels and invigorated the liberal definition of those labels protected by major powerful agencies. It examined the social control mechanism, presenting studies of court trials and resolutions and interactions between the police and juvenile offenders, and revealing how judgments made by authorities usually had to do less with the characteristic of the crime and more with the circumstances of the criminal. Conclusions In several regards, labeling theory fundamentally emphasizes socialization. By means of interactions, encounters, and cooperation with the criminal justice system, people are socialized or encouraged to approve of or embrace their deviant identity. The traditional labeling account is weakly validated by empirical findings. Amendments of this theory could be more effective. In conclusion, labeling theory stresses the responses of society to deviant acts and criminal behavior. After decades of criticisms, labeling theory has turned into something resembling dogma. At present, social constructionism and social control models have become its contemporary re-embodiments. References Akers, R. (2013). Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation. London: Routledge. Bernburg, J. et al. (2006). Official Labeling, Criminal Embeddedness, and Subsequent Delinquency: A Longitudinal Test of Labeling Theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43(1), 67-88. Dick, A. et al. (2004). The Need for Theory in Assessing Peer Courts. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(11), 1448-1461. Hagan, F. (2010). Introduction to Criminology: Theories, Methods, and Criminal Behavior. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Jackson. D. & Hay, C. (2012). The Conditional Impact of Official Labeling on Subsequent Delinquency: Considering the Attenuating Role of Family Attachment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(2), 300-322. Lopes, G. et al. (2012). Labeling and Cumulative Disadvantage: The Impact of Formal Police Intervention on Life Chances and Crime During Emerging Adulthood. Crime & Delinquency, 58(3), 456-488. Meier, R., Kennedy, L., & Sacco, V. (2001). The Process and Structure of Crime: Criminal Events and Crime Analysis. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Miller, J. (2009). 21st Century Criminology: A Reference Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Tibbetts, S. & Hemmens, C. (2009). Criminological Theory: A Text/Reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Vito, G. & Maahs, J. (2011). Criminology: Theory, Research, and Policy. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Watts, R. (1996). John Braithwaite and Crime, Shame and Reintegration: Some Reflections on Theory and Criminology. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 29(2), 121-141. Winfree, L. & Abadinsky, H. (2009). Understanding the Crime: Essentials of Criminological Theory. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Read More