Summary for Criminal Justice class chapter 7 - Essay Example

Summary of “Chapter Seven: The Irony of Intervention” In “Chapter Seven: The Irony of Intervention” of Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences, Lilly, Cullen, and Ball (2011) explored the theory of labeling. Labeling theory asserts that state intervention, especially in the form of labeling people as criminals and ex-convicts, only reinforces criminal attitudes and behaviors. It rejects the idea that criminality is inherent to some human beings. Furthermore, labeling theorists use the statistics of imprisoned minorities to describe racial disparity, which government intervention intensifies.

Labeling theory underscores that how society reacts to and categorizes criminal actions impact the occurrence of the crime. Lilly, Cullen, and Ball (2011) explained that because crime is socially constructed, society should be wary of how the state, the predominant labeling agent, shapes criminal justice systems, which in turn, influences criminality. Labeling theory emphasizes that the criminalization of human behavior cannot be seen as always truthful, valid, and accurate, because the state, which performs the labeling, do so out of evolving (and this indicates arbitrary) interests (i.e. labeling marijuana as bad during the 1930s, when accounts for its severe negative effects on human sanity were not fully proven).

Other social groups also participate in labeling crimes and criminals (i.e. work of middle-class women against juvenile delinquency without responding to the social roots of crime). Labeling theory believes that these groups and the state are forming different conceptions of reality that affect social reactions and answers to “criminal behavior.” Lilly, Cullen, and Ball (2011) provided a number of studies that proved how labeling affects people’s reactions, including the police. The work of Heusenstamm in 1975 showed that when the police see “Black Panther” stickers on automobiles, the more that they gave these drivers traffic violations tickets.

William Chambliss (1984) showed in his study that labeling one middle-class youth group as “Saints” and another working-class teenage group as “Roughnecks” resulted to opposing reactions from society. The community, school, and law enforcers reacted more positively to the “Saints” than the “Roughnecks,” although both have almost the same level of delinquency behaviors. Labeling theory argues that labeling is criminogenic, or it results to greater criminal behaviors. The origins of labeling theory come from other thinkers.

Jeremy Bentham believed that the prison does not promote virtues. Lombroso underscored that prisons breed criminal behaviors further. Bonger noted that imprisoning the youth turns them into professional criminals. Frank Tannenbaum provided the foundation of labeling theory, where imprisonment turns evil into a dramatic event that the youth eventually imbibes because of how society treats them after their imprisonment. Edwin Lemert formalized labeling theory when he discussed the two types of deviance: Primary and secondary deviance.

Primary deviance is the phase when offenders do not yet see themselves as deviant. Secondary deviance comes from absorbing deviance because of social labeling. Labeling theory further argues that labeling results to self-prophecy. Supporters of this theory do not claim that all criminals are innocent, but that social judgment further degrades their moral identities. Due to labeling, criminals are permanently branded as criminals who cannot and will not change. Some of the criticisms against labeling theory are: 1) it does not address the deeper roots of crime and 2) it only rides on the social issues of its time.

The 1960s was a period of pessimism against the government, which strongly motivated labeling theory scholars. Many citizens distrusted the government and its actions during this time. Other theories expanded labelling theory. John Braithwaite presented his theory of shaming and crime, where shaming stigmatizes and creates social outcasts. These outcasts easily become criminals, since society disregards their existence and removes social relations and resources that could have helped them remove criminal behaviors.

Sherman provided defiance theory, which argues that people show defiance to the court and/or police who disrespect or shame them. Rose and Clear’s Coerced Mobility Theory underscores that massive imprisonment of minorities increases crime rates within these groups. These labeling theories continue to argue that individuals have inner and external conditions that make them more vulnerable to criminality because of stigmatizing criminal labels and processes.ReferenceLilly, J.R., Cullen, F.T., & Ball, R.A. (2011).

Criminological theory: Context and consequences (5th ed.). SAGE. ISBN-13: 978-1-4129-8145-3.