Labelling Theory

The labelling theory shows how crime is socially constructed based on labels created by the powerful, which is important for our understanding of who commits a crime as they show how the powerless can be labelled as deviant whilst powerful groups are not. This undermines the

The labeling theory, an example of constructivist perspective is the theory put forth to define how deviance is experienced and why people continue to be deviant. The labeling theory was developed by a group of sociologists in the 1960’s. It is a version of symbolic interactionism defining deviance as a collective action involving the acts of more than one person, and the

Under Edwin Lemert’s labeling theory the individual facilitates and impact’s their label. The process starts with deviation, sanctions for those behaviors by others, decision from the individual to imbed the label or challenge it, the individual then gets more reaction for their action from other and finally the individual chooses to accept the label and consistently acts within it. Primary deviance takes place when the individual engages in the initial act of defiance. In Lemert’s term, such acts under traditional labeling theory are examples of primary deviance and they occur in wide segments of the population. We all transgress now and then: some youth shoplift, others commit vandalism, and still others use illegal drugs. But suppose a youth, say a 15 year-old male, is caught vandalizing or using an illegal drug, His arrest, fingerprinting, and other legal measures make him think of himself as a young criminal. Parents, friends,

Labeling theory holds that individuals come to identify and act as per their labels. The major tenet of this theory is that the behavior and self-identity of individuals is affected by the way they are described by other people (Vold, Bernard, Snipes, & Gerould, 2016). According to this theory, the act of deviance is not implicit in a particular act, but is hedged on the inclination of the majority to ascribe labels to minorities in society who deviate from standard behavior. Labeling leads to dramatization of a particular act – which propagates the behavioral clash between the individual and the community. Through ascribing labels, the individuals acquire a negative self-image. The individuals accept themselves as labeled by the

Labeling theory makes no attempt to understand why an individual initially engaged in primary deviance and committed a crime before they were labeled; this then limits the scope of the theory’s explanations and suggests the theory may not provide a better account for crime. Labeling theory emphasizes the negative effects of labeling, which gives the offender a victim status. Also, the same likelihood exists for developing a criminal career regardless of deviance being primary or secondary. Furthermore, labeling theorists are only interested in understanding the aftermath of an individual getting caught committing crime and society attaching a label to the offender. This differs from the view of social learning theory, which seeks to explain the first and subsequent criminal acts. Many critics also argue that the racial, social, and economic statuses of an individual create labels, as opposed to criminal acts; this theory then fails to acknowledge that those statuses may factor into the labeling process. As a result, the above suggests that labeling theory does not provide a good account for crime and appropriately has little empirical support. Moreover, in terms of policy implications, labeling theory implies a policy of radical non-intervention, where minor offenses

There are numerous concerns based on the quantity and content of stop and searches which are often influenced by institutionalised racism (Home Office, 1997). Studies suggested that the police maintain a belief that black people are prone to be involved in violent crimes (Reiner, 1989). Therefore leading to black individuals routinely falling victim to police stereotypes and overgeneralisations (Bowling and Phillips, 2007). Police interviews have suggested that police perceive certain ethnicities to be involved with certain crimes, one interview suggested that if police are alerted of a robbery, 90% of the time they will assume it is involving a black individual (Quinton et al, 2000). Despite that there is evidence suggesting that racial disadvantages will cause an increase in young blacks to be involved with crime, suggesting that these suspicions are justified (Waddington et al, 2007). Furthermore, there is little research suggesting that police enforce their prejudices when working on the streets, thus suggesting that racial views are a result of police canteen sub-culture (Waddington, 1999).

For instance, an individual who acquires many tattoos, dresses in black clothing, and physically possesses threatening features would suggest to society that this individual would be of criminal participation, and a menace to civilization. In addition, an individual that has been born and raised in the ghetto may comprehend a way of successful living is through doing what is necessary to get by, instead of making a prodigious model for society. This can be comprised of drug dealing, violent interactions, and utilizing threatening acts to achieve credibility and acceptance in life. When it comes to the awareness of suspect profiling, most individuals are assumed to be classified based upon ethnicity, monetary status, ownership, social networking, and residential location (Alison, et al, 2002). In turn, this may weaken the perception and

There is no scientific proof that links crime and race. In fact, most psychologists admit that ethnic profiling is not scientifically reliable. (Boylan) Nevertheless, no one has attempted to eradicate it until recently. This is because America’s imprisonment rates were not rising at an alarming rate until a couple of decades ago. Now that hyper incarceration is a problem experts have begun searching for its root, and ethnic profiling has surfaced as a probable cause of hyper incarceration. When you analyses the inner-workings of racial profiling you find a direct correlation between the impact of ethnic profiling and the anxiety levels of the population. In other words, as people become more scared the likelihood that they will perform or tolerate racial profiling increases.

‘Labelling theory is the view of deviance according to which being labelled as a “deviant” leads a person to engage in deviant behaviour.’ This states that if a person were to labelled as a thief, that person would be treated different (looked down upon). This could leave this person to do what they are labelled as and commit theft. This is backed up with study.com’s definition of labelling theory, which states ‘people become criminals when labelled as such and when they accept the label as personal identity’. This moves into strain theory as the strain theory cultural theory as in Merton’s strain theory argues that ‘the American cultural

Labeling theorists explore how and why certain acts are defined as criminal or deviant and why other such acts are not. As such, they also who is identified as a criminal, and who is not. They question how and why certain people become defined as criminal or deviant. Such theorists view criminals not as evil people who engage in wrong acts but as individuals who have a criminal status forced upon them by both the criminal justice system and the community at large. From this point of view, criminal acts themselves are not significant; it is the reactions of the rest of society to acts defined as criminal that are most crucial. Crime and its control involve a process of social definition, which involves a response from others to an

The Criminal Justice System, a system the British government set up to deal with the treatment of law-breakers, has three main goals to achieve social order, these are, (1) enforcing criminal law, (2) maintaining law and order in the society, and (3) helping victims. This may seem to be a well thought of system, but like any other organisation, there are flaws, and one of the major flaws is discrimination, and the bias that stems from discrimination.

Based on Howard Becker’s symbolic or labeling theory, all acts of deviance and the person seen to be acting in a deviant manner are given labels. These labels generally come from someone in there community or group who are in hierarchy or authority figure. That means no action is deviant unless specified by the particular community or group (Bessant & Watts 2002). Becker’s labeling theory concentrates on the lower class, and anything apart from what the group expects is labeled as deviant. The term Once a criminal always a criminal is familiar, it is these type of labels that maybe detrimental in terms of a person internalizing labels as truth, and how others sees them (D. Conley 2008). The labels and or judgments given negatively, isolate the person from the group, and may hinder the person’s opportunity to reach their full potential. The strains put on a person to conform to the particular cultures norms and values, does not allow any person to differ in nature or thought. When one is pressured to perform in ways that may be foreign or

Take for example a person given a ticket for speeding or a person who is given a ticket for “jaywalking” (does not happen very often though); agreed ticket they are offenses that one should be reprimanded for but no to the point of being labelled, that is putting people in a certain box and categorizing it, in other words: stereotyping. Not all crimes are committed with selfish gains, and some people can be redeemed.

Labeling theorists suggest that labeling individuals as deviant has the potential of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy (Globokar, 2008). Howard Becker has described deviance as 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 people so label” (Clinard & Meier, 2011:89). Culture, sex, age and other elements of identity all shape self-conception, but the meanings that an individual places on various circumstances and interactions certainly play a very important role as well.

In conclusion, Erving Goffman’s label theory argues that the act of being deviant is attached to certain acts and/or individuals. Some acts need to be harmful to be considered bad, and in some cases individuals may have not committed these harmful acts. However, it is the label, the designation and the judgement that provide the actions and the individuals as deviant. Other acts may be more harmful but can be less atrocious, or may be more despicable without attracting an equal measure of stigma. Therefore, labelling theory can be defined as what counts to be designation.