Criminal Labeling Theory

The “looking-glass self” clearly explains how deviant behavior arises among juveniles. Under this concept, the social self is seen as the image that one internalizes out of how others define him or her (Winters, Globokar, & Roberson, 2014). The society is thus like a mirror or the ‘looking glass’ through which one sees the self. According to the proponents of the labeling theory, the ‘looking glass’ have a significant impact on one’s behavior. For instance, when a person construes that other seem him/her as lazy, that person will likely act lazy in order to fulfill the ascription. This is the same as self-fulfilling. In line with this concept, when youths face arrests, they are kept with other criminals and are labeled criminals. This gives the particular youth different experiences. The youth may develop new friendships while in prison or join gangs. While the youth leaves prison, he/she is likely to continue with criminal behavior.

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

Using material from Item A and elsewhere assess the view that crime and deviance are the product of labelling processes.

Because of the stigma created from the label a modification of self image occurs in the individual. The individual essentially lives up to their deviant label, becoming the person described in the label. The process of deviancy amplification whereby any punishments or treatment therefore reinforce the individual perception of the criminal, thus more crimes fitting to the label are carried out. This theory can however by criticised because it is determinist, where individuals have n control over the process and once they have been labelled they will inevitably turn

Another theoretical distinction that labeling theory brings to light is that this theory does in fact target both the criminal and society in relation to contributing to the cycle. The societal reactions that are presented when an offender is involved in a deviant or criminal behavior is a form of social control. Therefore, labeling theory incorporates these actors into the theory so that criminal justice professionals, students, researchers, etc. can gain a better understanding for why labeling does not reduce recidivism or crime rates. The community that an offender often is released to, knows about his or her offense, depending on the severity of the

A label defines an individual as a certain kind of person. Defining an act as deviant or criminal is not a simple straight forward process. A label is not neutral, it contains an evaluation of the person to whom it is applied. It is a ‘Master Status’ in the sense that it overshadows all the other statuses possessed by the individual. If an individual is labelled as criminal, mentally ill or gay, such labels tend to override the individuals status as father, husband, worker, friend or neighbour. Whether or not the label is applied will depend on how the act is interpreted by the audience. This in turn will depend on who commits the act and where and when it was committed.

Classical theory of labeling suggests that formal societal reaction to crime can be the cause of the development of one’s criminal career; however, modern theorists have predicted that several different processes cause the involvement of offenders in crime and deviance to increase. [1] Base on these theories, in recent years, the procedural and restorative justice approaches have been working on demolishing the stigma associated with offenders. Procedural justice is the process of making and implementing fair decisions, so parties involved in the matter can feel affirmed with the outcomes, [2] while Restorative justice is a

Numerous aspects of the criminal justice policies are theoretical based labeling. An example is when a person got arrested for just a minor crime, or simple misdemeanor, or perhaps traffic charge; then the criminal justice labels the individual base on the infraction committed. Besides, the motive for labeling offender is just another way for the judicial system to track and control, explicitly incarcerated folks and lawbreaker who eventually get out in the public eye. Although some may argue that the concept of labeling individual is necessary to separate them from society, this idea singled them out and possibly perceived as impractical. Let me be clear,

When this label is attached and internalized the individual’s actions will become influenced by the label and further deviance can be produced as a result as the individual is going to think that it is expected of them. It is also possible that when these labels are attached and internalized that these deviants will be pushed to the outskirts of society and it is here that they may begin to associate with others who may have similar

The fourth article that I reviewed, focused on labeling theory. In this article, Labeling Effects of First Juvenile Arrests authors Liberman, Kirk, and Kim focused on how the first arrest increases the likelihood of reoffending for juveniles. The idea of labels triggers “secondary sanctioning” processes. Labeling is a powerful mechanism that can lead to crime.

Schmalleger describes the labeling theory or social reaction theory as one that sees persistent criminal behavior as a result of not, having the chances for normal conduct that follow the negative responses of society to those that have been labeled as criminals. There is an expectation of a continuous increase in crime that is a direct effect of the label that is attached. The result of negative labels creates limited chances that the behavior would change on behalf of the criminal, due in part to societies stigma placed upon them (Schmalleger, 2012, p. 186). Those theorists responsible for the labeling theory that are discussed in our readings during this weeks assignments are listed as Frank Tannenbaum, Edwin M. Lemert, Howard Becker, John Braithwaite and others. When discussion the concept labeling, one must understand some of the most early descriptions of societal reactions to deviance, this can be found in the 1938 works of Frank Tannenbaum who explained the term, tagging. Schmalleger defined tagging as the process whereby an individual is negatively defined by the agencies of justice. Within tagging Edwin M. Limert, used the terminology of primary and secondary deviance, primary being a deviant act that was undertaken to achieve some immediate issue and or problem that may have arisen in the person life and doesn’t intend for the criminal behavior to continue. Secondary deviance

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

We can call a label, or define it as; a mark, name, or even badge.

However, it has been shown that given the label of a ‘criminal’ may motivate individuals to

Reintegrative shaming theory demonstrates an approach where an offender can be restored in society by removing the label and categorizing them as deviant. According to John Braithwaite, a professor from Australian Nation University, predicted that those offenders who are exposed to reintegrative shaming theory would commit fewer crimes and would build a stronger interdependent relationships. Also, stigmatization only promotes the perpetrator to commit a criminal action and influences others to believe all those who committed crimes should be labeled as outcasts. In order to know if reintegrative shaming theory is effective, the research was conducted in a diverse, urban area located in the south of The United States. The sample consisted