Deviance And Crime In The Labeling Theory And Social Reaction 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

Labelling – is a form of prejudice and discrimination. Can happen on basis of gender, ethnicity etc. People do label others to identify and differ groups of our community.

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

The focus of this paper will be on two contemporary criminological theories and their application to the crime film, Eastern Promises. The two theories to be discussed, and subsequently applied to the film, are labelling theory and differential association theory. Labelling theory falls under the symbolic interactionist approach, and the primary level of analysis of this theory is micro, as it tends to focus on the effect of labels on an individual’s sense of “self”. The basis of labelling theory is that no act is inherently deviant; it is only when the act is labelled deviant that it becomes so. When someone is labelled as deviant, they begin to see themselves as the label they have been assigned. This can cause the behaviour to happen more frequently, as the individual who has been labelled begins to see themselves as they label they have been given. A criticism of labelling theory is that it lacks empirical validity, and is deterministic. There is no way to effectively test this theory, so there is no way to know for sure how accurate the concept of labelling is and the effect it has on an individual and their propensity towards criminality. This and other aspects of labelling theory will be broken down and discussed later on in the paper.

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

Some sociologists believe that the cause of crime and deviance is labelling which is when a label is attached to a person or group of people due to their appearance, sex, ethnicity etc. Labelling theory argues that once this label has been attached it can create a self fulfilling prophecy, which is when the person begins to act according to the label and hence it comes true simply through being made. Labelling is similar to stereotyping but this is when a person assigns certain characteristics to a labelled group. An example to support this would be 9/11. Since this disaster people label Muslims as being terrorists

Assess the view that crime and deviance are the products of the labelling process (21 marks)

Schur (1980, 1984) who “described labeling as a social construction of culture, which means that it is artificially defined by society. This indicates that proper concepts will be destitute in the face of ever-changing eccentricity of social standards” (Hashem, 2015:121). Society dictates what is and what is not considered “deviant” behavior, and treats the person accordingly (whether positive or negative. Labeling tends to lead to stigmatization. Noelle Vance wrote in her article titled Labeling Theory that “When relationships with parents, teachers, or friends are weakened as a result of formal stigmatization, individuals are more likely to seek affiliation with criminal

In this essay, the comparison between and contrast between strain theory and labelling theory. The essay will start with the key features of each theory and then it will go into the main comparison of the two theories. It will go into to detail on the similarities and differences between the two theories. Strain theory is the theory developed in 1938 by Robert K Merton. It’s the theory that society puts pressure on people to achieve socially accepted goals. Labelling theory is the theory that the public act in the way that society has labelled them, which gives negative connotations towards that person. Both the theories, judge crime on the type of people and how they have been deemed, both theories try to explain crime from social perspectives.

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

Conflict theory and labeling theory are two similar theories in the world of crime. It has been debated whether or not there is a clear line separating the two theories. By evaluating the two theories, the differences between them can become more obvious and it becomes easier to separate the two. In addition to conflict theory and labeling theory, there is another type of theories that are used to explain crime. These theories focus more on a criminal 's lifetime and how their criminal records have evolved over time. Two of the leading theories in this realm of criminology are Moffit’s theory of life course persistent offenders and Sampson and Laub’s age-graded theory of informal social control. These theories both explain why people commit or don 't commit crime. There are similarities between the theories and also differences. By analyzing all four of these theories, a better understanding can be gained related to crime.

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.

Many laws are enacted to punish criminals and protect individuals from violent deviant actions. Privileged Deviance is economically costly because some powerful individuals attempt to escape the consequences of deviant actions. Deviance occurs through interactions between individuals and groups. The labeling theory discusses the social behavior of how and why individuals continue deviant activity to maintain their identity or label. Thio, Taylor, and Schwartz state “the word interaction deviance is a human activity involving more than one person’s act” (Thio, et. al, 2013, p. 35). The theory suggests individuals reflect on their behavior and how others view their actions. The labeling theory can be linked to the symbolic interaction foundation perspective. Understanding deviance and criminal behavior are addressed through the labeling theory. Thio, Taylor, and Schwartz suggest that the deviant act begins with the hypothesis that no act is essentially criminal. Criminality is recognized by individuals who feel powerful through the design of laws and the interpretation of law enforcement. Deviance is determined by the interaction between deviant and nondeviant actions and how the community interprets the actions. Individuals who adhere to the law and promote acceptable behaviors are the main source of labeling. For example; this may include police officers, courts, or school authorities. Defining specific