Juvenile Crime Labeling

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

Focuses mainly on interactionist theory but uses labeling theory as a type of interaction that affects delinquency. Labeling specifically in relation to gender, used to explain the gender gap in juvenile delinquency. Used data from the 1976 National Youth Survey, a longitudinal study, uses a multistage cluster sampling, sample includes 1,725 11-17 year-olds, using the first three annual waves of data. Used personal interviews to collect self-report of delinquency, parents ' appraisals of their children, and youths ' reflected appraisals of themselves from the standpoint of parents, friends, and teachers. Labeling theory implies that males are more likely than females to be labeled delinquent, in part because they engage in more objective acts of rule violation, and in part because common stereotypes portray delinquency as a male phenomenon. Except status offenses, which are more often reported for and enforced on females rather than males. Believed that females may be more relationship-oriented, making them more sensitive to public opinion. The labeling process is more consequential for females than for males is also unsupported.

When a juvenile commits a crime, it is not considered a crime, however it is considered juvenile delinquency. A massive problem throughout the US is juvenile delinquent acts. Juveniles acting out in a delinquent manner can be caused by many things. However, there is not just one reason why a juvenile may commit these acts. Instead there are many reasons that could lead up to delinquency. In this essay, I will be discussing a few theories as well as ways juveniles may receive treatment.

Menna, W. (2007, September 15). Evaluating Labeling Theory of Juvenile Delinquency. Retrieved from Science 360: http://

Individuals who experience stigmas experience of moving through life with an attribute that is deeply discrediting. Stigmatizing shaming is whenever a criminal is labeled as a threat to society and is treated as an outcast. The labeling process and society’s effort to marginalized the individual reinforce the individual’s criminal conduct and perhaps influence to future criminal behavior and higher crime rates (Textbook 155). People who represent law and order or who impose definitions of morality on others do most of the labeling. Thus the rules by which deviance is defined express the power structure of society; such rules are framed by the wealthy for the poor, by men for women, by older people for younger people, and by ethnic majorities for minority groups. For example, many children wander into other people’s gardens, steal fruit, or skip school. In a wealthy neighborhood, parents, teachers, and police might regard such activities as relatively innocent and the children are let off with a slap on the hand and not stigmatized. However when such acts are committed by children in poor areas, such as in Oakland, California, they are considered acts of juvenile delinquency. Once these boys are labeled as a delinquent, teachers and prospective employers are more than likely to deem them to be untrustworthy. The boys then relapse into further criminal behavior, widening the gulf between

The results effectively confirm labeling theorist’s proposition that police intervention furthers, instead of deters, deviance. First, Wiley et al. achieved covariable balance on all the variables. Through their methods, they found that “arrest is associated with less anticipated guilt, greater acceptance of neutralization techniques, greater negative peer commitment, and more delinquency” (Wiley et al. 2016: 297). Before the results were matched, there were twenty-three more delinquent acts for juveniles who were contacted by police instead of not. Even so, after

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,

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.

Currently to deal with juvenile offenders involved in the youth crime, there are two options available. The first option that prevails to a larger extent is known to us as incarceration while the second option that is slowly gaining trends is known to us as rehabilitation programs. This paper focuses on thorough analysis of both these options and the impact that they have on the offenders as well as the society as a whole. The paper also assesses the viability of these options in order to determine which of these will prove to be more effective and beneficial.

In recent decades, juvenile crime has become somewhat of a controversy due to the young age and immaturity of these criminals. Incidences of juvenile crime skyrocketed in the 1980s and 1990s, and policymakers pushed for laws that sent children as young as thirteen years old to trial, and even made them eligible for prison sentences. The general public has expressed a common desire to reduce the incidence of juvenile crime and find effective legislation to discipline these youths, but there are questions about these methods. What is more effective, incarceration or rehabilitation? Does criminal punishment intimidate more youths away from a life of crime, and would productive rehabilitation efforts influence these youths to becoming more valuable members of society?

Social deviance is known as any behaviors that formally or informally go against the social norms of a society. Most of the time Juvenile behaviors are recognized as deviant because the general population does not accept it. Juvenile delinquency is an example of deviant behavior. The reason being is because people in society does not accept or thinks that their behaviors are not normal. Social conditions in the United States such immigration and dramatic increase in urbanization is the direct result of hundred juveniles being involved in criminal activities. In recent years, the United States has suffered through a seemingly unprecedented epidemic of crime and violence by adolescents and children. Society has categorized juveniles as a deviant group because of their abnormal behaviors. Many people argue that the reason why juveniles become deviant is based on their lack of education and the lack of family bond in the home setting. According to Miller, juveniles tend to have more negative views of law enforcement and people in society than adults, because they have gained that bad reputation by entering into gangs, drug dealing and committing serious crimes. It has always been exceptionally difficult dealing with youthful offenders. We, as a society assume adults have a fully developed and rational mind when considering whether or not to commit a crime. Then, they are ultimately faced with a choice- to commit the crime or not. But, can the same assumption be

Juvenile delinquency has been a problem in the United States ever since it has been able to be documented. From 100 years ago to now, the process of juvenile delinquency has changed dramatically; from the way juveniles are tried, to the way that they are released back into society, so that they do not return back to the justice system (Scott and Steinberg, 2008). Saying this, juveniles tend to

It is a common believe that adolescents require a special system thru which be processed because they are “youth who are in a transitional stage of development…young offenders that are neither innocent children nor mature adults…” (Nelson, 2012). Because juveniles are in a process of constant development sociologically, psychologically and physiologically, the juvenile court system focuses on alternative sentences and the creation of programs that will offer them rehabilitation instead of incarceration. However, in cases of extraordinary circumstances, the juvenile system shifts from looking at rehabilitation as a first choice to accountability and punishment (Read, n.d). All levels of society are collectively involved in delinquency

The middle class youth age is an impressionable demographic. This classification of youth is an impressionable group by societal reforms and middle class expectations in their lives. Their delinquency comes about the time when they are just figuring out their identity and lifestyle into adulthood. In the world of criminality there are theories that correlate towards describing this sense of identity and purpose. First, the study of labeling theory acknowledges the aforementioned delinquent youths that there concept of criminality is focused towards outlawing specific legal authorities, which drives gang related criminal behaviors. Without the law the nomenclature of the individual is labeled define their behavior as criminal. Therefore, the social control by law enforcement agencies is that criminal law and legal sanctions demonstrates crime by labeling an already existing behavior as criminal. To secondly support the label theory of delinquency, is mentioned that according to a study by Bevier et al., the criminal labels are attached to an member of gang, he or she can internalize the label placed as part of his or her identity and thereafter will take actions in their lives accordingly or exercise their free will to contrast the label. Thus, social control and self control creates crime in not new classification of an already existing behavior; but in a way to control behavior that would not have taken place otherwise through the creation of secondary deviance in a