Juvenile Delinquents: The Labeling Theory

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 states that a deviant behavior does not impact to themselves or the people who commit them, but by the reactions of other who comprehend these deviant behaviors, such as the deviant behavior of Justin Bieber.

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.

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

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

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

Once a person is labelled as a deviant, it is hard to remove that label. The Labeling Theory basically says that no behavior is deeply rooted on its own. It is society’s reaction to the behavior that makes the act deviant or not. Labeling is to give someone or something to a category and is usually given mistakenly. The people who usually doing the labeling have statues, numbers, power and authority. People with low status, power and authority are the ones that are being labeled.

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

When an individual begins to commit crimes because of the label that was attached to them by society, it becomes known as secondary deviance. A possible explanation for this is that the individual has fully integrated the label into their master status and starts to commit crimes because they feel that is what they are expected to do. One of the individuals who have contributed much knowledge regarding labeling theory noted that acts which are not visible to the public have a greater chance of occurring but not having a label attached to the deviant individual and this would include acts such as sexual deviation (Higgens and Marcum, 2016). The inverse of the previous thought can also hold true as acts committed that have high social visibility are going to be noticed more by members of society and there becomes a higher chance for a label to be affixed.

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

Juvenile offending is a concern in society today. Juveniles account for approximately 19% of the population but are responsible for 29% of criminal arrests (Cottle, Lee, & Heilbrun, 2001). Crime overall has been found to be decreasing throughout the last two decades. The issue is that the rate in which adult crime is decreasing is significantly greater than the rate in which juvenile crime is decreasing. Since the rate of juvenile crime is so high, juvenile delinquents are seen as predators and many believe they lack morals. The way in which media of today’s society constructs juvenile delinquency impacts the views of a community towards their youth and youth offenders. Media presents an inaccurate image of youth offenders as violent predators (Rhineberger-Dunn, 2013). This inaccurate image significantly promotes the myths that juvenile crime is rising, juveniles commit crimes that are primarily violent, and that juveniles are highly effected by recidivism and continue committing crimes into adulthood (Bohm, & Walker, 2013). It has already been stated though that crime rates have been decreasing over the last two decades so the first myth is refuted. The myth that juveniles primarily commit violent crimes is also very off. In most cases, juveniles are involved in property crimes and although there are some violent crime cases, they are very rare. When these rare violent crimes do occur, youth can be tried in adult court. The

This assignment will illustrate that by understanding the fundamentals of combatting juvenile delinquency and applying the theories to command practice will enhance the overall knowledge of the material. This document will demonstrate the juvenile delinquency reduction efforts and programs currently in operation in the Tampa area community. In addition, I will propose ways to improve the Tampa area community’s juvenile delinquency prevention efforts. Next, this paper will attempt to apply the main sociological theories that underlie these interventions that shape the community’s public policy for delinquency prevention. Finally, this paper will identify an appropriate strategy geared toward preventing delinquency that in consistent with the Behavioral theory.