Labeling Effects Of First Juvenile Arrest

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

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 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.

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

The current policies focus at the consistent social change since the traditional punitive orientation of the criminal justice system turns out to be ineffective. As the crime rates keep growing, the public demands the introduction of more severe punishment for offenders, while prisons are overcrowded. Moreover, the growing crime rates among juveniles increase the public pressure on the criminal justice system as the public demands the introduction of severe punishment and imprisonment of juvenile offenders. However, the penitentiary system cannot imprison as much population as the public demands at the moment, while the imprisonment turns out to be ineffective in terms of the prevention of crimes and recidivism. In such a situation, the public is unprepared to the essential social change, when the imprisonment should be replaced by other, less strict and repressive forms of punishment. Policy makers should have

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

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

This paper defines and analyzes Beccaria's concept of deterrence and the three key elements of punishment. The concept of deterrence is a classical school and rational choice model that emphasis punishment in order to deter crime. The three key elements of punishment used in order to deter crime include: the swiftness of punishment, the certainty of punishment, and the severity of punishment. It discusses which of these elements Beccaria thought was the most and least important, as well as my personal opinions. Also included in this paper are real-life examples of deterrence and the elements of punishment that they use.

Juvenile crime is a term around the world that is difficult to pinpoint and although there are several definitions many fail to be concrete. There are many factors that play into sentencing juveniles or minors upon a crime committed. How old are they? Can they mentally form criminal intent? Are they old enough to no longer be treated as children? Some people would argue that a criminal is just that, regardless of age. Research on the other hand shows that juveniles have underdeveloped brains who at times have difficulty rationalizing decisions and weighing out consequences. It is important that these issues are addressed because of the implications this has on not only the juveniles but the community around them. These

The process of crafting and testing the model was less systematic than The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention indicates. The model received more criticism than support. It’s been described as poorly articulated. Spergel reveals the successes and failures of the intervention. It stated in the beginning of the article that police responses, characterized

The Deterrence theory is a key element in the Criminal Justice System. It’s principles about justice appeal to us because it adapts to our ideas of what we identify as fairness. Punish the sinful and the ones who break the law, swiftly, to the extent that pain will dissuade them from committing a crime ever again. Its sole purpose, to instill fear. Fear of breaking the law because of its punishments. We not only use this theory to punish criminals, but it is a basis in which we raise our kids and pets on, that breaking the rules can lead to consequences. The deterrence theory says that people obey the law because they are scared of getting caught and being punished. It is said that people do not commit crimes because they are afraid of getting caught, instead they are being motivated by some other deep need. In my paper, I will address the two theorists who re-conceptualized the deterrence theory, the principles and two types of deterrence as well as give short insight into my own opinions on the deterrence theory.

Similar to the last chapter, chapter four focuses on social labels within the criminal justice system and social institutions that control the adolescent’s lives. At an early stage in the boy’s lives they are labeled and categorized by police, school personnel, their families, and society. Police are regularly called into schools and community centers because the boys behave appears threatening or the authority figure miss interprets the boy’s actions because of the stereotype they have labeled them. The boys felt a constant presence of brutalization and negativity among their community. As well, the boys reported feelings of isolation and uncertainty because of the lack of community support and few opportunities to better themselves.

Research suggests that reducing the rate of reoccurring offenses for juvenile offenders is directly related to understanding the factors that increase the recidivism rates for this age group: the origins of the offenders, the behavior problems and causes, the adjudication process, and the type of offense committed.

In this essay, I am going to discuss what some of the ideas are when it comes thinking as to why deterrence does not work, which could be that the harsher the crime, the harsher the punishment for many of the crimes committed. It could mean that it does not work because the offender maybe becomes aware of the punishment. However, it could be because of the notion of impulsivity which connected and is almost everywhere within a society where there has been a connection to the idea of rational choices, which has a role when it comes to the way people have been thinking about committing the crime of any shape or form. However, there have been many reasons why it doesn’t work, because the offenders come from many different walks of life within a society. Therefore, the kind of crimes that have been done, which can then have associated with rational choices, which have people are connected to in society.