Labeling Theory

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

The Labeling Theory is the view that labels people are given affect their own and others’ perception of them, thus channeling their behavior either into deviance or into conformity. Labels can be positive and/or negative, but I’ll focus on the negative aspects of labeling in high school. Everybody has a label in high school whether it is the “slut”, “pothead”, “freak” or the “jock”; it is one of the most apparent time periods in which individuals get labeled. Students have the mentality that whatever label is placed on them is going to be stuck with them forever, which then leads into a self-fulfilling prophecy. This, I feel, is a fear of being a “loser” that has been instilled throughout years by the principals, teachers, etc. An example

Edwin Lemert was another big theorist of the Labeling Theory. He had studied check forgers to bring him to his conclusion about the Labeling Theory. From his check forging study, Lemert concluded that the forger’s criminal career had only begun after they were labelled a criminal (Knutsson, 1978). Lemert made the distinction between primary and secondary deviance.

Labeling theory supports that the shaming of an offender, if not done correctly and even then, there is still research being performed on reintegrative shaming, can have harmful and negative consequences. All offenders are different, and respond differently, therefore shame can be devastating to some, however it might not be as bad for others. Also, labeling theory shows that when an offender is labeled there is a lack of social bonds, or the socials bonds that were once established are now broken. As mentioned above, once a label is attached, labeling theory does in fact suggest that offenders may drift towards a network of people who fit their criminogenic characteristics better than others who used to be a part of their lives (Hayes, 2000).

Labeling theory is a theory that originated in the 1960s amidst many changes going on in the United States. The theory is unique in that it is one of the first theories that looks at the societal reaction of what the offender does and not just their action itself. When there is an act committed within a society and the majority of society does not agree with the act then it can be considered deviant. When an act

In “Labeling, Life Chances, and Adult Crime” by Benburg & Krohn page 1291 under “STRUCTURAL LOCATION AND LABELING” they argue about different labeling theory. “(Ageton and Elliott, 1974; Jensen, 1972). Benburg & Krohn discuss how Structural location, such as race or social class, may provide people with differential means to resist deviant labeling in the face of official intervention. But when you’re in a higher status you have more credibility, you have a have something to protect, because you are judged by every moves you do, it’s more likely people are very aware of your mistakes, therefore when it comes to law enforcement, if you’re in a higher status and commit any felony you definitely y have more to lose than a person in a lower status.

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.

Taking into account Cohen’s fishing metaphor, it is of importance to consider Schur’s (1973) elaboration of the labelling theory (Becker, 1963) providing an alternative approach to traditional thinking. He argues that institutionalisation should ‘take a backseat’ and the improvement on the quality of life of the deviant youth should be at the forefront if the Government is to ever succeed in reducing the delinquency rate

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

Becker was influenced by the following: Charles Cooley 's Human Nature and the Social Order (1902) examines the personal perception of oneself through studies of children and their imaginary friends. Cooley develops the theoretical concept of the looking glass self, a type of imaginary sociability (Cooley 1902). People imagine the view of themselves through the eyes of others in their social circles and form judgements of themselves based on these imaginary observations (Cooley 1902). The main idea of the looking glass self is that people define themselves according to society 's perception of them (www.d.umn.edu ). Cooley 's ideas, coupled with the works of Mead, are very important to labeling theory and its approach to a person 's

The labeling theory addresses deviants and puts concern on behaviors that other theories do not. Most theories are primarily concerned with why individuals commit more crime. Rather than analyzing the occurrence of crimes among social groups, the labeling theory challenge us to truly understand deviants and what it means to be categorized as a deviant individual. Unlike the control theories that assumes all of us must be held in check or “controlled” if we are to resist the temptation to commit criminal or delinquency acts, this paper will dissect some important contributions the labeling theory has made to the study of juvenile delinquency (pg.107). In addition, we will discuss the labeling process, some causes of becoming labeled and also the prevention steps taken to decrease juvenile delinquency.

Labeling theory is a theory of how individuals’ self-identity and how behavior can be determined or influenced by the labels used to describe or classify them. The theory is a huge part of criminology that aims to dictate why certain people who commit crimes are defined as deviant, while others who commit crimes are not depicted as deviant. The labeling theory asks who applies what label to whom, why they do this, and what happens as a result of this label. For example, a person put in jail is more likely to be labeled as a criminal, whereas someone who speeds and gets a ticket is not. Even though both acts committed were illegal the person is labeled differently. Labeling theory is interested in the effects of labeling a person. It is quite clear that almost everyone will commit a crime at some point in his or her life. So, what causes one person to be labeled as deviant and others are not? Along with this, why when someone is labeled deviant are he or she more likely to commit another crime? Deviant behavior is behavior that is not accepted in society. It is behavior far from the average, failure to obey group rules, potentially the effect of a mental problem/disease, or a way to lessen the stability of society. People disapprove of this behavior and it could even be harmful. It is not how a “normal” person should act.

Assuming that the labeling theory is correct, we can solve the juvenile crime problem several ways. The idea of a connection between formal criminal labeling and eventual deviance is especially pertinent to juvenile justice. Labeling an offender which results in being rejected socially is not an effective method of crime control. As we discussed, juveniles who are labeled can be stigmatized and lead to an eventual career as a criminal. Instead of discouraging participation in conventional activities by labeling and isolating offenders, Braithwaite found that juvenile crime policy should be remedial and foster reintegration following shame (Braithwaite, 1989). This could be conducted through closer observation of academics, advisement in

Frank Tannenbaum, often known as the father of labeling theory, said that “the process of making the criminal, therefore, is a process of tagging, defining, identifying, segregating, describing, emphasizing, making conscious and self-conscious; it becomes a way of stimulating, suggesting, emphasizing and evoking, the very traits that are complained of.” This process is known as the dramatization of evil (Vance 2014:2). Essentially, once a person is caught in delinquent activity, a “tag” or label is attached to that person. The tag identifies the person as a delinquent and makes people to react to the tag, not the individual (Williams and McShane 2014:112). The reaction that comes with the tag varies depending on how socially powerful the deviant is. The likelihood of a reaction is increased if a person is less socially powerful (in age or social class), a member of a minority with different values from the dominant group, or fairly isolated. Thus, the people that are more likely to receive a negative reaction to their deviance and get arrested are predominantly lower class, urban, young males (Williams and McShane

Labelling theory is very useful in explaining criminal behavior. Labelling theory is one of the theories which explain the causes of deviant and criminal behaviour in society. It gives an insight on what could make an individual be attracted to criminal behavior as opposed to morally desirable behavior. This theory explains the causes of criminal and deviant behaviour in society. It emphasizes that criminal behavior occurs as a result of the dominant social group labelling minority groups who are viewed to be committing acts which are against social norms. The theory discusses how the behavior and self-identity of an individual can be influenced or determined by different terms which the dominant population uses to describe them. According