Labeling Theory: The Effects Of Tagging An Individual Criminal

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,

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

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

1538). If a federal law were to be enacted it should follow the guidelines that Weissert (2016) advocates. Instead of allowing employers to ask about criminal history in the interview stage the employers should have to wait until a conditional offer of employment has been made (Weissert, 2016, p. 1552). The employer should consider the nature of the crime, the time elapsed since conviction, and the positon the applicant is applying for (Weissert, 2016, p. 1552). Discriminating on the basis of criminal history increased the rates of recidivism and has a greater impact on Afircan American and Hispanic males (Weissert, 2016, p. 1531). Ban the Box might not be the solution for the issue of discriminating on the basis of an applicant’s criminal history, but it is a step in the right

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

A label defines an individual as a certain kind of person. Defining an act as deviant or criminal is not a simple straight forward process. A label is not neutral, it contains an evaluation of the person to whom it is applied. It is a ‘Master Status’ in the sense that it overshadows all the other statuses possessed by the individual. If an individual is labelled as criminal, mentally ill or gay, such labels tend to override the individuals status as father, husband, worker, friend or neighbour. Whether or not the label is applied will depend on how the act is interpreted by the audience. This in turn will depend on who commits the act and where and when it was committed.

As offenders are getting released from their prison and re-integrating into the community, the issue at hand now is how the judicial branch and/or community can keep them from reentering the correction system. This re-entry issue may be the effect of society labeling offenders as “dangerous individuals,” once they have committed a crime. In the criminal justice system, the focus is publicizing the criminals’ wrongdoings and punishing those behaviors. The defendants’ crime is then spread throughout the community from attorneys to the courts then to the media. As a result of this spreading, people’s attitudes change towards the offenders--treating them like they are not human--and people start to distance themselves from the offenders making them feel like outcasts in their communities. This societal isolation caused by labeling can result in re-entry.

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

However, it has been shown that given the label of a ‘criminal’ may motivate individuals to

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

In conclusion, Erving Goffman’s label theory argues that the act of being deviant is attached to certain acts and/or individuals. Some acts need to be harmful to be considered bad, and in some cases individuals may have not committed these harmful acts. However, it is the label, the designation and the judgement that provide the actions and the individuals as deviant. Other acts may be more harmful but can be less atrocious, or may be more despicable without attracting an equal measure of stigma. Therefore, labelling theory can be defined as what counts to be designation.