The Labeling Theory Of Delinquency In The Middle Class Youth Age

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.

Most people have preconceived notions regarding the relationship between social class and delinquency. A common assumption is that lower-class juveniles are more likely to engage in delinquent behavior than their higher-class counterparts. Criminologists have performed a large number of studies examining the socio-demographic characteristics of delinquents, which often yielded contradictory results. When analyzing the extent and trend of juvenile delinquency in the United States conclusions can be drawn from estimates derived from arrest records, self-reports, and victimization data. Arrest estimates, self-reported information, and victimization data provide different estimates of the extent of delinquency in the United States (Maxfield et

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

Abstract: This paper will discuss the correlation of youth gangs and how the cognitive and social learning theory comes in to play, and why female and male juveniles end up in the system. It will touch bases on how youth surroundings have a lot to do with the decisions they choose to make and the life style they end up living. Gangs usually recruit youth off the street, if a child sees that being a part of a gang is an everyday thing and is normal then they will be influenced more to do that. The cognitive theory ultimately states that a child learns from observing and from there environment. This essay will touch on the different statistics and the reasoning for youth gangs and gangs in general, it will also show statics of youth who are apart of gangs and are incarcerated. It will also show how it correlates with the cognitive theory and social learning theory.

For years, gang crime has been loathed by society, as society has perceived it to threaten the well-being of its members. In addition to the fear of gang violence, concerns have been raised of gangs polluting youth; hence, policing strategies have emerged more increasingly in an attempt to put an end to the delinquency. Nevertheless, for society the causation of gang crime has been discussed to a lesser extent; thus, the objective of this essay will be to depict a viable explanation of gang crime through the use of two criminological theories. To accomplish the task at hand; I shall, define gang crime, provide a description of social disorganization theory, illustrate how the application of social disorganization theory provides an explanation of gang crime, describe differential opportunity theory, demonstrate how differential opportunity theory can explain gang crime, and exemplify as to which theory provides a superior explanation of gang crime. In the end, it will be clear that social disorganization theory is a superior explanation of gang crime in comparison to differential opportunity theory, due to its ability to deliver a more enhanced explanation than the one that is provided by differential opportunity theory.

Throughout this essay, I am going to be looking at the topic of youth offending. I will be looking at what factors can be used as the predictors for youth offending and in particular I will be researching into how important social and cultural factors as predictors of youth offending. In order to do this, I will be looking at different sociologists theories as far as young offending is concerned and what evidence there is to support these theories. I will then conclude by discussing whether I believe social and cultural factors are important in determining youth offending.

The justice punishment for youth were based on how society feels about these youths rather than focusing on what youths really need. Society felt that youth were breaking society’s rule , therefore they must be punished. Yet people do not look back and ask ‘why these people act the way they do’. Sometime the upper class society is ignorance of how these youths live, as long as their street is safe, then they have achieved their goal. People believe that by taking vengeance and made deviant youth suffer from their crime was a good punishment. Yet the root of deviant behavior occurs due to the reduction of social welfare. As long as the government could not do anything to support youth, the problem would still continue to

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.

Gangs continue to be an issue throughout the United States especially street gangs. These gangs are meticulous and organized on how they do things, but also how they target youth. There are many suggestions and studies that show the differences in youth who are involved in gangs versus those who are not. It is stated that youth who come from broken or dysfunctional families, youth tend to fall into gangs. In addition, some of the youth gang affiliated families are more likely to also engage in deviant behavior( Maxson, 1998). It is evident that it some youth stay in the cycle of deviant behavior because it is a learned behavior. Comparisons made between gang youth and non gang youth show that non gang youth have a strong support system and the usual nuclear family. In addition, they have people guiding them, whereas youth involved in gangs unfortunately are disciplined or guided through the criminal justice system(Maxson, 1998). These findings are interesting because it introduces readers on many of the reason youth fall into gangs.

Juvenile delinquency is very prevalent especially among adolescents because studies have shown that during the time of adolescence that is when delinquency tends to increase and once adolescence has passed at about 17 years of age then it tends to decrease (Adolescent Delinquency, 2002). There are many factors that can contribute to the increase of delinquency during adolescence, some of the factors can be personality, mental disorders, genetics, economic status, environment, family, and culture among others, also to understand better the causes of juvenile delinquency the social control theory is the best theory to explain juvenile delinquency as a whole (Adolescent Delinquency, 2002).

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.

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

This essay will compare and contrast some psychological and sociological approaches to studying juvenile delinquency and disorder behaviour. The question is what makes people behave disorderly. Youth disorderly behaviours are studied using different approaches including psychological and sociological approaches. Both psychological and sociological approaches to studying juvenile delinquency are necessary. This essay starts with outlining and defining disorderly behaviour and juvenile delinquency. Then, it will look at the work of Eysenck, the Cambridge Study of Delinquent Development research which was a longitude study and the Integrated Cognitive Antisocial Potential theory by Farrington, all fit in psychological approach; studying the connection between personality and disorder. It will then look at Sociological approach by looking at the work of Howard Becker, Stan Cohen and Stuart Hall. This essay will be analysing and comparing their theories and separating the differences and noting the similarities in their ideas. This essay will provide evidence for each theory. It will then conclude by specifying significant similarities and differences in the light of the evidence presented.

During the middle of the 20th century two important theories developed in Criminology and Sociology, this essay aims to examine the Labelling and the Subculture theories using the Punk subculture as example. The middle of the 20th century was a period of dramatic and rapid social changes, it was just after Second World War and it was characterised by a big affluence of immigrants, consumer society and the “American Dream”, an idea based on meritocracy which says that everyone can achieve success and reach the highest goal by working hard and following the rules. The Labelling theory and the Subculture theory were strongly influenced by the work of the Chicago School and Merton’s Strain theory and they affected the development of crime policies and Criminology through their different views as they are focused on deviance as a social reaction and on how labels can affect people. Before examining the two theories it is better knowing the definition of Criminology. Criminology is the scientific “study of crime, study of those who commit crime and the study of the criminal justice and penal system” (Newburn, 2017, p.6).