What Is Labeling And Variations In Delinquency

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

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

Studies suggest that young people are often at risk of re-offending (e.g. Sharkey, et al, 2003; Vincent & Seagrave, 2005). Sharkey and his colleagues explained that youth often reoffend since, as they prepare themselves in returning to their respective communities, they are usually confronted by similar situations that had influenced their behaviors prior to committing offenses. Another group of researchers however show that youth engaged in education, employment and other productive endeavors in their communities within 6 to 8 months after their release are less vulnerable to commit another offense (e.g. Keating, et al., 2002, Bullis, et al, 2002, Grossman & Tierney, 2008).

Stephanie A. Wiley and Finn-Aage Esbensen’s article (2016) research the relationship between police intervention and juvenile delinquency and what polices are ideal for deterring deviance amplification. There are two main theories that initiate America’s juvenile justice system: labeling and deterrence. Essentially, labeling proponents believe that official intervention increases delinquency and, oppositely, deterrence theorists argue that it cracks down on deviancy. Wiley et al. (2016:283) want to “inform this debate by examining the effect of being stopped or arrested on subsequent delinquent behavior and attitudes”. They hypothesize their results to reflect labeling theorists because delinquency will increase from police contact and

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

Numerous aspects of the criminal justice policies are theoretical based labeling. An example is when a person got arrested for just a minor crime, or simple misdemeanor, or perhaps traffic charge; then the criminal justice labels the individual base on the infraction committed. Besides, the motive for labeling offender is just another way for the judicial system to track and control, explicitly incarcerated folks and lawbreaker who eventually get out in the public eye. Although some may argue that the concept of labeling individual is necessary to separate them from society, this idea singled them out and possibly perceived as impractical. Let me be clear,

This study uses labeling theory to examine the role that the adolescent legal system involvement may play in initiating a process of social exclusion, leading to higher levels of adult criminal activities among foster youth who have aged out of care. Data is used from the Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth (Midwest Study), a prospective study that sampled 732 youth from Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin as they were preparing to leave the foster care system at ages 17 or 18. The youths were interviewed again at ages 19, 21, and 23 or 24. The study indicated that legal system involvement as a juvenile was associated with a lower likelihood of having a high school diploma at age 19, which was associated with a reduced likelihood

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.

Because many of the social structures that once kept our kids secure have broken down, we have today's appalling data on juvenile crimes, gangs, drug abuse, pregnancy and dropouts…it is just common sense that if we don't provide these young people with some kind of sanctuary--I call them safe places--and give kids something constructive to do once the last bell rings, they are going to be easy marks for drug dealer, gang recruiters, and other preditors. (Powell)

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

Labelling perspectives emerged in the 1960’s and 1970’s, particularly in advanced capitalist countries, including the USA, where social reaction became a popular means to label ‘defiant’ and ‘deviant’ behaviour in society (White, Haines & Asquith, 2012, p. 97; Martin, 2012, p. 134). Juveniles who have been labelled due to social reaction are likely to commit themselves to the new label, resulting in a change of identity in order to fit the label, which often generates negative consequences (White et al., 2012, p. 99). However, it is not only juveniles who experience labelling, ex-offenders exiting prison encounter the stigma and often experience difficulty in finding sustainable employment (Visher, Debus-Sherrill, & Yahner, 2011). This essay will provide a history into labelling perspectives and discuss key features of the theory through contemporary examples, while outlining main strengths and limitations of the theory. This essay will argue how labelling perspectives can be detrimental to individuals experiencing the stigmatisation of labelling.

In this essay you will learn about the effects of labeling in addressing juvenile delinquency problems. We will talk about the problems juveniles face during plea bargaining and also sentencing. A plea bargain is an agreement to plead guilty to lesser the charge you might have against you, also a less severe punishment that you might face. Juveniles also have a hard time with the labeling that they might face in their lives. So may not think it is a big deal, but to some it may really affect the way they think of themselves. Labels affect juveniles in the long run, if your parent or guardians consistently calls you stupid, dumb, and ugly overtime you would start to believe it is true and start to carry yourself in that matter.

The article, Official Labeling, Criminal Embeddedness, and Subsequent Delinquency: A Longitudinal Test of Labeling Theory, provided insight on the influence of a theory that brands criminals as such, even after prison release. The author’s hypothesis was that by labeling previous offenders, we are in fact increasing their chances to participate in criminal activity. They tested their hypothesis by using data from inner-city youths that were a part of mandatory interventions placed on them following incarceration release. The broke down the data and made connections from the type of intervention required by the youth, to the populations that they went through the interventions with. The analysis in fact proved and supported

Although, some people respond negatively to labels, others are able to overcome such negative connotation. One attribute to reducing the effects of criminal labels is becoming a productive member of society thus diminishing the criminal label. The criminal labeling process shares commonalities with drug addiction labels. Counseling is also suggested to offenders prior to release to improve the way criminals view themselves. According to Ascenion and Burke (2011) “However, opportunities for counseling and/ or training while in the correctional facility (such as the drug rehabilitation program of which the participants for this study were a part) make it possible for the criminal self to diminish over time, leading to corresponding reduction in criminal behavior, as prior work suggests” pp. 168. Family and friends also share positive relationships with neutralizing labels as offenders who are attached to family and friends are less likely to