The Labeling Theory of Crime - Essay Example

Essay There have been several theories proposed in the field of criminology and many of these have originated from general behavioral theories and all these theories have been categorized based on criminal behavior and their history (West, 2005, p 340). One such important theory that has stirred a revived interest among criminologists is the labeling theory. Words spoken tend to create a major impact on an individual and people who have been tagged as criminals are considered bad and evil by the society even today and this response in turn affects the individual who then begins to live life befitting the label. In addition to damaging one’s self-esteem and image in the society, labeling also denies people of the rightful opportunities they are bound to get. According to several studies labeling people, which commonly occurs even in everyday life, definitely does have a negative impact on the individual and more so in case of criminals who are generally considered to be irresponsible deviants lacking in self-control (Clarke, as cited in Teaching General Semantics, 1998, p.408, Bernburg et al, 2006, p 68-69). Individuals labeled as deviants by and large do not come out of that image and prefer to lead the rest of their lives in a similar manner. Studies carried out by several researchers have claimed that societal labeling which results in stigmatizing and exclusion of the individual is one of the major causes for delinquency of criminals (Bernburg and Krohn, 2003, p 1288). According to the classic theory of labeling, societal reaction to crime can contribute to the development of a criminal career (Bernburg et al, 2006, p 68-69, Bernburg and Krohn, 2003, p 1288, Adams et al, 2003, 171-172, Meade, 1974, p 84). Theorists such as Becker have stressed that once an individual is labeled it increases their chances of involvement in subsequent deviance (Bernburg et al, 2006, p 68-69, Meade, 1974, p 83). Another set of theorists referred to as the control theorists are mainly concerned with the socially unacceptable behavior rather than the labeling of the individual and according to them deviants once punished will become more sensitive and work to avoid such pain (Tittle, 1975, p 400). The conflict theory on the other hand proposes that an individual is forced to follow some norms based on the sanctions and the relational bond theory suggests that negative responses of other may influence deviancy (Tittle, 1975, p 400). Two forms of labeling have also been stressed, namely formal labeling that comes from social control organizations and informal labeling by relatives and peers (Adams et al, 2003, 171-172). According to research carried out by Sampson and Laub labeling has a cumulative disadvantage for the person’s future chances and it definitely has an impact on the development and the life course of an individual, thereby contributing to deviant behavior and life style. Such people also tend to associate with deviant peers as they find it embarrassing and uneasy while interacting with normal people. Studies have also proved that engaging with deviant company increases the chances for subsequent delinquency (Bernburg et al, 2006, p 68-69, Bernburg and Krohn, 2003, p 1288-1290). This can be futile especially for juvenile deviants who will tend to permanently associate with deviant peers (Bernburg et al, 2006, p 69). Studies also indicate that juvenile criminals exposed to the justice system and social control groups show greater deviant behavior (Adams et al, 2003, 172-173). In addition being part of a deviant group blocks access to conventional living (Bernburg and Krohn, 2003, p 1291, Tittle, 1975, p 400) and all this could lead to criminal embeddedness, a concept first introduced by Hagan, which refers to complete involvement in criminal networks that would result in increased deviant behavior. Recent studies have focused on other intermediate process that may influence the deviancy of an individual and on the long-term effects of labeling (Bernburg et al, 2006, p 68-69, Bernburg and Krohn, 2003, p 1288). Official interventions such as arrest, conviction, probation, hospitalization for a mental illness have al be taken to be indicators of labeling (Tittle, 1975, p 401) and along with social status such as race and class positively influences subsequent secondary deviancy by affecting educational attainment and employment opportunities. It has also been found that children of convicted parents show greater signs of delinquency (Bernburg and Krohn, 2003, p 1294-1295). A study carried out with participants taken from a random population of adolescents found that official labeling as well as interventions reduced the chances of graduating as well as unemployment in early adulthood. The study also determined that juvenile justice interventions paved way for adult crime later in life which was found to be more prevalent among African Americans and those coming form impoverished backgrounds (Bernburg and Krohn, 2003, p 1304-1306). There have been several theories developed based on the classic labeling theory that have explained how labeling results in embedding an individual in deviant social groups and formation of such deviant networks increase the occurrence of subsequent deviance (Bernburg et al, 2006, p 71). Labeling is also a salient factor in determining the delinquent careers of juveniles (Meade, 1974, p 83). However, there is no empirical evidence to prove the authenticity of the theory, which in turn resulted in rejection and criticism of the theory (Bernburg et al, 2006, p 68-69, Bernburg and Krohn, 2003, p 1288, Adams et al, 2003, 171-172). There have, however, been several modifications and empirically testable propositions made available through research on the labeling theory that has revitalized interest for this theory. It has been suggested that labeling does not have a direct effect on promoting subsequent delinquency, rather it only creates a situation conducive for the individual to embark into a delinquent career. Several other mediating and intervening factors contribute to deviancy. Evidence for the influence of societal reaction and other intervening processes that contribute to subsequent delinquency is not clear. However recent studies have concentrated on these vital aspects of the theory and focus on the social structural Implications of the labeling theory. In one such study, subjective labeling by parents and peers was associated with delinquency. Official labeling or publicly announcing the deviant nature of an individual may cause damage to the reputation of the individual both within the family and outside and this has both direct and indirect consequences. The direct consequences include low self-esteem and rejection, while the indirect consequences are increased participation in deviant groups. Studies carried out with a majority of male population and people coming from high crime areas have shown that justice intervention at an early age also positively influences subsequent and peer delinquency and also plays a role in sustaining delinquent behavior (Bernburg et al, 2006, p 74-80). In addition low social status that increases the chances of sentencing also could lead to delinquent behavior at a latter stage. Researchers have also stressed that people coming from a high economic background can also fall prey to labeling (Bernburg and Krohn, 2003, p 1313-1314). The delinquent behavior of an individual is further spread through advertising or other media which may add to the moral panic of the individual concerned (West, 2005, p 352). It has also been suggested that the secondary or long-term deviance depends on the rate of primary deviance, as in some cases deterrent behavior could also occur based on the sanctions given to the individual (Tittle, 1975, p 406-409). This fact is sometimes overlooked by labeling theorists who tend to attach a deviant label to those who have committed a crime. Hence it should be borne in mind that deviants who have been subjected to sanctions may deter from committing the act again and may also positively influence other deviants to refrain from criminal acts (Tittle, 1975, p 405-406). Studies have also shown that informal labeling promotes secondary delinquency compared to formal labeling and negative labeling by teachers and social control groups play a vital role in promoting delinquency which is contrasting to the previously proposed view that parental labeling positively influences delinquency. A possible explanation given is that parents would tend to be more protective of their wards when the deviant nature is revealed when compared to teachers and other peers (Adams et al, 2003, 178-182). Thus the act of labeling does have serious consequences on the individual and definitely tends to alter one’s life course. A general take by all scientists is that negative labeling paves way to secondary deviancy and also has long-tem implications which may turn out to be harmful to the individual. The labeling theory does provide the platform based on which additional theories related to deviancy have been proposed. The studies on intervening processes that contribute to deviancy such as juvenile justice labeling, official labeling and informal labeling have provided good support to the theory. Studies have also shown empirically testable results of the theory which have added to its usage. There are some more areas that need to be worked on by research scientists to further support the labeling theory which would result is better utilization of the theory. Reference: 1. Clarke, W.V. (1998). The Problem of Labeling: The Semantics of Behavior. 404-415. 2. West, A.D. (2005). Horton the elephant is a criminal: Using Dr.Seuss to Teach Social Process, Conflict and Labeling Theory. Journal of Criminal Justice Education. 16 (2), 340-382. 3. Bernburg, J.G., Krohn, M.D., & Rivera, C.J. (2006). Official Labeling, Criminal Embeddedness and Subsequent Delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 43(1), 67-88. 4. Bernburg, J.G., & Krohn, M.D. (2003). Labeling, Life Chances and Adult Crime: The Direct and Indirect Effects of Official Intervention in Adolescence on Crime in Early Adulthood. Criminology. 41 (4), p 1287-1318. 5. Adams, M.S., Robertson, C.T., Gray-Ray, P., & Ray, M.C. (2003).Labeling and Delinquency. Adolescence. 38 (149). p171-186 6. Meade, A.C. (1974). Labeling Approach to Delinquency: State of the Theory as a Function of Method. Social Forces. 53 (1). p 83-91. 7. Tittle, C.R. (1975). Deterrants or Labeling. Social Forces. 53 (3). p 399-410. Read More