Amplifying Criminality Through Labelling - Essay Example

AMPLIFYING CRIMINALITY THROUGH LABELLING By Labeling theory is one of the important theories defining causes of criminal and deviant behavior in the society. The theory seeks to ask what happens to criminals after they have been labeled thus suggesting that crime can be amplified by criminal sanctions or labeling. Broadly, labeling theory suggests that criminology give too much attention to criminals as deviant kind of people but give little attention to the array of social control responses from legal structures media fraternity, police as well as public reactions which help to give crime its meaning. In other words, the theory claims that conformity and deviance is not usually constructed from what people do but from societal response to those actions. This theory is very important to health care professionals, law enforcement bodies, and criminologists who try to rehabilitate the criminals (Wellford 1975, p 332). This essay discusses labeling theory with respect to how labeling people as criminal amplify their criminality. Several issues will be discussed in respect to this theory. In the recent years, labeling approach has been an area of great interest in the field of criminology. After decades of denial of the tenets of labeling theory, scholars have always pointed out that by modifying the theory and elaborating the social processes involved, the labeling approach will come in handy in supporting other theories of deviant behavior. The revisionist work has shown that labeling theory has put emphasis on the social structural consequences of deviant labeling that lead to committing of deviant behaviors or engaging in deviant groups. The way an individual or society relates with deviants has been a great concern for criminology (Goode 1975, p 571). However, the research in line with this kind of investigations is limited and inconclusive. Labeling theory was first postulated by an American Sociologist Howard Becker and it explains the causes of deviance and criminality in the society. This theory stresses that criminal behavior occurs as a result of dominant social group labeling minority groups who are seen to be committing acts that are against the social norms. The theory further discusses how an individual behavior or self identity can be determined or influenced by the different terms that the dominant social group uses to describe these individuals or classify them (Lee, Menard & Bouffard 2014, p 15). Accordingly, when the society gives negative labels to an individual, this influences the individual to adopt the labels that are connected to them. One classic example of how social labelling of criminal behavior can have a negative impact is the labelling of East Coast and West Coast gangs. East Coast and West Coast gangs emerged in 1990s as a hip-hop rivalry between two communities separated by geographical barriers. The criminality premiered during the times of Notorious Big representing East Coast and Tupac Shakur representing West Coast. The rivalry began to be evident in hip hop lyrics of the 90s. However, the social acceptance of the hip-hop as a culture provided a rich platform for the rivalry to flourish. Hit after hit, each side began to support the rivalry in music lyrics and each side gained prominence. The violence that emerged from the rivalry became a socially acceptable way of life for the young hip-hop adherents. The pioneers of the rivalry ended up killing each other as each side tried to affirm the ‘criminally cool’ label. Many decades later, the rivalry still exists due to social labeling. When the dominant population or the society labels an individual as deviant, the person may internalize the negative label and after some time adapt to the labeling so that he or she conforms to the expectations of the society. This means that, labeling can mould the way a person behaves in their lives if they are not willing to shake off the label. When the society changes the perception it has on an individual as deviant, the individual may consider re-evaluating his or her self depending on how the society sees them (Farrington & Murray 2012, p 3). Labelling theory also focuses on the effects of labeling an individual. Labelling theorists postulate that many people commit deviant acts but not everyone is defined as deviant or criminal. This is because the society has power to decide what deviance constitutes. When one group define deviance and explain the deviance levels that can be tolerated in the society, the other group labels someone as deviant but they may change the way the person is treated depending on the deviance extent exhibited by the person. Once a person has successfully been labeled as a deviant person or a criminal, the label attached becomes the dominant label or the master status which is reflected more on that person than any other aspect in the person (Lee, Menard & Bouffard 2014, p 17). For example, if a person is a father or a friend to people yet he is a drug taker, he may be labeled a drug taker rather than a father or a friend. This is because the society has labeled drug taking as a deviant act. Therefore, the person decides to amplify this act or criminality to conform to the societal expectations or definitions. Charles Manson, one of the world’s worst criminal is arguably an example of criminal labelling gone wrong. It is believed that Charles took to petty crime because he needed to survive at a time when his mother was clashing with authorities due to crime and prostitution. He was arrested and taken to a juvenile center only to rearrested and jailed severally at a young age of 13. Each time he was arrested, he would be sent to a more strict rehabilitation center or jail. Instead of becoming a better person, he grew to be a more rogue criminal (Akers 2013, p 402). At each level of arrest, he would be labelled a more dangerous criminal until the time he finally became a murderer. Arguably, had he been shown love and care at his tender age, he would not have developed to be a criminal. Each label has some prejudices it carries and some images it portrays which lead to some groups interpreting the behavior of the labeled person in a particular way. For example, if a person volunteers to work late at night, that person is viewed as a hardworking individual who is worthy of praise, but, if a person is labeled as a thief; the society becomes suspicious that the person may steal from them. Therefore, for some individuals, once a deviant label has been given to them, this leads to more deviances. This happens when the individual start acting in the way he or she has been labeled (Haynie 2001, p 1013). Human nature triggers a person to put a positive or negative label on another person. For those who are labeled negatively, they create negative views about themselves and they are pushed to commit a crime or a deviant behavior. For example, if a person steals something, the society labels the person a thief, therefore, if something disappears again, the person is treated as the first suspect even if he is not the one. Since the person already thinks and sees him or herself as a criminal, he or she is likely to continue with the criminal behaviors. Becker tries to classify deviance into two levels. He classifies the first level as the primary deviance. This is the initial level of deviance that is committed by a person. The deviant act may be intentional or unintentional. Whereas there exists external triggers to deviance, personal fantasies are claimed to lead to deviance. The second level is the secondary deviance. This deviance takes precedence when an individual has already been tagged as a deviant. The label given to the person is the one that triggers secondary deviance. Secondary deviance is achieved through various steps. These steps include committing a deviance act hence being labeled a deviant person by the society. The acceptance of deviant label towards achieving secondary deviance is the second step where some people are likely to accept the deviant label and begin committing crimes as opposed to their normal way of life. The third step involves aligning oneself to a new lifestyle in response to the new deviance status. This happens after a rule breaker accepts the deviant tag and begins practicing a culture that is consistent with deviant acts (Bernburg, Krohn & Rivera 2006, p 70). Whereas many criminals stem and flourish in crime infested areas, social labelling of individuals as criminals has been seen to lead to spontaneous emergence of criminals. One classic example is the making of Al Capone into an infamous international criminal. It is claimed that Al Capone faced expulsion from a Catholic based school apparently for hitting a tutor. The fact that he never went back to school after expulsion marked the beginning of years of crime. The instance the school administration labelled him as a criminal worth expelling from school marked the beginning of a criminal. After expulsion, he went to streets where the culturally mixed and poor societal setting nurtured him to be a criminal (Akers 2013, p 410).Therefore, it can be safely concluded that labelling Al Capone as a criminal in school made him a criminal. Various theorists like Becker, Thomas Scheff and Erving Goffman have conducted various studies to study how labeling people as criminal amplify their criminality. Becker carried out his study by finding out how marijuana came to be associated with deviance in the United States. In the late 1930s, the Narcotics Bureau started campaigns against the use of marijuana in US. The bureau started these campaigns as a way of justifying its existence since it was new. During this time, the ethnic Protestants were the existing religion and they despised these actions as they were purely done to achieve ecstasy. The Protestant group can be said to be the dominant group as earlier mentioned. This group preached the need to free people from the bondage of drugs. The Narcotic Bureau began explaining the prolonged effects of drugs by showing the public evidence from Mexico, which had one of the highest rates of drug abuse in the world. At last, legislation was passed to discourage marijuana use. However, despite the passing of the legislation, marijuana abuse has continued (Bernburg, Krohn& Rivera 2006. p 72). Labeling theory explains this well, whereby, Protestants as the dominant group branded people who use marijuana as deviant. Many people therefore accepted the label tag and continued using the drug since this was perceived to be consistent with the society’s expectation as they were labeled as deviant. This case study explains well how labeling people as criminal amplify their criminality. A more prevalent example of criminal labelling gone wrong is the way terrorists have been labelled to change the societal perception of terrorists. Although terrorism has been a global problem for decades, the epitome of terrorism threat materialized during the 9/11 terrorism attack. Since then, terrorism has been synonymous with Islam with many terror attacks being attributed to Muslims. Whether Muslims are terrorists remain a hotly debated topic to date. However, ‘the terrorists’ have continued to orchestrate more impactful attacks arguably because they already accepted the ‘enemy label.’ In fact, some countries are realizing that labelling terrorists as global enemies and broadcasting their terror activities only works to strengthen them. Instead, a more silent approach is being taken. Another case study that relates with how labeling people as criminal amplify their criminality is Thomas Scheff’s study. This study relates to people with mental illnesses. Many people who the society labels as mentally unsound usually begin to act according to how the media portrays the mentally ill. Once they do that, they can slowly become mental illness professionals (Bernburg, Krohn & Rivera 2006, p 71). At one point in life, most people act like the mentally unstable. However, not all the labeled mentally unstable are true mentally unstable only those the society perceives as weak are. This case study is in line with labeling theory where the dominant group labels the minority group making them amplify their criminality. The other case study in consistence with the theory of labeling is Erving Goffman’s study that explains the concept of labeling using social stigma. Stigma is a behavior that dishonors a person or a group. Goffman describes it as the difference between the real and perceived social identity. He explains that people repeatedly develop social perceptions based on interaction with other people. These perceptions then translate to expectations and people are expected to behave according to these assumptions. The contributions of Goffman to labeling theory are important. They describe what make the dominant social group label the minority group. They also explain why the minority group may be under pressure to change their normal way of life and adapt to the labels impacted on them by the society (Link& Phelan 2013, p 525). To prevent adverse effects of labeling, people should eliminate stigma through avoiding assumptions. People should not judge others through short term interactions but should judge them through long term interactions. Goffman’s study continues to explain why labeling of people as criminals amplify criminality. The theory of labeling has been seen to interfere with the normal actions done by actors who the society has labeled. The action of labeling makes them do away with their normal actions and adopt those that are consistent with the labels that are connected to them. This is useful in understanding crime since the theory explains about criminal behavior. When a person commits a criminal act, this is primary deviance which may be intentional or unintentional (Akers 2013, p 412). However, when the society labels a person a criminal, this is likely to alter the normal way of life of that person and the person may start committing criminal acts, which is secondary deviance. This is because the person is influenced by the label that the society has given him or her. Progressively, such people form groups where they can seek identity. They view the law abiding people as a threat to their existence and target them in their criminal activities (Farrington & Murray 2012, p 1). This shows that the labels that the society gives to people amplify criminality. On a different note, internet criminals often labelled as hacktivists have gained more reception in the internet platform because of the social labelling them as ‘social changing hackers.’ Digital wars on the internet have arguably caused more harm than good. Whereas hacktivists can bring good social change, they also interfere with other people’s privacy (Akers 2013, p 198). The widespread hacktivism has only been made possible by labelling hacktivists as ethical hackers. Although hacktivism is yet to get an official definition as a form of outright crime, there is still a criminal element to it. In order to reduce criminal crimes and reverse the criminal acts, the society is required to avoid the negative labels they give to people. They should view a criminal act as a behavior that can rectified through rehabilitation. The society should know that adverse effects of giving labels to people act as a catalyst to crime behaviors rather than deterrents. The labeling theory together with other theories serve to inform the law makers, law enforcers, health practitioners and the public of the ineffectiveness of labeling the minority groups since this amplifies criminality. Despite the usefulness of labeling theory, it has been criticized for its impracticality. The empirical tests have not been done on the population hence it cannot be considered accurate. It is difficult to do the test and therefore many sociologists do not perceive it as a true theory. Another criticism about this theory is that it does not explain about the primary deviance. It only explains the secondary deviance thus not explaining what motivates a person to commit primary deviances. It therefore seems to be inconclusive (Farrington & Murray 2012, p 6). More research should be done on this theory to determine whether it is applicable and accurate in today’s society. In conclusion, different aspects of labeling theory have been discussed. The labeling of people by the dominant group has been seen to amplify crime and deviant behavior. This is because people start to act according to the labels given to them. At first, criminal acts may be intentional or unintentional depending on the actor and this is the primary stage of deviance. However, consequent crimes may be committed as a result of labeling and this is the secondary stage of deviance. To reduce crimes, the society should avoid labeling people especially the criminals as this amplifies their criminality. The society should perceive criminal activities as mistakes committed by people and can be reversed or corrected through rehabilitation rather than perceiving that committing crime is a person’s nature. Becker in his case study, he describes how people continue to commit crimes because of the labels they get from the society or the dominant group. The study shows how possible it is for a person to change from his or her normal life to be consistent with the label given to him or her. This may mean changing from an upright life to committing criminal activities. On the other hand, Goffman discusses stigma, which is an important aspect in explaining the theory of labeling. Due to the assumptions that people make, criminals are stigmatized which encourage them to continue committing crimes because of the labels given to them. However, the research performed on labeling theory is impractical, inconclusive, and inaccurate because of the weaknesses that have been mentioned above. This shows further research is needed to rectify on these weaknesses. This essay discussion is important for health care practitioners, sociology students, law enforcers, general public and criminology students as it enable them to understand the nature of crime. It is conclusive that labeling people amplify criminality. Works Cited Akers, R. L 2013, Criminological theories: Introduction and evaluation, United States, Routledge. Bernburg, J. G., Krohn, M. D., & Rivera, C. J 2006, Official Labeling, Criminal Embeddedness, and Subsequent Delinquency A Longitudinal Test of Labeling Theory, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43(1), 67-88. Farrington, D. P., & Murray, J 2012, Empirical Tests of Labeling Theory in Criminology, Labeling Theory: Empirical Tests, 18, 1-6. Goode, E 1975. “On Behalf of Labeling Theory.” Social Problems 22:570-83 Haynie, L 2001. “Delinquent Peers Revisited: Does Network Structure Matter?” American Journal of Sociology 106:1013-57. Lee, J., Menard, S., & Bouffard, L. A 2014, Extending Interactional Theory: The Labeling Dimension. Deviant Behavior, 35(1), 1-19. Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C 2013, Labeling and stigma, In Handbook of the sociology of mental health (pp. 525-541), Springer Netherlands. Wellford, C 1975, Labelling theory and criminology: An assessment. Social Problems, 22(3), 332-345. Read More