Despite this restriction, others are being initiated into criminality.
Before the development of labeling theory, crime was defined as a behavior that violates the law. This definition made criminologists to approach criminology and causes of crime from a social perspective. Labeling theory starts by disregarding the idea or the connection between crime and behaviors. The theorists argued that through the “labeling” act, the severity of a crime is not based on the harm that it causes but on the criminal label bestowed on it (Lilly, Cullen, and Ball 141). This indicates that the labeling system does not eliminate criminals from the street but it leads to the development of new offenders. According to the labeling theorist, imprisonment does not eliminate offenders from the street but it creates opportunity for others. Indeed, the theory complies with the choice theory, which argues that criminals commit crime after weighing the expected benefits and risks. However, the compliance does not rule out existence fear among offenders concerning imprisonment. Indeed, the connection between labeling and choice theories is that most punishments are not equivalent to crimes.
The “irony of state intervention” thesis as explained in the text, complies with most day-to-day crime intervention activity. However, the thesis lacks empirical supports making it to remain a casual thesis. Consequently, the implications of this thesis are evident in the sense that the criminal justice systems may lead to the creation of more criminals. Recent research on state intervention vs. criminality shows that certain measures that the state use to control crime do not yield much benefit. For instance, imprisonment has been known to contribute to the development of a criminal’s careers. For instance, most ex-prisoners end up into criminal activities after being released from prison. The theorists argue that state interventions lead to the