The measurement of crime is a method in which the specific actions of certain people which include being deviant or a criminal are defined by those in power within the criminal Justice system (White, Haines & Asquith, 2017). The labelling theory is a theory that can be used to outline how power defines who is criminal and how the criminal justice system responds to crime. According to (Benburg et al 2006), people are treated as outsiders because their actions have been labelled as criminal by those who have power within society. These institutions include police, the justice system, prisons and schools (Gooch, G., & Williams, M. 2007). Another theory that can be used to outline how those with power determine who is seen as criminal and how …show more content…
1975). According to (Benburg et al 2006), certain types of people are treated as outsiders because their behaviour has been labelled as deviant by more powerful groups in society. By labelling individuals as deviant this challenges the criminal justice views on certain crimes which were previously not seen as criminal however the labelling of the individual to that criminal behaviour allowed it to become criminal (Benburg et al 2006). This perspective on crime measurement stresses that crime is not in fact objective but is determined by the nature of interactions and labelling by members of the criminal justice system in their dealing with members of the general public (White, Haines & Asquith, …show more content…
Marxist criminology as defined by (Gooch, G., & Williams, M. 2007), is a theory that sees crime and deviance as defined by the upper class and used as a means of societal and to an extent monetary control. Marxist criminology diverts attention from the focus on street crime and working-class crime towards social harms perpetrated by the powerful towards society (White, Haines & Asquith, 2017). Marxist aims to highlight inequalities of the upper-class society and to show how these inequalities impact the criminalisation process. The theory argues that those with power are capable of influencing the nature of societal reaction of behaviours deemed to be criminal (White, Haines & Asquith,
Labelling theory: The theory that the terms crime, deviance, or punishment are labels, variously applied by act of power and not some natural reflection of events – American criminologist Howard Becker
Although we have a general definitions of crime, some criminologists argue that crimes is better placed within the concept of social harm, Stuart Henry and Mark Lanier (1998) as quoted in Muncie, Talbot and Walters (2010). pp 16-17 were leading authors who done just that. Criminologists such as “Tifft, 1995 an...
their acts as criminal and extending this judgement to them as people. Having been labelled, there is an expectation that this criminality must be expressed. With this attached stereotype, the general population will perceive them to be criminal and treat them accordingly. This produces unanticipated effects: the label of criminal is intended to prevent individuals from participating in criminal activities but it actually creates the very thing it intended to stop. It produces a self-fulfilling prophecy which is defined as a false definition of a situation, evoking a new behaviour that makes the original false assumption come true (Burke, 2005).
What are theories of crime? Why are they important? In this paper, will discuss two crime theories. Social learning theory and the labeling theory. We will compare both crime theories. It will also explain how these theories are related to specific crimes. The two theories discussed will also explain the policy implications. Finally, we will address what types of programs can be created to mitigate specific crimes related to the causation theories.
Labelling theory was suggested by Edwin Lemert (1912- 1996) in 1951 and it was then developed by Howard Becker (b.1928) in 1963. This theory is related to the Social Action perspective. The labelling procedure includes deviancy and crime, certain acts are criminal because they have been labelled in that way, these labels are created by the powerful in society, such as the government. Frank Tannenbaum (1893- 1969) stated the self-fulfilling prophecy could occur when somebody is labelled as a 'criminal'. Self-fulfilling prophecy is when a prediction of something which then becomes a fact. If you have the label of 'delinquency' or 'crime' then the individual may find it difficult to get a job therefore earning less money which could result in them returning to crime. People in society will expect 'criminals' to behave in a certain way. The people with this label may find it challenging to fit into society. Moral panics is a definition which is given when a group of people become known as a threat to societies beliefs.
The Labeling Theory is the view that labels people are given affect their own and others’ perception of them, thus channeling their behavior either into deviance or into conformity. Labels can be positive and/or negative, but I’ll focus on the negative aspects of labeling in high school. Everybody has a label in high school whether it is the “slut”, “pothead”, “freak” or the “jock”; it is one of the most apparent time periods in which individuals get labeled. Students have the mentality that whatever label is placed on them is going to be stuck with them forever, which then leads into a self-fulfilling prophecy. This, I feel, is a fear of being a “loser” that has been instilled throughout years by the principals, teachers, etc. An example of this is the pressure students are given to get a good grade. In order to get into an honors class they need to pass a certain test, should they not get into honors class the following year, then all throughout the rest of their remaining school life, they’ll never be able to be in honors class. They’ll then no longer be seen as the “smart” students they were “before”(even though they still are), they’ll now be labeled as “dumb” and eventually start to believe, and become their label. Another example of this is being labeled a “slut”. When a girl has been labeled a slut, early or in the middle of her school life, the label sticks with her all throughout her remaining school years. At first, she could reject this label, and try to “change”...
The Marxist perspective theory falls under Sociological Positivism. Bartollas and Miller (2014) posit that the Marxist perspective sees the government and the legal process as instruments that the elites, or bourgeoisie, use to control the masses. Turk (1982) states that capitalism is the root cause which forces juveniles to commit crime. In addition, Turk (1982) posits that the main reason for conflict relates to wealth. This is because the elites, who make up a small portion of the population, control most of the wealth in the country. The working class, on the other hand, comprises the largest portion of the population and is continually exploited to the point of breaking down where they are forced to turn to crime to survive. Quinney (1977) states the Positivist view calls for treatment and rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents since youth’s behav...
Drawing from tenets of Marxist theory, critical criminology believe that crime results from the mode of production by capitalist and the economic structures they have created. Social classes have been divided into two: those whose income is secured by property ownership; and those whose income is secured by their labor. The resultant class structure influences the opportunities of an individual to succeed in life and his propensity to engage in crime. Although it encompasses the macro-economic factors that are rarely included in micro-economic analysis of crime, it does not substitute those macro factors, like unemployment, to micro factors, like being jobless. However, it combines the macro and micro factors in analyzing how micro factors of crime are integrated into the macro structures.
These speculations depend on the trust that criminal conduct depends on a man reconciliation with the general public they live in, or different people in their general public. The principal sort of social process hypothesis is the social learning hypothesis that says all criminal like conduct is found out from their groups and others in their group. People who are brought up in a strict social setting with a considerable measure of direction are probably going to learn great propensities and conduct as opposed to an individual encompassed by different offenders and little direction. The Social control hypothesis however trusts that the security a man imparts to an individual and their organizations around them definitely impact their conduct and can be the contrast between perpetrating a few wrongdoings and offering back to their groups. The naming hypothesis is a sort of social process hypothesis that trusts that when an individual is named and not given the open doors by society, they move toward becoming what society has arranged them as.
Labelling theory, stemming from the influences of Cooley, Mead, Tannenbaum, and Lemert, has its origins somewhere within the context of the twentieth century. However, Edwin Lemert is widely considered the producer and founder of the original version of labelling theory. This paper, not a summary, provides a brief history of labelling theory, as well as, its role in the sociology of deviance. It attempts to explore the contributions made by labelling theorists, the criticism towards labelling theorists, and the discussion surrounding its reality as an actual theory. In essence, the main focus of this paper besides proving an understanding of Howard Becker, is to describe and evaluate `labelling theory` to the study of crime and deviance, by way of an in depth discussion.
The radical criminologists focus their attention on social arrangements of society, politically and economically of structures and institutions of capitalism. (Bohm & Vogel, 2011) The radical criminology sees crimes as a result of unequal distribution of wealth, power and other resources that make people winners and losers that prey on the weaker people. “The radical criminologists believe that the more unevenly wealth is distributed in society, the more likely people can find a person weaker than themselves” (Bohm & Vogel, 2011, p. 125). The main reason behind the radical criminology is that poverty and discrimination build up frustration in the minds of the people, and crime is the result of this frustration.
By using the labelling theory, criminal behaviour can be more easily explain and explored, as it can give insight into how and why individuals chose crime over morality. This insight “ is very important for criminologists, law enforcement bodies and health care professionals who try to rehabilitate criminals” (UKessays 2015), as they can assess the very beginning point of the crime, and attempt to help, not only the individual in question, but other children and people, who can be seen going down the same path of crime from the labels and the stereotypes projected upon
The main focus of the essay will be the implications of labelling theory and how it affects individuals. It also will be focusing on the creation of particular categories of criminals when labelling theory is applied, in addition it will outline what labelling theory is, how it affects people and how it effects the creation of criminal categories. The purpose of this essay is to allow a better understanding of labelling theory and its implication on creating criminal categories.
INTRODUCTION Labeling theory, also known as the societal reaction theory or perspective, is a theory within criminology which focuses on how the labels of criminality affect individuals to commit crime. The approach focuses on how criminal acts are not deviant in and of themselves but are labeled deviant and how the deviant labels affect an individual’s potential or continuous criminality. While not all labeling theorists have considered how this affects primary deviance (“characteristics, experiences, beliefs, or behaviors regarded as departures from social norms” ), the perspective also considers how assumptions and labels placed on individuals before they commit any crime may lead to crime. In other words, labeling not only explains secondary
I now know that criminology prefer to highlight the correlations between crimes’ social climates and criminals’ psychological states of mind. While some argues that criminal behavior is a result of individuals’ association with criminal peers, other claims that crime is a reflection of an individual’s genetic disadvantages. I have come to learn that there are no universally agreed formulas on decoding crimes and criminal behaviors. What we have, however, is a manual full of academic opinions and subjective views that have emerged alongside of the development of criminology. At the same time, the volume of conflicting perspectives that I have stumble upon in studying criminology reminded me again that the success of our current assessment models has yet to be determined. Thus, the study of criminology is an appropriate practice that will further prepare me to conduct meaningful research on legal studies and to provide accurate and in-depth findings in the near