Understanding the importance of what happen is not merely as important as figuring out why something happen. There are many different whys in the criminal justice world, which is known today as theories. One in particular is called the labeling theory. Rather than looking at why some social gatherings carry out more wrongdoing, the labelling theory asks why some people committing some actions come to be defined as deviant, while others do not. Labelling theory is also interested in the effects of labelling on individuals.
Labelling theorists note that most people commit crimes at some time in their lives but not everyone becomes defined as a deviant or a criminal. For example, we most people have lied about something at some point in their
…show more content…
Social disorganization theory focuses on the cause of crime as it is directly relates to the social environment and economic status. When I was 5 years of age my mother moved my family and I to a small city called Pompano Beach, where we lived in a community called Golden Acres Development. Golden Acres was surrounded by a vast majority of low income families as well as drug dealers and lower level public schools, who were below average schools. According to the social disorganization theory, this area has a higher risk for criminal activities and crime rates will be extremely …show more content…
Another theory is that I feel is deeply rooted and directly related to the juvenile justice community is the learning theory. Like all the other theories, learning theory zeros in on the why a crime is committed. Learning is characterized as the long lasting procedure of changing data and experience into information, aptitudes, conduct and states of mind. Learning theories claim that criminality is not natural but is learnt from interaction with other persons. These individuals can be relatives, peer bunches, work associates or whatever other method for socialization. In the event that a man talks or invests more energy with individuals who think violating the law is worthy and have criminal foundations then the individual will in all probability be included in criminal exercises. There are numerous scholars who utilize learning hypotheses to clarify why individuals commit
to their future criminal behavior, they commit the crime because they have been associated by
There are many views on crime and deviance and many theories to why they occur.
First and foremost, the theory states that criminal behavior is learned, meaning that the behaviors of an individual are influenced and shaped by those they associate with (Clinard & Meier, 2015). The primary reference point here is the nuclear family. Parents teach their children how to walk and talk, who grow up with siblings or in some cases, elderly relatives. With good reason, it is widely held that these interactions create the foundation of the individual’s conception of societal norms and values. That being said, if the individual is capable of assessing proper behavior in society, they are also capable of learning what is considered
Two major sociological theories explain youth crime at the macro level. The first is Social Disorganization theory, created in 1969 by Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay. The theory resulted from a study of juvenile delinquency in Chicago using information from 1900 to 1940, which attempts to answer the question of how aspects of the structure of a community contribute to social control. The study found that a community that is unable to achieve common values has a high rate of delinquency. Shaw and McKay looked at the physical appearance of the neighborhoods, the average income of the population, the ethnicity of the neighborhood, the percent of renters versus owners, and how fast the population of the area changed. These factors all contribute to neighborhood delinquency.
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
...ifferent crime patterns and thought processes of criminals. The reasons can only come from these theories and will help the justice systems become more prepared to react towards different crimes. However, with adding some enhancements, projects and experiments these two theories have the potential to change the criminology realm forever.
5. Wiley, Ann Stephanie, Lee Ann Slocum, and Finn-Aage Esbensen. 2013. "The Unintended Consequences of Being Stopped or Arrested: An Exploration of the Labeling Mechanisms Through Which Police Contact Leads to Subsequent Delinquency." American Society of Criminology 51:927-966.
According to Cullen and Agnew (2011) the Social Disorganization theory was developed in the mid 1940’s by Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay while they were researchers studying at the Institute for Social Research in Chicago. Shaw and McKay (1942) based their research of the study of crime in Chicago off of the work that Ernest Burgess theorized in how urban areas grow through a process of continual expansion from their inner core toward outlying areas. According to Cullen and Agnew (20011) one of the primary arguments in the social disorganization theory is the idea that there are settlement patterns in the development of cities, and how these patterns impact neighborhood characteristics and corresponding crime levels. Shaw and McKay developed a theory based off the settlement pattern research that Ernest Burgess conducted. According to Cullen and Agnew (2011) Ernest Burgess stated ...
Shaw and McKay’s social disorganization theory had a profound impact on the study of the effects of urbanization, industrialization and immigration in Chicago neighborhood on crime and delinquency rates. However, Shaw and McKay faced much criticism when they first released their findings. One criticism of the social disorganization theory had to do with researcher’s ability to accurately test the social disorganization theory. Although Shaw and McKay collected data on characteristics of areas and delinquency rates for Chicago communities and were able to visually demonstrate a relationship between by using maps and other visuals, their research did not have an actually test that went along with it (Kurbin, 2010). Kurbin (2010) states that “the
Therefore, the community has informal social control, or the connection between social organization and crime. Some of the helpful factors to a community can be informal surveillance, movement-governing rules, and direct intervention. They also contain unity, structure, and integration. All of these qualities are proven to improve crime rate. Socially disorganized communities lack those qualities. According to our lecture, “characteristics such as poverty, residential mobility, and racial/ethnic heterogeneity contribute to social disorganization.” A major example would be when a community has weak social ties. This can be caused from a lack of resources needed to help others, such as single-parent families or poor families. These weak social ties cause social disorganization, which then leads higher levels of crime. According to Seigel, Social disorganization theory concentrates on the circumstances in the inner city that affect crimes. These circumstances include the deterioration of the neighborhoods, the lack of social control, gangs and other groups who violate the law, and the opposing social values within these neighborhoods (Siegel,
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.
The labelling theory became dominant within society during the 1940’s and 1950’s, when a group of graduate students from the Chicago school tried a different approach to applying theory to deviant behaviour. Within this group was a highly influential young man, Howard S.Becker who became the person most recognised for his work with the labelling of crime (Williams.F. McShaneM. 2010.p110). Becker argued that labels could be applied through the social reaction of others when a deviant or criminal act had been committed he stated that “Labelling is the process of identifying, categorising and stereotyping social categories such as delinquents” (Davies.M.et.al.2010.p30). When an individual becomes labelled a criminal, people do not consider all the praiseworthy things they may have done previously, they just see that they have committed some form of deviance and are now judged within societ...
From a policy perspective, many individuals might focus on one or both of these ecological factors. As a result, (Reisig, 2010) mentioned that some police sponsored programs, such as Neighborhood Watch and community policing, are often associated with the type of informal control implicated in social disorganization theory. Although both these programs have had some impact in reducing crime rates, often times it is not clear as to whether or not what aspect of these programs reduce crime, thus resulting in the need for further investigation (Bennett, Holloway, and Farrington, 2006; Reisig,
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.
Different schools of thought propose varying theoretical models of criminality. It is agreeable that criminal behaviour is deep rooted in societies and screams for attention. Biological, Social ecological and psychological model theories are key to helping researchers gain deeper comprehension of criminal behaviour and ways to avert them before they become a menace to society. All these theories put forward a multitude of factors on the outlooks on crime. All these theories have valid relevancy to continuous research on criminal behaviour.