Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Labelling Theories of Crime - Coggle Diagram
Labelling Theories of Crime
Becker
There is no such thing as an inherently deviant act.
What makes something deviant isn't the action itself, it's the reaction of others and their label of the action as deviant. The consequence of the application of rules and sanctions to an "offender" is what creates deviancy.
Moral entrepreneurs
They will usually have a vested interest in the issue e.g. the new law will benefit them directly, or they really believe the laws are for the benefit of society
Crime is a social construct- someone has to enforce the rules or draw attention to them in order for acts to be considered deviant.
Moral entrepreneurs play a key role in our reaction to acts as they influence our opinions, affecting the labelling process. Thus we start to consider something as deviant, which can result in changes to the law (journalists, politicians, members of the CJS.)
Moral Crusades:
Becker studied the outlawing of cannabis in the US in 1937, which was widely used in the South. The Federal Bureau of Narcotics launched a campaign to outlaw it as they saw it as a growing menace in society. The campaign was only successful because it "plugged in" values commonly held in the US- they launched a moral crusade.
Deviance Amplification
: If a negative label becomes public, this can lead to others also making negative assumptions about the individual and interpret their behaviour negatively= individual may act up to their label and take on the
self-concept
of the deviant (SFP).
This reinforces the deviant label, until it becomes a
‘master status’
in which the deviant identity overrules all other identities. Now the only option for them is to lead a deviant career.
Negative label
-->
Self-concept
-->
Label reinforced
-->
Master Status
-->
Deviant career
Crime is a social construct. What is considered as deviant/ criminal varies according to:
time period
social context
culture/ subculture
Cicourel: Power and the Negotiation of Justice
Use of Typifications
When m/c delinquents are arrested, they're less likely to be charged as they do not fit this image.
Their parents are also more able to present themselves as respectable, reasonable people and co-operate fully with the juvenile officers, assuring them that their child is truly remorseful.
Rather than being labelled criminal, m/c delinquent is defined as having accidentally strayed from the path of righteousness just the once, seen as having a real chance of reforming.
Factors like social class, ethnicity can impact how offence is handled. Those actually given the delinquent label are more likely to be w/c because judgement is based on typifications and the image of a "typical delinquent" includes having a dishevelled appearance, speaking in slang.
Investigated why there were significant differences in deviancy rates in 2 cities in California. Found that it was the societal actions to delinquency that were different, not the acts themselves.
Two Stages of Negotiation
Stage 1
: The police interpretation of someone's behaviour. Influenced by police stereotypes and context of the behaviour (e.g. drunk and disorderly behaviour in a student area in Fresher's week vs in a m/c residential area by non-locals)
Stage 2
: If someone is arrested or reported, further interpretations are made based on whether offender is seen as a "typical delinquent" or not. If the offender fits their expectations of a typical criminal, they are more likely to arrest or convict them.
Validity of Statisitics
Data or statistics that show different levels of offending among different social groups or ethnicities is not very useful: the data itself is a social construct, it only tells us to what extent the deviant label has been applied, not the different levels of offending
M/c and the powerful in society are just as deviant/ criminal as actual ‘criminals’ but they are more able to negotiate themselves out of being labelled as criminals thus their crimes are less likely to be recorded.
Can't compare crime rates at different times as police might ignore an offence at one time and not record it, then crack down on the same type of offence at a different time, creating a fantasy crime wave- not a true reflection.
Lemert
Primary Deviance:
When someone commits a deviant act in an isolated way- the criminal label is not attached thus the ‘self-concept’ of the individual is not affected.
Secondary Deviance:
Deviance caused by the societal reaction to the act. A label is attached to the offender. They experience consequences such as punishment, humiliation, marginalisation. This leads to the self-fulfilling prophecy and more crime.
Cohen: Deviance amplification spiral
Moral Panics
: Sensationalist, exaggerated reaction to an issue that relates to morality: right vs wrong. The reaction is out of proportion to the act and can worsen the situation by creating deviancy amplification. It results in a SFP that increases deviance from the folk devils.
In his study of the
Mods and Rockers
from the 60s he found that whilst there were minor scuffles, the media greatly sensationalised the events and demonised the youth subcultures, presenting them as folk devils. The reaction meant that police responded to future conflict more forcefully, creating further conflict. Those involved saw media representations of themselves and acted up to the label (SFP)
Folk Devils:
when the media reports on deviant behaviour they construct a narrative around a clear villain: the folk devil, who is dangerous, violent, evil etc. This can kickstart a moral panic.
Reducing Deviancy
Braithwaite
Reintegrative shaming
: avoids stigmatising the offender by condemning the act itself, not than the actor. This is more useful than
disintegrative shaming
which labels the criminal as deviant and outcasts them from society.
Labelling can be used to reintegrate offenders, rather than marginalise them. Crime rates are lower where policies of reintegrative shaming are employed.
Victims are encouraged to forgive the person, but not the act, and the offender is welcomed back into the community= avoids negative consequences associated with secondary deviance.
Deviance is made worse by labelling and punishment by the authorities, so in order to reduce deviance we should make fewer rules for people to break, and have less-serious punishments for those that do break the rules
Decriminalisation
should reduce the number of people with criminal convictions, reducing the risk of secondary deviance. E.g. we should decriminalise drug offences as these crimes are not inherently delinquent, more associated with addiction= should not be further stigmatised with a delinquent label.
Most people commit deviant acts, but only some are caught and stigmatised for it- not every deviant act is labelled as such
Barlett (2015):
survey of 2000 people found that on average british people broke the law 17 times per year.
It is pointless to search for the differences between deviants and non-deviants because everyone is deviant, it is the reactions that differ. Emphasis should be on understanding the reaction and definition of deviance rather than on the causes of the initial act.
63% admitting speeding, 33% stealing and 25% taking illegal drugs. Suggests that the general public is tolerant of ‘ordinary’ deviance – but every now and then someone will get spotted doing ‘ordinary’ criminal activities and publicly shamed
Criticisms:
– It tends to be determinstic, not everyone accepts their labels, many reject it (self-refuting prophecy)
– It assumes offenders are just passive individuals who act out as a result of their label, ignoring the role of personal choice in committing crime- Rational Choice Theory (Right Realists).
– It gives the offender a ‘victim status’, ignoring the actual victims of crime who have suffered as a result of their actions (Realists).
Structural sociologists argue that there are deeper, structural explanations of crime, it isn’t all just a product of labelling and interactions e.g. criminogenic capitalism (Gordon/Marxists)
Sometimes people from wealthy backgrounds who authorities believe "should know better" are treated more severely, not less e.g. during 2011 London Riots a millionaire's daughter was sentenced more harshly than others because she came from a "loving and supportive home" and had less reason to riot