labeling theory

What does labeling theory examine?

whether non-legal factors (ex: race and social class) influence state intervention and criminalization, argue that state intervention accomplishes the opposite of its intended purpose

William Chambliss’ “Saints and Roughnecks” 1973 study

• “Saints” were from middle-class families

• “Roughnecks” were from lower-class families

• The “saints” were treated with leniency and went to college, while “roughnecks” were either in prison or in low-skill professions, even when they demonstrated similar levels of delinquency

What did Lemert (1951) claim resulted from state intervention?

two types of behavior: primary and secondary deviance

primary deviance

• Initial involvement in criminal activities

• Occurs due to social or psychological factors

• Labeling theorists do not explore these factors in depth

• The offender may view the act (or acts) as an aberration

• Does not lead to change in identity

secondary deviance

• Occurs after state intervention - following primary deviance, the individual is labeled as a criminal and stigmatized

• Experiences a breakdown of prosocial relationships, difficulty in finding legitimate employment, and friendships with criminal peers

• Individual internalizes the criminal label

• Leads to a stable criminal career

self-fulfilling prophecy

• Individuals who commit a crime are falsely labeled as criminals

• The labeling process leads to stigma and alienation from prosocial friends and opportunities

• They become persistent criminal and make the originally false criminal label true

Social context of labeling theory

• Jeremy Bentham (classical school theorist) - called prisons “academies of crime” → panopticon design

• Cesare Lombroso (early positivist) - argued that prisons created professional criminals

• late 1960s and early 1970s: the public began to question the criminalization process due to violent suppression of political protest

proposition one of labeling theory

• Demographic factors such as social class or race determine whether people will be pursued by the criminal justice system

• The seriousness of a crime has a larger effect on state intervention than demographic factors

• However, various studies have found evidence of racial profiling in police officers’ decision to arrest or use excessive force

empirical status of labeling theory proposition 2

• Intervention by the criminal justice system leads to more crime, rather than less crime

• Some studies have found that state punishment increases the likelihood of future antisocial behavior

• However, other studies indicate that many people engage in frequent criminal behavior before they are arrested for the first time

policy implications of labeling theory

• decriminalization of minor offenses

• diversion

• expansion of due process rights

• decarceration

decriminalization of certain minor offenses

E.g., possession of marijuana

Possessing smaller quantities of this drug carries no punishment in various states, including Massachusetts

diversion

Placing offenders in specialized courts and programs, rather than the traditional criminal justice system

More minor offenders in particular

E.g., mental health courts, drug courts

expansion of due process rights

Implementation of fairer punishments

E.g., reforms related to mandatory minimum sentences

decarceration

• Reducing the prison or jail populations by releasing low-risk offenders

• Implemented in several U.S. jurisdictions and shown to be successful

• Crime rates did not increase

extensions of labeling theory

• argued that punishment by the criminal justice system can indeed reduce the likelihood of future recidivism

• the type of punishment that is inflicted determines whether a criminal career will continue or not

prominent theorists that looked at the differential effects of labeling

Braithwaite’s theory of shame and integration and Tyler’s procedural justice theory

theory of shame and integration

• Developed by John Braithwaite (1989)

• Individuals who are arrested or incarcerated are shamed

• Expression of disapproval for criminal behavior

• Both by the state and their communities

• Two types of shaming: disintegrative and reintegrative

Disintegrative shaming

• Offenders become outcasts in their communities after release

• They feel stigmatized and begin to associate with other offenders

• Commonly occurs with sex offenders

Reintegrative shaming

• First, community members condemn an individual’s criminal action

• Afterwards, the offender is forgiven and welcomed back into the community

• The individual is not labeled as a criminal by the community

What type of shaming did Braithwaite claim to be more effective in reducing recidivism?

reintegrative - multiple studies have provided evidence that treating offenders in a non-stigmatizing manner reduces the likelihood of reoffending

procedural justice theory

According to Tom Tyler (2000, 2003), procedural justice consists of

two components

• Fair decisions by agents of the criminal justice system

• Fair and respectful treatment by agents of the criminal justice system

Fair decisions by agents of the criminal justice system

not arresting a person unless there is sufficient evidence for it

Fair and respectful treatment by agents of the criminal justice system

avoiding the use of force to the extent possible

greater procedural justice will result in

• View of the criminal justice system as legitimate

• Immediate compliance - lack of resistance to an arrest

• Long-term compliance- following the law in the future

empirical status of procedural justice theory

• Studies have consistently shown that perceived procedural justice increases the view of the criminal justice system as a legitimate figure of authority (esp police)

• The relationship between procedural justice and reoffending is currently unclear

• Various studies have found no relationship between procedural justice and future offending (e.g., Atkin-Plunk et al., 2021)

policy implications of labeling theory extensions

restorative justice, prisoner reentry programs and more intensive training of police officers and other agents of the criminal justice system

Restorative justice

• Meeting between offenders and their victims - often attended by relatives and other community members as well

• Offender “restores” the victim

• Provides financial compensation

• Apologizes for pain inflicted on victim

• A step in the reintegration of the offender into the community

prisoner reentry programs

• Help formerly incarcerated people find housing and employment

• Teach prisoners essential job and life skills before their release

• Work to have criminal records of non-violent offenders expunged