About the theory
Labelling theory is a theory that proposes that society imposes certain labels on people who are perceived to commit criminal acts(Lopes et al. 2012). Criminal acts refer to actions and behaviors the society deems wrong either legally or morally(Caputo 2008). According to the labelling theory when we attach certain labels to people who have committed criminal acts such individuals may be obliged to live up to the labels thereby continuing with their crimes. Below is a case study and the integration of labelling theory in the case
Ken, a 16-year-old boy, is caught taking drugs by some of his friends at church. His friends label him as a drug abuser. Later on, his parents find out that he has been taking drugs and reinforce the label that was enforced by his friends. The parents report the matter to the school and during a routine school checkup Ken is caught with some drugs in his desk. The school alerts the authorities of the matter, and Ken gets arrested. He is also expelled from the school. After being released, Ken finds it hard to get a school that will let him do his final exams and thus ends up getting a job as a shop attendant. The job pays a little money, and Ken is soon caught stealing from his employer who immediately fires him. Ken goes back home and as a result of his lack of money starts stealing from his parents who chase him out after they find out. He goes to live with a group of friends who abuse drugs. Later, the police notice suspicious activity in the place where Ken and his friends live and they raid the place only to find a stash of drugs. Ken is arrested along with some of his friends. Once in prison, he begins consuming hard drugs. After his release, he engages in criminal activities as a way of earning a living.
In the following case, Ken is labelled by his friends a drug abuser and this label is reinforced by the parents. The effect of the labelling may even be stronger since Ken’s loved ones are the ones who label him. Ken may fill hopeless due to the labels and end up taking even more drugs which only furthers his criminal activity(Adams et al. 2016). The school then labels him and finally he gets a criminal record with the police too. At this point, Ken is labelled by the whole society around him. Soon, Ken withdraws from the society that is labelling him to go and stay with people who are more like himself when he goes to live with his drug-abusing friends. This only serves to make Ken’s drug abuse worse. When Ken comes out of jail, the labels society attaches to him make it hard for him to reintegrate into the society and Ken turns to criminal activities for his survival and isolates himself from other members of the society who are not like him.
Argument for application of theory to the case study above
Ken’s case is consistent with the labelling theory for the following reasons. According to a study on the labelling process by Wilkins, when an individual gets labelled by the society they get cut off from the society and as a result, they may isolate themselves from the society and form a subculture just like what happened when Ken started living with his friends who also abused drugs(Kavish et al. 2014). According to the labelling theory, a person will associate him or herself with like-minded individuals once they are labeled by society(Criminological et al. 2012). Also, once a person is labelled by society, it becomes difficult for them to get reabsorbed and thus end up engaging in criminal activities to survive just like Ken did after living prison(Caputo 2008).
The main arguments of the theory
Some of the drawbacks of the criminological theory include the fact that according to the criminological theory a crime is only a crime if it is deemed so by the society as stated by Wellford, a sociologist (Krohn & Rivera 2006). This is considered a drawback because there are some crimes that are considered crime globally such as arson or murder. Another drawback is that one brought about by Hagen’s self-labelling concept. According to Hagen’s research an individual may instill criminal labels on him or herself even if they are not caught by members of the society committing the crime(Coyle et al. n.d.). This contradicts the labelling perspective on crime since it states that there must be the existence of a third party for the labelling to happen. Lastly, one additional drawback of the theory is that the theory suggests that labelling will have the same effect regardless of age, sex, race, culture and religion (Lilly, Cullen & Ball, 2011). Nonetheless, studies have revealed that culture, religion, sex, race influence how labelling affects the individual, they can either enhance it or diminish it(Krohn & Rivera 2006).
Some of the drawbacks, however, such as the attribution of the lack of inherent criminal activity is debatable. For instance recognizing that some criminal activities are universal is just a statement of facts( Bierne & Messerschmidt 2000). Besides, society changes and what may be considered a criminal activity now may be legalized in the future. Also on the drawback of self-labelling, an individual can rationalize as a defense mechanism to protect them from self-labelling(Chen 2002). Hence, the aspect of self-labelling may be voided by rationalization.
In conclusion, the labelling theory is a useful theory for explaining where criminals tend to have increased or continued criminal behavior after being labelled by the society(Lopes et al. 2012). The labelling theory can be used to explain the influence the perception of society has on individual behavior. Labelling theory is a key aspect that should be taken into consideration when designing criminal rehabilitation centers.
References
Adams, E.B., Chen, E.Y. & Chapman, R., 2016. Erasing the mark of a criminal past: Ex-offenders expectations and experiences with record clearance. Punishment & Society, 13(3), pp.1–30.
Caputo, D. a., 2008. The South American theft groups: An overview of a transnational criminal network and strategies for field enforcement. Police Quarterly, 11(3), pp.271–288.
Chen, X., 2002. Social control in China: applications of the labeling theory and the reintegrative shaming theory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46(1), pp.45–63.
Coyle, A., 2000. Criminological Theory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 24(1), pp.351–352.
Criminological, A.C., Of, A. & Into, P., 2012. Criminal Theory. Journal of crime and delinquency, 9(4), pp.1–30.
Kavish, D.R., Mullins, C.W. & Soto, D.A., 2014. Interactionist Labeling: Formal and Informal Labeling’s Effects on Juvenile Delinquency. Crime & Delinquency, pp.1–24.
Krohn, M.D. & Rivera, C.J., 2006. A Longitudinal Test of Labeling Theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43(1), pp.67–88.
Lopes, G. et al., 2012. Labeling and Cumulative Disadvantage: The Impact of Formal Police Intervention on Life Chances and Crime During Emerging Adulthood. New York: SAGE.
Lilly, J., Cullen, F., Ball, R., 2011. Criminological theory context and consequences. Los Angeles CA: SAGE.
Beirne, P. & Messerschmidt, J., 2000. Criminology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
