Question One: The Irony of State Intervention: Labelling Theory
Before the onset of the labelling theory, many a criminologists defined crime as the behaviour that was contrary to the criminal laws established by the government. Since it violated the state laws, the state’s intervention was necessary in prosecuting such criminals in order to ensure society remained a safe place to live. However, in the late 20th century, the labelling theorists came up and influenced the jurisprudence of the criminal justice systems. Therefore, in this discussion, the paper shall look at how and why state intervention, labelling persons as criminals and societal reactions actually lead to unintended consequences to the criminal justice system.
Labeling theorists opine that labeling offenders as criminals has negative effects on their behavior in that it worsens them. According to them, the criminal justice system tries to control society’s behavior. Thus, they argue that net-widening sometimes referred to as state intervention is criminogenic. Tannenbaum opined that the process of complaining, tagging or emphasizing a person as being criminal evokes the very trait that are complained of, that is being criminal. He brought to light some of the reasons why society has had perennial criminals. His opinion was bolstered by Lermert who in his independent views distinguished between primary and secondary deviance. In primary deviance, one does not accept himself as being criminal, but once that tag persists on him, he develops secondary deviance which is basically acceptance of the tag and the justification of it. Lermert was of the opinion that depressing deviance was important to society. Being a criminal becomes one’s identity and that controls the way one is viewed in public. This may lead to transition from primary deviance to secondary deviance.
Question two: Crime and capitalism
In many societies, the mention of the word crime is associated primarily with simple individual crimes such as murder and robbery. This has almost neutralized or even justified commission of white collar crimes to the extent that they are mostly ignored. The focus is thus put on the small and petty crimes. These petty crimes are committed by the working class members of the society and not the affluent. In fact, they are more vulnerable of being detected for committing crimes than the affluent class is. Marxists argue that different social classes are policed differently, with more policies being put in the working class, a situation that that makes them prone to offenses and increase their chances of being detected. Marxists further argue that corporate crimes do more harm than street crimes such as murder, burglary and theft.
References
Bryant, L. (2014, January 10). Marxism and Crime. Retrieved January 25, 2014, from History Learning Site: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/marxism_crime.htm
Gabbidon, S. (2010). Criminological Perspectives on Race and Crime. New York: Routledge.
Lilly, R., Cullen, F., & Ball, R. (2011). Criminological Context and Consequences Theory. New Delhi: SAGE publications,inc.
Thomas, W. (2014, January 16). Labeling Theories of Crime. Retrieved january 25, 2014, from Theories of Crime: http://www.drtomoconnor.com/1060/1060lect07.htm
