Lecture 5+6 20140405
Lecture 5+6
20140405
West side storyoffice krupke: labeling theory Differentiation is based on race and class Labeling theory addresses 3 main issues YouTube: the wire and labeling theory Part 2 Other kids that are ostracized and experiencing as label of trouble makers that are different class – continuous self profiling prophecy that is a masters discourse Labeling theory argues eventually people develop the master status because they go through criminal justice system and gain a master status to fulfill the fulfilling prophecy We stopped as social construction of crime.
The Social Construction of Crime • Labeling theorists urged criminologists to surrender the idea that behaviors are somehow inherently criminal or deviant • What makes an act criminal is not the harm it incurs but rather whether this label is conferred on the act by the state • It is the nature of society that determines whether a crime has occurred o Changes over time, across societies, etc. Labeling theory’s critical questions • What is defined as crime? • Who is defined as criminal? Addresses 3 main issues: 1. The definition of deviance and crime 2. Possible discrimination in the application of official labeling and sanctions 3. The effects of labeling on continued criminality The Social Construction of Crime
•
The nature of state criminal intervention is not simply a matter of an objective response to illegal behaviour but rather is shaped intimately by a range of extralegal contingencies. • Influenced by individual characteristics such as race, class and gender. • Rates of labeling also vary according to the resources available to and political demands placed on police and other criminal justice organizations.
Labeling as a SelfFulfilling Prophecy • The meaning of the label “criminal” in our society leads citizens to make assumptions about offenders that are wrong or only partially accurate • These assumptions are consequential because they shape how people react to offenders • Criminal becomes the person’s master status or controlling public identification • In the face of repeated designation as a criminal, the person internalized the public definition of a deviant Labeling as Criminogenic: Creating Career Criminals • Labeling and treating lawbreakers as criminals have the unanticipated consequence of creating the very behaviour they were meant to prevent Assessing Label Theory • Critiqued statistics • Questions relations of power • Brought data to bear on two principal propositions 1. Extralegal factors, not behaviour alone, shapes who is labeled. 2. Labeling increased criminal involvement • Positivist Criticism: o Labeling theory’s major tenants wilted when subjected to empirical test o The perspective’s popularity has less to do with its empirical adequacy and more to do with its voicing a provocative message and that meshed with the social times o Does not discuss how individuals overcome labels. Others argue other people do not say enough about inequality in criminology’s form of power. o Does not sufficiently address forms of inequality o Difficult to test labeling theory o Unclear that the contact with the criminal justice system decreases or increases crime
The Consequences of Theory: Policy Implications • Four Policies 1. Decriminalization 1. Labeling reduces certain penalties for crimes—decriminalized. Examples: abortion is not legalized and but more accepted and alcohol was under an under cover market. 2. Diversion o Diversion: how criminals are involved with the criminal justice. They decided we couldn’t send people who commit lowlevel crimes should not go to jail. We should divert them through alterative measures such as probation or rehabilitation. 3. Due Process 2. Labeling theory is a strong advocate of it. Idea of due process is that you basically extend peoples legal protection. Fought for more programs like legal aid (severely cut in recent years). 3. Ensure the rights of offenders were protected with the criminal justice. They were concerned with the rights the criminal justice had. 4. Argued for increased oversight in the criminal justice system because cases like the girl who died in jail in Canada. 4. Deinstitutionalization 5. They argue for community corrections and the state should go towards it. Braithwaite’s Theory of Shaming and Crime • Central to social control is shaming 1. Shaming can be: 1. Disintegrative 1. Stigmatizes and excludes, thereby creating a class of outcasts 2. Branded as a criminal beyond forgiveness which leads to a further entrenchment into crime since denied employment and other legitimate opportunities 2. Reintegrative 1. An illegal act initially evokes community disapproval bur then is followed by attempts to reintegrate the offender back into the community through words or gestures of forgiveness Policy Implications: Restorative Justice and Prison Reentry • Advocates of restorative justice suggest that the guiding principle of the criminal sanction should be to decrease harm by restoring: 1. The victim and
• • •
2. The offender to the community: 1. They have to agree to engage in this process, and go through apology and probation. The goal is to reintegrate the offender into the community 1. Often through a victimoffender conference In Braithwaite’s terms, restorative justice is built on the premise of reintegrative shaming rather than stigmatizing shaming To combat this problem, we need to: 1. Start reentry preparation while offenders are in prison 2. Focus on the challenges and crises that are faced immediately upon release 3. Provide treatment services and support to facilitate longterm community reintegration
Conclusion • Criminal nature of behaviour is socially constructed (a variety of factors can shape who comes to bear a criminal label) Sanctions can be criminogenic
20140405
West side storyoffice krupke: labeling theory Differentiation is based on race and class Labeling theory addresses 3 main issues YouTube: the wire and labeling theory Part 2 Other kids that are ostracized and experiencing as label of trouble makers that are different class – continuous self profiling prophecy that is a masters discourse Labeling theory argues eventually people develop the master status because they go through criminal justice system and gain a master status to fulfill the fulfilling prophecy We stopped as social construction of crime.
The Social Construction of Crime • Labeling theorists urged criminologists to surrender the idea that behaviors are somehow inherently criminal or deviant • What makes an act criminal is not the harm it incurs but rather whether this label is conferred on the act by the state • It is the nature of society that determines whether a crime has occurred o Changes over time, across societies, etc. Labeling theory’s critical questions • What is defined as crime? • Who is defined as criminal? Addresses 3 main issues: 1. The definition of deviance and crime 2. Possible discrimination in the application of official labeling and sanctions 3. The effects of labeling on continued criminality The Social Construction of Crime
•
The nature of state criminal intervention is not simply a matter of an objective response to illegal behaviour but rather is shaped intimately by a range of extralegal contingencies. • Influenced by individual characteristics such as race, class and gender. • Rates of labeling also vary according to the resources available to and political demands placed on police and other criminal justice organizations.
Labeling as a SelfFulfilling Prophecy • The meaning of the label “criminal” in our society leads citizens to make assumptions about offenders that are wrong or only partially accurate • These assumptions are consequential because they shape how people react to offenders • Criminal becomes the person’s master status or controlling public identification • In the face of repeated designation as a criminal, the person internalized the public definition of a deviant Labeling as Criminogenic: Creating Career Criminals • Labeling and treating lawbreakers as criminals have the unanticipated consequence of creating the very behaviour they were meant to prevent Assessing Label Theory • Critiqued statistics • Questions relations of power • Brought data to bear on two principal propositions 1. Extralegal factors, not behaviour alone, shapes who is labeled. 2. Labeling increased criminal involvement • Positivist Criticism: o Labeling theory’s major tenants wilted when subjected to empirical test o The perspective’s popularity has less to do with its empirical adequacy and more to do with its voicing a provocative message and that meshed with the social times o Does not discuss how individuals overcome labels. Others argue other people do not say enough about inequality in criminology’s form of power. o Does not sufficiently address forms of inequality o Difficult to test labeling theory o Unclear that the contact with the criminal justice system decreases or increases crime
The Consequences of Theory: Policy Implications • Four Policies 1. Decriminalization 1. Labeling reduces certain penalties for crimes—decriminalized. Examples: abortion is not legalized and but more accepted and alcohol was under an under cover market. 2. Diversion o Diversion: how criminals are involved with the criminal justice. They decided we couldn’t send people who commit lowlevel crimes should not go to jail. We should divert them through alterative measures such as probation or rehabilitation. 3. Due Process 2. Labeling theory is a strong advocate of it. Idea of due process is that you basically extend peoples legal protection. Fought for more programs like legal aid (severely cut in recent years). 3. Ensure the rights of offenders were protected with the criminal justice. They were concerned with the rights the criminal justice had. 4. Argued for increased oversight in the criminal justice system because cases like the girl who died in jail in Canada. 4. Deinstitutionalization 5. They argue for community corrections and the state should go towards it. Braithwaite’s Theory of Shaming and Crime • Central to social control is shaming 1. Shaming can be: 1. Disintegrative 1. Stigmatizes and excludes, thereby creating a class of outcasts 2. Branded as a criminal beyond forgiveness which leads to a further entrenchment into crime since denied employment and other legitimate opportunities 2. Reintegrative 1. An illegal act initially evokes community disapproval bur then is followed by attempts to reintegrate the offender back into the community through words or gestures of forgiveness Policy Implications: Restorative Justice and Prison Reentry • Advocates of restorative justice suggest that the guiding principle of the criminal sanction should be to decrease harm by restoring: 1. The victim and
• • •
2. The offender to the community: 1. They have to agree to engage in this process, and go through apology and probation. The goal is to reintegrate the offender into the community 1. Often through a victimoffender conference In Braithwaite’s terms, restorative justice is built on the premise of reintegrative shaming rather than stigmatizing shaming To combat this problem, we need to: 1. Start reentry preparation while offenders are in prison 2. Focus on the challenges and crises that are faced immediately upon release 3. Provide treatment services and support to facilitate longterm community reintegration
Conclusion • Criminal nature of behaviour is socially constructed (a variety of factors can shape who comes to bear a criminal label) Sanctions can be criminogenic
