Labelling Theory of Crime - Essay Sample

Introduction

The labeling theory of crime asserts that individuals come to behave and identify to reflect how others perceive them. The labeling theory is most typically linked with crime sociology because labeling an individual unlawfully deviant can lead to poor conduct. Therefore, depicting an individual as a criminal, for instance, can lead others to treat the individual more negatively, and, in turn, the person acts out.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Tenets of Labelling Theory

Labeling theory is one of the most effective approaches to understanding criminal and deviant behavior. It initiates with the assumption that no action is intrinsically criminal. In that perspective, deviance is not a set of characteristics of individuals or groups but a process of association between deviants and non-deviants and the dimension in which criminality and deviance are interpreted. The police, educators, and judges are obligated to enforce labeling specific behavior as deviant and enforce normalcy (Frailing & Harper, 2016). Henceforth, by applying labels to individuals and formulating deviants' segments, these government officials reinforce the community's power structure. In most situations, men define deviancy for women, rich for the poor, and the old generation for young individuals. In simpler terms, society's dominant group formulate and apply deviant labels to minority groups.

Empirical Test that Supports Labelling Theory

The article's research question is whether labeling on significant noncriminal results potentially exacerbates criminal activity involvement. The research aims to prove the hypothesis by analyzing the direct and indirect impact of police force arbitration in adolescents' lives that were observed into their 30s (Lopes et al., 2012). The research model hypothesis that the formal police arbitration will impact long-term results through its involvement in employment, education, and welfare status.

The research used samples and data from the Rochester Youth Development Research. It is panel research on drug use and the development of delinquency among youth and has observed a sample of 1000 participants from ages one ages 14 to 31 (Lopes et al., 2012). Consequently, the research collected data from Department of Social Service , schools, and the police, to ensure accurate research questions. The study used 14 waves of data collection, which covered at least 17 years of the participants' lives (Lopes et al., 2012).

The first-panel sample was collected from seventh and eighth-graders in public schools located in Rochester, New York. Stratified sampling was used to obtain an accurate number of serious, adverse delinquents so that all participants was illustrated in the model. The males were oversampled as they have an increased probability of engaging in criminal behaviors. Consequently, the students were selected based on their location. The reason is that participants living in highly residential areas have increased risk for delinquency compared to those residing in low resident arrest settings.

Among the 1000 participants involved in the study, 918 had enough information to give to the several imputation models initially estimated to deal with missing information; it is a 92% retention rate of the initial sample (Lopes et al., 2012). In that perspective, the 918 cases have sufficient data on police records of arrests and demographic variables, and the general rate if missing information for variables in the evaluation is estimated at 8% (Lopes et al., 2012). However, case omission is typically utilized for securing missing data outcomes in a loss of different cases from evaluation leading to inefficient and biased results.

The studies’ results are that early police intervention is critically associated in the presumed direction to criminal and noncriminal products at early and later stages of adulthood. The illegal effects associated with labeling include general crime, arrest, and drug use. On the other hand, the noncriminal outcomes linked to labeling include unemployment and education. The logistics regression equation and ordinary least squares predicted the results, as mentioned earlier.

The research findings are that police arbitration has short and long-term implications. Most of these effects may unfold in more than twenty years of the life course hold while controlling the multiple variables in early adolescence and the later stages of adulthood with antisocial proclivities. Therefore, the research depicts that labeling has a prolonged impact on drug use.

Consequently, there is a statistically significant effect for high school graduation and unemployment for young adults that surge into welfare receipt and unemployment for young adults. In simpler terms, young adults facing police arrest have increased chances of arrest in adulthood. Nonetheless, the repercussion of early police arbitration does not relate to offender results in adulthood.

Strengths and Weakness of Labelling Theory

Children labeled to possess criminal behavior or attitude are that the society that includes parents and teachers can use the information to assist the child in learning using their weakness as a guide. Therefore, once a child is identified, the child can receive personalized education channels designed to meet his/ her needs (Frailing & Harper, 2016). Additionally, Children labeled as deviant can get the assistance needed to alter their specific issues. The receiving of instruction based on what the child needs is significant in guiding them to excel and be prosperous in the future. Parents and teachers are better equipped to enlighten the child to ensure learning by understanding they have to change their deviant behavior.

On the downside, labeling theory does not explain why individuals engage in criminal behaviors such as why people commit crimes or use drugs in the first place. Consequently, the labeling theory of crime both supersedes and underestimates the official labeling process's significance. The super sedation seems ill-conceived considering the massive criminalization given to drug users in Mexico and the United States. In the case of under-estimation of stigma's impact, critics assert that criminals resist deviant labels and only accept them when they can no longer fight them, damaging people's self-esteem.

Policy Implications

Various policy implications are linked with labeling theory, which includes:

Enhanced Public Awareness

Efforts should be made to enlighten employees and schools so that the community is more receptive to enlightening and enlightening people that have been convicted or arrested for their previous criminal behaviors (Frailing & Harper, 2016). People with criminal recodes experience several legislated consequences that jeopardize their employment prospects as they have to deal with reluctant people to recruit people with criminal records.

Deferred Adjudication

The widespread establishment of deferred adjudication channels could have a significant impact on minimizing recidivism. The reason is that deferred adjudication channels allows judges to sentence criminals to probation but retain legal adjudication until the sentence is finalized (Frailing & Harper, 2016). Henceforth, if the sentence is concluded, the culprit can avoid collateral repercussions linked to adjudications.

Non-Judicial Processing

More channels and policies could be established to allow regional jurisdictions to deal with arrested criminals informally (Frailing & Harper, 2016). The informal processing of juveniles is an essential strategy as it will enable the avoidance of further stigmatization, labeling, and older adolescents' situation, the collateral repercussions.

Conclusion

Labeling theory of crime is one of the approaches used to analyze criminal behaviors. The theory states that individuals are identified and behave in a manner that reflects how others perceive them. The method is typically linked with crime sociology because people unlawfully deviant can result in poor conduct.

References

Frailing, K., & Harper, D. (2016). Fundamentals of Criminology (2nd ed., pp. 1-245). Durham: Carolina Academic Press.

Lopes, G., Krohn, M., Lizotte, A., Schmidt, N., Vásquez, B., & Bernburg, J. (2012). Labeling and Cumulative Disadvantage. Crime & Delinquency, 58(3), 456-488. doi: 10.1177/0011128712436414