About the Author
Ashifa A Saheed: Final year student at Government Law College Thiruvananthapuram, who is known for her dedication and leadership qualities. She has several publications to her name, showcasing her academic excellence and research capabilities.
The interconnection between crime and society is complex and multifaceted. Crime does not exist in isolation; it is deeply intertwined with various aspects of society. Delinquent and criminal behavior is shaped within the various institutions of the society. Societal structures, economic disparities, and unequal access to resources can contribute to crime. People in disadvantaged socio-economic positions may turn to criminal activities as a means of survival or as a response to perceived injustices. The process of socialization, where individuals learn societal norms and values, can also play a role in crime. Peer pressure and social influences can lead individuals to engage in criminal behavior. A lack of educational and economic opportunities can ignite the situation. Family structures and social support systems can influence an individual’s likelihood of engaging in crime. Strong family support can be a protective factor against criminal behavior. The environment in which people live can significantly impact crime rates. High-crime neighborhoods may perpetuate criminal activities due to a lack of resources, employment opportunities, and social support. Understanding the interconnection between crime and society is crucial for developing effective crime prevention and intervention strategies. In other words ,one who ultimately turns out to be a delinquent or criminal is the product of the different socio economic institutions of which he happens to be a member.
It highlights the need to address not only individual criminal behavior but also the social, economic, and structural factors that contribute to crime in the first place. Society’s reactions to crime and deviance can influence an individual’s trajectory into or away from criminal behavior. The process of labeling and social stigmatization can be a driving force behind criminal careers.
Labelling theory is a sociological perspective that focuses on how societal reactions and labels can influence an individual’s behavior, particularly in the context of crime. This theory suggests that when someone is labelled as a “criminal” or “deviant” by society or the criminal justice system, it can have significant consequences on their self-identity and future actions.
The basic premise of labelling theory is that the act of labeling someone as a criminal can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the individual may start to adopt the roles and behaviors associated with the label. This can result in a cycle of criminal behavior and further stigmatization. It focuses on how other peoples opinion can influence the way we think about ourselves . more specifically, labelling theory says that when other people see and define us a s criminal ,that’s exactly what we become . we change our self-concept to fit what other people think of us ,and if they give us the label of a criminal ,we will ultimately behave according to the label. Simply we will become offenders because other people say that we are offenders. In essence, labelling theory highlights the importance of societal reactions to deviant or criminal behavior and how those reactions can contribute to the perpetuation of crime and deviance. It underscores the need to consider the social context and the effects of labeling when studying and addressing issues related to crime and deviance.
Society can affect crime through labelling in several ways. When individuals are labeled as criminals or deviants, they can be stigmatized by society. This stigma can make it difficult for them to reintegrate into mainstream society, find employment, or access resources, pushing them further into a life of crime. Labelling can create a self-fulfilling prophecy. When someone is consistently treated as a criminal, they may start to identify with this label and act in ways that conform to the expectations society has for them. This can perpetuate criminal behavior.
Labeling can lead to social rejection and isolation. When someone is labelled a criminal, friends and family may distance themselves, leaving the individual with few positive social connections. This isolation can push them further into criminal circles. The criminal justice system’s response to labelled individuals can also have an impact. Harsh sentencing or imprisonment, as a result of a criminal label, can expose individuals to further criminal influences within correctional facilities. Law enforcement may disproportionately target and label certain groups or communities, leading to over-policing and over-criminalization of specific populations. This can create a cycle of crime within those communities. In essence, the labels that society assigns to individuals can influence their self-concept, opportunities, and interactions, which, in turn, can shape their involvement in criminal activities. Labelling theory emphasizes the need for a more nuanced and rehabilitative approach to addressing crime, focusing on the underlying causes and social responses rather than solely punitive measures.
Two notable figures associated with the development of labelling theory are Howard S. Becker and Edwin Lemert in mid-20 th century. Howard S. Becker’s book “Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance,” published in 1963, is often credited with laying the foundation for labelling theory. He emphasized the significance of social reactions to deviant behavior and how these reactions can influence an individual’s self-concept and future actions. Edwin Lambert’s work, particularly his concept of primary and secondary deviance, contributed to the development of labelling theory. He introduced the idea that individuals initially engage in primary deviance (deviant acts) but it’s the societal reaction and labelling that can lead to secondary deviance and a deviant self-identity.
The labeling process includes different stages, as defined by Edwin Lemert, one of the early labeling theorists. The first stage is called primary deviance. According to labeling theory, primary deviance is something that many of us have engaged in. Many people, especially when they were younger, have at some point done something that is deviant, like perhaps stealing or destroying something. Often, these acts are not noticed by others and no harm comes from them, or at least, that how labeling theorists portray them. Labeling theorists are not really interested in these acts and why people engage in them. What they’re interested in is what happens when people are caught doing something that’s against the law. And when they’re caught, like being arrested by the police, the process of labeling, namely of defining a person as criminal, begins. Frank Tannenbaum, another important labeling theorist, has called this process the “dramatization of evil.” A person is tagged as delinquent or bad. So at this stage, it’s not just the act that is labeled criminal, it’s the person him- or herself who is labeled. People start to behave differently towards him or her; he or she is singled out, given a label, and rejected by society. This process of stigmatization can have lasting effects on people’s self-identity, and a sort of chain reaction starts happening. The people who have been labelled and stigmatized start hanging out more with other delinquents, who approve of each other’s behavior. This is the final stage in the criminal career: they become outsiders, isolated from society, and hostile towards law-abiding citizens, which in turn leads to what is called “deviance amplification”, meaning more deviance.
Labelling theory, like any sociological perspective, has faced its share of criticism. Critics argue that labelling theory can be overly deterministic, as it suggests that once an individual is labelled as deviant or criminal, they are destined to continue down that path. It may not account for the resilience or agency of individuals in shaping their own lives. Some argue that the theory doesn’t pay enough attention to the initial acts of deviance or crime. It focuses on the consequences of labelling rather than the factors that led to the deviant behavior in the first place.
Labelling theory often concentrates on formal labels given by the criminal justice system, such as arrest and conviction. Critics argue that it may not fully consider informal labels from peers, family, or other social groups that can also influence an individual’s self-identity. Critics assert that, this theory can sometimes ignore important structural factors that contribute to criminal behavior, such as poverty, inequality, and lack of opportunity. Some critics argue that labelling theory does a better job of describing the problem (how labels affect individuals) than offering practical solutions for addressing crime and deviance. Labelling theory may not account for variations in the impact of labelling across different individuals and situations. It may not explain why some labelled individuals continue criminal behavior while others do not. It can be challenging to empirically test labelling theory, as it deals with complex and often subjective social processes. It’s important to note that while these criticisms exist, labelling theory has also evolved and been integrated with other criminological perspectives to address some of these concerns. Additionally, it continues to provide valuable insights into the social dynamics of crime and deviance and has influenced criminal justice policy and practice.
To conclude the labelling theory of crime is a prominent perspective in criminology that focuses on the social reactions and labels that individuals receive in response to their deviant or criminal behaviors. It suggests that these labels have a profound influence on an individual’s self-identity and subsequent actions. . It emphasizes the need for a more holistic and rehabilitative approach to addressing crime, recognizing the profound impact of labels and societal reactions on individuals involved in criminal activities. By considering the implications of labelling theory, policymakers and practitioners can develop more effective strategies for crime prevention and intervention that take into account the complexities of the human experience.
