Labelling theories of crime and deviance

Objectives 1. Understand why labelling theorist regard crime and deviance as socially constructed, 2. Understand the labelling process and its consequences for those who are labelled, 3. Be able to evaluate the strengths and limitations of the labelling theory in explaining crime and deviance.

What might different people say about this tattoo? Think of 3 different people and suggest how each might react to this type of body art. For more information, click below

Labelling theory  Instead of seeking the causes of crime and providing solutions to the problem of crime they ask how and why some actions come to be labelled as criminal or deviant

Are these labels fair? 1. “Alcoholic”: Someone who drinks more than 2 glasses of wine a day. 2. “Stupid”: Someone who achieves less than 5 GCSE’s. 3. “Troublemaker”: Someone who committed a crime 10 years ago but has been good ever since. 4. “Superstar”: Someone who is an excellent player but plays a division below what they could be playing? 5. “ Slag”: Someone who fell pregnant with the first person they had slept with as a teenager.

Social construction of crime  No act is inherently criminal or deviant in itself, in all situations and at all times.  It only comes to be so when others label it as such  It is not the nature of the act that makes it deviant but the nature of societies reaction to that act

Labelling and the social construction of crime.  Social groups create deviance by creating rules whose infraction [breaking] constitute deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labelling them as outsiders (Becker, 1963)

What is Becker trying to say through this statement ? A deviant is simply someone to whom the label has been applied successfully

Social construction of crime  How and why do rules & laws get made? Moral entrepreneurs; Lead a moral ‘crusade’ to change the law Aim to help the people the law is applied to Creates deviants to the law Expands the social control agencies EG Platt (1969)

Social construction of crime ? Social Construction of Crime Becker believes that deviant only deemed as such because label has been successfully attached Becker 2 effects: 1.Outsiders, 2.Creation of social control agencies Labelling theorist focus on how and why rules and laws get made Platt (1969) Moral entrepreneurs

What would be their labels ?  gorA4&feature=related gorA4&feature=related  GaKg&feature=related GaKg&feature=related

Have a think....  Discuss the labels the individuals depicted in the two videos would have been given: 1. By yourselves (A2 sociology student), 2. Society in general, 3. Agencies of social control (police, etc)

Who gets labelled ?  Not everyone who commits an offence is punished, it is dependent on three factors: 1. Interactions with agencies of social control, 2. Appearance, backgrounds and personal biography, 3. Situation and circumstances of the offences,

Cicourel (1968)  Read through Cicourel’s argument on your handout

Circourcel (1968) – negotiation of justice Officers decision to arrest are based on....  This lead police too

Circourel (1968) 3. Circourel also found that reinforced this bias. For example Circourel argues, justice is not fixed but negotiable. For example

Circoucel conclusion  He believes that justice is not fixed but negotiable  E.g  This can be explained as the offender not fitting social control agencies ideas of a typical delinquent/criminal.

Topic versus resource

Task  Spend 5 minutes creating a spider diagram which sums up the social construction of crime.  This will be a good revision aid.  I will need a volunteer to come up to the board and share their diagram.

Group Task  How do people become deviant ?  In your groups you will be given 5 minutes to try and complete the puzzle.

Labelling theory – Key terminology

Objectives 1. Understand why labelling theorist regard crime and deviance as socially constructed, 2. Understand the labelling process and its consequences for those who are labelled, 3. Be able to evaluate the strengths and limitations of the labelling theory in explaining crime and deviance.

The effects of labelling  Labelling theorist are interested in the effect of labelling upon those who are labelled.  They believe that by labelling certain people as criminal or deviant, society actually encourages them to become more so.

What is 1. Primary deviance - 1. Secondary deviance -

Jock Young  Used the concepts of secondary deviance and deviant career in his study of hippy marijuana users in Notting Hill (primary deviance),  Findings:

Deviance amplification  Read through the Deviance amplification section of your handout  Complete the activity on your handout

 “If we do not take steps to preserve the purity of blood, the Jew will destroy civilisation by poisoning us all.” (Hitler, 1938)  “Surely if the human race is under threat, it is reasonable to segregate AIDS victims, otherwise the whole of man- - kind could be engulfed.” (Daily Star, 1988)

Moral Panics  “The more comfortable the language of anti- terrorism is to us, the more familiar the terrorist figure who haunts us, the more entrenched that seizure of our political imagination.” (Fortin)

Cohen’s research was a departure from traditional subcultural theory – his emphasis was on the reaction to the disturbances which took place in Clacton, Easter Cohen’s work deployed a synthesis of structural and labelling theories.  The amount of serious violence had been minimal.  Most young people who had gone to the seaside did not identify with either Mods or Rockers.  In short, the mass media had painted a distorted picture of events.  This set in process a ‘deviancy amplification spiral.’ As public concern was ratcheted up, the police became sensitised to the phenomena…

The police made more arrests, the media reported more deviance, more young people readily identified with the Mods and Rockers…the initial disproportionate response of various state and media control agencies generated more, not less ‘deviance.’  Cohen went further; the media had created a moral panic; ‘a condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests.’ These ‘folk devils’ constituted a threat to the prevailing social order.

Deviancy Amplification Spiral * ‘Law and public opinion stipulate that there are many ideas and opinions which are to be condemned as outside the pale of consensus.’ (Fowler, 1991) * ‘Deviancy amplification’ – Selective attention of crime control agencies, news and public concern on particular aspects of perceived and real increases in deviance = MORAL PANIC!!

So, ‘the media, wittingly or unwittingly, reproduce the definitions of the powerful.’ (Eldridge, 1997)  ‘ More moral panics will be generated and other, as yet nameless folk devils will be created. This is not because such developments have an inexorable inner logic, but because our society as presently structured will continue to generate problems for some of its members…and then condemn whatever solution these groups find.’ (Cohen, 1987)

Have a think ? Can you think of contemporary examples of moral panics ?

Labelling and criminal justice policy

Reintegrative shaming  John Braithwaite (1989)  Disintegrative shaming  Reintegrative shaming  Avoids stigmatisation of an offender as evil and encourages others to forgive them and accept them back

Evaluation of the labelling theory 

Key terminology  Add these key terms to your sociology dictionaries