The Use Of Labeling Theory In Explaining Criminal Behavior

Labeling theory, as we know it today, went through many transformations since Emile Durkheim first investigated how criminals were created by the reaction of society to their behavior. The historical view of crime was to analyze traits and features of a criminal and class of crime committed, but labeling theory focused instead on society’s reaction to certain behaviors and why and how some came to be seen as criminal.

“The works of early pioneers such as Tannenbaum (1938), Lemert (1951, 1967), Becker (1963), Goffman (1961, 1963), and Scheff (1966) brought labeling theory front and center to a position of preeminence in the field.” In these works, the common thread of the viewpoint of labeling theorists is that individuals and their behavior are not inherently deviant, rather it is how society reacts to those individuals or behaviors that makes them deviant. Furthermore, if individuals are officially labeled as deviant, such as with a criminal record, that label can lead to a higher rate of recidivism. Such is the foundation of labeling theory, that those who are labeled will succumb to the “self-fulfilling prophecy” that being labeled as deviant or criminal places on them.

Theoretical Testing: Questions Labeling Theorists Examine

Researchers of labeling theory seek to answer questions about why certain behaviors are seen as deviant or criminal, how certain stereotypes of groups can lead to a criminal or deviant label, and what sorts of short and long-term consequences result from this type of labeling. According to labeling theory, most behavior is not inherently deviant or criminal. Instead, certain behaviors are classified as deviant or criminal by those who have power in society. These classifications are used to create rules and laws that are then enforced by officials.

Sometimes individuals can be labeled as criminal because their behavior is offensive to society, or goes against societal norms. For example, an historical viewpoint was that having homosexual relations between men was a criminal act. Gay marriage recently became legal in some parts of the United States, but in many other countries homosexual acts are currently considered criminal and will come with severe legal consequences. These laws criminalizing homosexual acts are still enforced as a result of the majority of public opinion being anti-gay in those countries. So, while the majority of Americans today do not view having an openly gay relationship as a criminal act, people in other parts of the world do view homosexuals as criminals and treat as such. This goes along with the labeling theory approach that crime is the interaction between one’s behavior and society’s reaction to that behavior.

Labeling an individual as a “delinquent” or as a “criminal” can, in many cases, do more harm than good (Moak & Gann, 2010). In the case of juveniles, it is common for most young people to engage in some form of deviant behavior over the course of their youth, regardless of their socio-economic status. The only difference, then, between many juvenile offenders versus non-offenders is that the offenders have been adjudicated, and thus carry the label of “delinquent” or “criminal”.

Another way that individuals can be labeled is through stereotyping and prejudice. Certain minority groups are more likely to be targeted by police just because of what they look like and the area in which they live.

Labeling can also have consequences from one generation to the next. Children with parents who were convicted in court and labeled as criminal are more likely to be adjudicated delinquent. This does not mean that the children of convicted parents are more delinquent than children of non-convicted parents; it just means that more attention is being directed at them by law enforcement (Besemer, Farrington, & Bijleveld, 2017).

Spending time in detention can cause juveniles to be rejected by their non-offending peers, and thus seek acceptance from peers that do not judge them (Bernburg, Krohn, & Rivera, 2006). The association with other peers who are ex-offenders can increase the chance of juveniles becoming involved in deviant acts or with deviant groups once released from detention, therefore increasing the chance of recidivism.

Some researchers sought to answer the question about whether withholding the criminal label would indeed reduce future crime. Chiricos, Barrick, Bales, and Bontranger (2007) did a study on the recidivism rates of 95,919 male and female offenders in Florida who either had their adjudication withheld or imposed. For those who had their adjudication withheld, they were afforded all the rights and privileges of non-offenders including the right to vote, and being eligible for educational loans and other government programs. For the others who had their adjudication imposed, first-time offenders, Caucasians, Females, and those with a bachelor’s degree or higher, all had the most to lose by being labeled a felon and had much higher recidivism rates than those whose adjudication was withheld. It was concluded from this study that the act of withholding adjudication allows the individual to avoid being stigmatized, and gives him or her greater chance at rehabilitation and reintegrating into society. The lower rate of recidivism by those whose adjudication was withheld was shown to be beneficial to the community.

Conclusions from the Research

Being labeled as delinquent or criminal can become a barrier when reintegrating back into the community (Abrah, 2019). For juveniles, even those with their parents’ support can have difficulties due to rejection from peers, and negative treatment from school personnel and other members of their community. It is common for labeled juvenile delinquents to internalize that label, increasing their risk for recidivism. Once they are shunned by their non-offending peers, labeled juvenile delinquents may seek acceptance from other delinquents, or even join a gang (Adams et al., 2003). Research shows that placing juveniles in detention centers puts them in direct contact with other delinquent peers, and with peers who would recruit them for gang membership. In a study by Mouttapa et al. (2010) they found a positive correlation between youth offenders who self-identified as gang members and their severe alcohol use and deviant behaviors.

For adult offenders, having a criminal record can make them lose their voting rights, and become ineligible for government services, such as student loans and public housing (McGrath, 2009). It is also increasingly difficult for those with a criminal record to find gainful employment. The increased use of electronic background checks by employers makes it exceedingly difficult for ex-offenders to get passed the application stage of the hiring process. Sometimes, even offenses that happened years ago will hinder the employment process because they show up on the electronic criminal background check. Not having access to opportunities for legitimate employment can lead to increased recidivism rates. The results of the research show that labeling individuals as “deviant” or “criminal” creates long-lasting obstacles blocking rehabilitation and reintegration.

Limitations

Labeling theory does not help to explain why individuals first elect to engage in deviant behavior or crime, or the reasons behind violent crimes. It also lacks information about hidden crimes, such as domestic violence or fraud, and the victims of crime.

Additionally, labeling theory has some methodological weaknesses. One limitation in the research on labeling theory is the use of non-random sampling. These samples do not provide a clear examination of the contrast between those who are officially labeled and those who are not, leading to a miscalculation of the strength of the effect of labeling (Bernburg, 2009).

Likewise, there is a lack of specific study of the effect of labeling to the transformation of self-identity, peer group exclusion or association and social barriers to education and/or employment (Bernburg, 2009). Instead, much of the research containing hypotheses on why and how formal labeling can lead to deviant peer association and lack of conventional social bonds seem to lead to confounding results.

The Value of Labeling Theory in Explaining Criminal Behavior

Labeling theory is valuable for explaining social control, and how more powerful groups are able to commit crimes without being labeled while less powerful groups are criminalized for the same actions. Labeling theory also raises questions about whether official crime statistics are biased (due to criminal stereotyping of certain minority groups), or if they are indeed reliable and valid. Labeling theory has also opened the door to research on judicial process, and whether withholding adjudication could help rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders while keeping recidivism rates low. While labeling theory does not help to explain primary deviance or violent crime, it remains a valuable aspect of criminology.

Future Research

In the case of future research on juveniles, longitudinal studies are needed, beginning in primary and early elementary school and lasting through high school, to test whether early informal labeling by teachers or peers affects rates of delinquent behavior of the students. These studies should include measures of success in school, including social-emotional and behavioral development, and demographics, including the family’s socioeconomic status and area of residence. Additionally, studies should include each individual’s self-identification, whether or not they see themselves as delinquent.

Future research on adults who have been adjudicated should concentrate on how the label of a criminal record has a different effect on individuals according to age, race, gender, ethnicity, and academic and socioeconomic status; and how that label contributes to recidivism rates for different individuals. Follow-up studies should be done on the study by Chiricos et al. (2007) to continue data collection on offenders in Florida to compare outcomes between those whose adjudication was either withheld or imposed, and measure their subsequent recidivism rates. One might hypothesize that if recidivism rates continue to remain low for those whose adjudication was withheld, that policy might be expanded to other parts of the country.

Conclusion

Labeling theory helps to shed light on why certain behaviors and/or individuals are informally labeled as delinquent while others are not, and how that label can lead toward being officially labeled delinquent or criminal. Juveniles with a history of time in detention centers have an increased risk of having the label of “delinquent” stay with them (Abrah, 2019). Shunning from peers and punitive treatment from teachers and other school personnel make it difficult for those juveniles to make a positive change, and stay in school long enough to graduate high school. Support programs are needed to help juvenile delinquents reintegrate back into their communities. These programs should be ones that involve the family and school personnel so that juvenile delinquents have the support they need to stay in school. With the support of their family and school personnel, juveniles may be able to rid themselves of the “delinquent” label and reprogram their internal self-image.

For adults who have been involved with the criminal justice system, their electronic criminal record will continue to label them as criminal, and bar them from many opportunities, especially gainful employment. Laws should be put in place to enforce time limits on electronic criminal records; but even with a time limit, it may be difficult to remove damaging information from the internet. Florida’s policy of giving judges the discretion to withhold adjudication of qualifying offenders is a step in the right direction. The results of that study show that recidivism rates go down for those offenders with a withheld adjudication. More states should allow judges to use discretion to withhold adjudication for first-time and minor offenders, giving them the option of a second chance to lead a law-abiding life without the hindrance of being labeled by their criminal record.

References

• Abrah, P. B. (2019). Labeling Theory and Life Stories of Juvenile Delinquents Transitioning Into Adulthood. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 63(2), 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18787303
• Adams, M. S., Robertson, C. T., Gray-Ray, P., & Ray, M. C. (2003). Labeling and Delinquency. Adolescence, 38(149), 171. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.sju.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9994255&site=ehost-live
• Ascani, N. (2012). Labeling Theory and the Effects of Sanctioning on Delinquent Peer Association: A New Approach to Sentencing Juveniles. Perspectives (University of New Hampshire), 80.
• Berk, B. (2015). The history of labeling theory. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. 10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.03161-5.
• Bernburg, J. G., Krohn, M. D., & Rivera, C. J. (2006). Official labeling, criminal embeddedness, and subsequent delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43(1), 22. doi:10.1177/0022427805280068
• Bernburg, J. G. (2009). Labeling theory. In: Marvin D. Krohn, Alan Lizotte & Gina Penly Hall (eds), Handbook on Crime and Deviance (187-207). Springer Science + Business Media.
• Besemer, S., Farrington, D. P., & Bijleveld, C. C. (2017). Labeling and intergenerational transmission of crime: The interaction between criminal justice intervention and a convicted parent. PloS one, 12(3), e0172419. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172419
• Chiricos, T., Barrick, K., Bales, W., & Bontrager, S. (2007). The labeling of convicted felons and its consequences for recidivism. Criminology, 45(3), 547–581. https://doi-org.ezproxy.sju.edu/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2007.00089.x
• Kroska, A., Lee, J. D., & Carr, N. T. (2017). Juvenile delinquency and self-sentiments: Exploring a labeling theory proposition. Social Science Quarterly (Wiley- Blackwell), 98(1), 73–88. https://doi-org.ezproxy.sju.edu/10.1111/ssqu.12307
• McGrath, A. (2009). Offenders’ Perceptions of the sentencing process: A study of deterrence and stigmatisation in the New South Wales Children’s Court. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology (Australian Academic Press), 42(1), 24–46. https://doi-org.ezproxy.sju.edu/10.1375/acri.42.1.24
• Murphy, D., Fuleihan, B., Richards, S., & Jones, R. (2011). The Electronic “Scarlet Letter”: Criminal Backgrounding and a Perpetual Spoiled Identity. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50(3), 101.