LABELING THEORY CAPSTONE PAPER
Abstract
When offenders are released from prison, they are faced with many hardships and barriers that will result in them not being successfully re-integrated into society. They struggle with finding housing, employment, and good support systems. Offenders are normally stereotyped and labeled by other members of society. The labeling and stereotyping often poses as a challenged for these offenders that also results in offenders having a high recidivism rate. Since offenders are normally excluded from other members of society, they tend to link up with others who share the problems as them. When offenders are stereotyped and labeled it leads to the offenders participating in deviant behaviors and forcing them to be persistent criminals. This study examines how much damage that labeling can pose on an offender. Throughout this paper, secondary data from various scholarly articles will be utilized to support the problems that labeled offenders face upon being released from prison. In conclusion, this paper will also discuss various ways that recidivism can be mitigated in order to alleviate offenders from continuing to be processed in the criminal justice system.
Introduction
When an individual is implicated in criminal behavior, what normally would follow involves some form of criminal labeling; usually known as a public criminal labeling. According to labeling theorist, most people commit a crime at some point in their lives; however, they assert that not everybody is labeled as a criminal or a deviant individual. The most striking point worth noting are the groups of individuals that are being labeled. Our society tends to label individuals based on the environment in which they reside in, their family settings and social groups. Society also tends to imply that these individuals are more likely to commit crimes and pose as an imminent danger to society. Public criminal labeling is a stereotype that poses negative effects on victims and has the potential to result in individuals engaging in deviant acts.
When an individual has been successfully labeled as a criminal, that particular label then is attached to them, that label becomes dominant and is likely to be considered more important than other aspects of that particular individual. Public crime labeling seems to prove that the role of various criminal justice agencies is misplaced because instead of preventing crime it increases it. Crime labeling typically results in an individual to participating in deviant behavior and pushes offenders to become persistent criminals. One of the main reasons it due to stereotypes. In addition to being labeled offenders are also stereotyped. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the effects of stereotyping and criminal labeling. Once an individual has been stereotyped and labeled as a criminal offender how much damage does the label do?
What is the labeling theory?
The labeling theory is a perspective of how an individual`s behavior and identity are influenced or determined by various aspects that are used to describe them in the society. The labeling theory was propounded by several sociologists including Emile Durkheim. This theory asserts that individuals behave and identify themselves in accordance with the labels that are given to them by others in the society. When an individual is treated as being criminally deviant in the society, they then become deviant so as to conform to the label (Hirschi, 2017). The labeling theory, therefore, helps members of society to understand how deviance and criminal behavior is developed in an individual`s life. It also asserts that only those in positions of power define criminality in the society through the formulation of laws regarding crimes in the society. Deviant behavior is therefore as a result of the interactions between the deviants and non-deviant individuals of society.
The branches of the Criminal Justice system; the Police and the Courts are the avenues play a major role in labeling members of society. In other modern societies, even the experts in different fields and the school administrators also do label individuals as deviant members in a given society by reinforcing the rules that should govern the conduct of individuals in a given society (Hirschi, 2017). The individuals and bodies in a particular society that are responsible for labeling individuals in the society empower and reinforces the authority structures in a given society. They define the expected norms in the society. It is therefore evident that the dominant group of individuals in the society label their subordinates as deviant members by reframing the social norms in the society.
For instance, the rich label the poor, men label women, ethnic and racial majorities label the minority groups, and even the older people label the younger individuals in a given society. This theory also includes an understanding of how social control efforts determine the changes in the anti-social and criminal behaviors through an individual. The social controls, therefore, explain the dimensions of criminal behavior in an individual. For instance, the age of onset of criminality, its prevalence, and even the duration of criminality in an individual`s life.
Therefore, factors that explain one type of offender in the society does not necessarily explain the other. Major life transitions and changes in the environment help in examining the criminal behaviors in an individual in the society. There is an underlying assumption that when an individual becomes older, old age may increase, decrease, initiate or stop the rate of one`s offending behavior in the society.
Background Information
Looking at the visibility of crime labels both within and between different jurisdictions, it varies widely. For instance, as pointed out by Farrington & Murray (2017), in many European nations, both state and federal authorities hide the identity of individuals charged with crimes, even though some public interest exceptions occur. In the United Kingdom, some offenders who serve community service sentenced are forced to put on specific clothing such as high visibility orange vest as they work. It alerts their status to the public while some are publicized by police officers in the media and posters.
When an individual has been labeled as a public criminal, the label could be dominant and viewed by community members as more important and thus disregards good aspects of the individual. As asserted by Farrington & Murray, (2017), the victim could then resort to become either a thief or a hooligan rather being a responsible person to the society. Farrington and Murray say that each label often poses prejudices and images. This will allow other people to interpret the act of the labeled individual as criminal in nature. For example, if a member of society is labeled as a thief, then others would always suspect him of stealing.
It is imperative to see how much damage labeling can do to an individual. Research throughout this paper was guided to investigate how much damage criminal labeling can do to an individual; however in order to further highlight adverse effects of criminal labeling I would like to pose the following questions 1) Who are the individuals that are normally labeled? 2) Is the criminal justice system biased or unbiased against the working and middle class? 3) Are law enforcement officers following proper protocol when they label individuals?
Who are the individuals that are normally labeled?
Studies have shown that race plays an important role in labeling. For instance, police brutality is at a higher rate against the blacks in a given society than the whites. In this context, there is no evidence that only the black people commit more crimes than the white people in the society (Hirschi, 2017). Even in the learning institutions, the black students and pupils do get frequent and harsh punishments from their teachers and administrators as compared to the white students and pupils. Still, there is no proof behind the differences in wrongdoing between the black students and whites students or pupils in the school.
Social stratification in the society leads to discrimination and social struggles between the dominant and minority society members. For instance, the acquisition of education. This is the whereby the most learned individuals discriminate against those who are less or non-learned individuals in the society (Akers, 2017). These differences, therefore, makes the learned society members to label the non-learned individuals in the society. The learned, therefore, tend to know their rights and they want to dictate the behaviors of non-learned individuals since they cannot compare to them in various aspects of life.
The principle behind this theory is that, once an individual has been labeled as deviant, it is therefore very difficult for them to do away with the label. Labeling and conformation to the label by the victim can land them into prison for punishment in response to their criminal behavior. This, therefore, breaks the reputation of the victim in the entire society since their criminal history and records will be preserved such that even getting a job after they have completed their prison sentence terms will be equally difficult (Hirschi, 2017).
This, therefore, leads to stigmatization on the labeled individual, since he/she will now be rejected and ex-communicated by others of the same group, or even by the entire society members. Due to this isolation, the individual labeled will, therefore, accept the label and conforms to the expectations of those responsible for labeling. He/she will then commit crimes so as to rationalize their status even if the label was as a result of no action committed in prior
Equality in the distribution of natural resources in the society should always be upheld by the respective authorities so as to balance the relationship among the members of the society. Each individual in the society should have an equal right to basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others within a given society. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that; they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage. Therefore, everyone should share in the society`s natural resources and all the benefits that come with it (Akers, 2017).
Straining to get these resources by the minority groups of individuals in the society so as to make ends meet, are sources of labeling. This is simply because the rich who enjoy the economies of scale at their disposal will start underrating the minority middle class individuals in the society, and hence labeling them as deviant or delinquent members in a given society. It is a general observation that the working class or the haves will no longer compare themselves with the middle class or have-nots in a given society.
The models in the society that focus on interactive processes can best explain human behaviors that occur as a result of social interaction with others in the society, who are not labeled. Therefore, studies have shown that even the children who are closely bonded to their parents are more likely commit themselves and excel in class work, adopt the conventional values, and can, therefore, refrain from delinquency in the society (Akers, 2017).
In other words, some individuals in the society who behave as if they are using drugs, though, in a real sense, they are not. Therefore, the deviant behavioral trait assumed of that individual labeled as a drug user or addict is generalized to other situations. These people who are labeled as drug addicts are said to be non-comprehending in-class work, and that they are the group of people who are always prone to examination malpractice in school. They are also believed to perform poorly when they are given tasks to accomplish by their employers at work, and hence their employers will not be satisfied with their input at work.
In the extreme situations, some employers will fire these types of employees and recruit new ones, though there is no justification that those who use drugs cannot perform better at work than those who are not using such drugs in the society. On the other hand, some may be denied access to proper employment and even to drugs. Therefore, due to frustrations and desperations for money to support drug use and other social needs by these individuals, they would then resort to anti-social activities in the society so as to support their conditions in life. At this stage, the individual will now view criminal activity as a normal part of life in society, and therefore, they engage in it (Akers, 2017).
Is the Criminal Justice System is Biased or Unbiased against the Working and Middle Class?
Criminal justice officials should always uphold the dignity of the system and act in accordance with the objectives of the system. A system is generally an inclusion of different modules or components that work to achieve a given goal under some proper instruction. The way cases are dealt with does not portray the “system” as it should be. The cases should be processed in a sequence, from one stage to the other until justice is dispensed to the labeled victim or to the society at large.
According to this theory, the criminal justice system is biased against the middle class people in the society. This is very evident in the way they punish the deviant members in the society. It is generally accepted that punishment for a particular crime committed should be proportionate to the crime committed. In this perspective, the criminal justice system actors do not follow this notion. They are only guided by the views of the working or dominant class of people in the society (Paetzold & Rholes, 2017).
Corruption and politics have also found their ways into the criminal justice system avenues. This is whereby the actors within the criminal justice system love and embrace corruption in a kind way, such that if one is not keen, then they identify this vice within the system. The Police are always known to be taking bribes so as to lengthen a given case and render it minor or even useless. All these are only meant to favor the haves or working class members in the society (Paetzold & Rholes, 2017).
The notion that justice is sold to the highest bidder also plays an important role in this perspective. Since the middle-class people cannot afford to buy justice within the avenues of justice dispensation; the courts, the working class individuals, therefore, take advantage of this opportunity by reinforcing the justice system with incentives that mostly will render a case as minor or null and void in favor of the working class members of the society.
The rules of punishment in relation to crime in the society also state that once a crime has been committed, the punishment should be effected immediately (Paetzold & Rholes, 2017). In other cases, the middle class people will be made to go through a lengthy prosecution process that is literally meant to disadvantage them at the end of the day. This, therefore, follows the principle of "Justice Delayed is Justice Denied."
Biasness in the criminal justice system is also evident in the sense that, even after the victim of the label has been sentenced to prison, when he/she shall have completed the prison term, the individual still will not enjoy the economies of scale. Getting a job still becomes a problem because the job market is linked to the criminal justice system records (Paetzold & Rholes, 2017).
The victim`s criminal records will therefore not allow them to acquire formal employment so as to meet their needs in the society. It is generally believed that the major role of prisons is to rehabilitate the offenders for the stated period before they are released back to the society. It is therefore upon the criminal justice system professionals to ensure that the offender is properly rehabilitated and their rehabilitation progress should be thoroughly monitored.
Therefore, after being released back into the society, they should be accepted normally as full society members, but still under the monitoring departments, for serious offenders. These labeled victims still find it difficult to cope up with life in the free society, since their reputation is compromised, and they still feel alienated from the others.
The society members refuse to accord the labeled victims an equal status as before. For instance, the criminal justice officials will thoroughly scrutinize the behaviors of these victims, and most of the times when a crime has been committed, and the Police are looking for suspects, they will first of all turn to these victims as the first suspects of the committed crime in the society.
This, therefore, breeds the stigma inside their minds. Inferiority complex, therefore, emerges in between them and the society members since they cannot now socialize normally and effectively with their fellow members in the same society. Some victims would decide to pursue criminality so as to rationalize their life issues and even to get a livelihood (Paetzold & Rholes, 2017).
Are Law Enforcement Officials Following Proper Protocol when they Label Individuals?
Although punishment reduces criminal and deviant behaviors in the society, it sometimes worsens it. Therefore, the law enforcement officials do not follow the proper protocol when they label individuals in the society as delinquent or deviant members in the society. This is simply because there is no empirical support for this theory. Criminal justice officials are mostly guided by the rules and powers that are reinforced and imposed by the dominant groups of people in the society who make rules that have infractions which constitute deviance. They apply these rules to a particular group of people in the society and label them as outsiders. Therefore, deviance is not a quality of the act that an individual commits, but rather, a consequence of the application by the rules and sanctioning procedures.
There are ethical codes of conduct that govern a profession. Therefore, the law enforcement officials also employ ethics before they label an individual. First, they have to understand the adverse impacts of the label on an individual. It is evident that labeling leads to stigmatization on an individual since he/she will be isolated by the society members and even be excommunicated.
The stigma in the victim can make the victim to commit a more serious offense so as to conform to the label in the society. The role of the criminal justice system is to dispense justice and fairness in all their dealings, so as to make the society a better place to live in (Clinard & Meier, 2015). Therefore, the society can only be a good place to live in only when morality is upheld. The Law enforcement careers come with a number of duties and responsibilities for which moral behavior is mandatory. The criminal justice officials should, therefore, be independent in all their undertakings so as to avoid being compromised by the majority members in the society for favoritism purposes.
We live in a society whereby the due process is believed to be protecting individuals from the violation of the law and in which certain freedoms are expected. Therefore, we expect law enforcement officers to use their discretion with due process in mind. Every individual in the society must, therefore, be treated equally in the justice system. The decisions of the criminal justice officials should therefore not be compromised by the dominant members of the society. Of more importance is that criminal justice system officers have the power to deprive people of their freedom.
It is critical that law enforcement officials possess moral character so that their decisions become balanced and fair in the case rulings or prosecution before they label an individual as deviant. The law enforcement officials should also understand that some dominant members in the society label their subordinates as a result of conflicts between them and minority members. Therefore, they must put into consideration, all the factors that led to the label, and then critically make a decision regarding the issue.
The criminal justice officials; the Police officers, should always conduct a proper investigation against the suspects before labeling them as deviant members in the society. The investigation goes hand in hand with the sufficient evidence collected from various necessary sources to prove that indeed the suspect committed the crime in question (Clinard & Meier, 2015). There are those individuals in the society who commit some acts and still go scot free; without being noticed, punished and even without being labeled as deviant or delinquent members in the society. The police should, therefore, conduct a thorough investigation and search of the relevant suspects of a given crime committed in the society before they label an individual who may sometimes be innocent about the crime in question.
There are various avenues of employing force by the criminal justice officials. The use of force can only be applied when the Police want to affect the arrest and the suspect is evading arrest. Some Police officers abuse the use of force. They are always brutal to a given group of people in the society. Even when Police brutality results in the death of the suspect, it is always very rare to hear that they are charged with a crime of murder in this situation, and charged with murder on such a case, the justice system will rush the case so fast as to dispose of it. Majorly, this is to confuse the public or blindfold them that there is justice in practice (Clinard & Meier, 2015).
Literature Review
In order to highlight further adverse effects of criminal labeling, I would like to consider the labeling theory and correctional rehabilitation by Cullen & Johnson (2017). In this literature review Cullen & Johnson reveal that labeling can change the way an individual behaves throughout their lives most likely if hat individual finds it difficult to bear the label. According to Cullen & Johnson, many people within the society believe that engaging in criminal activity does in fact break the law. A great case study that can be utilized show the negative effects that labeling has on individual is the Willie Bosket case and how it ties into the labeling theory. Willie Bosket is a prime example that shows how an individual’s life can be impacted by negative labels that were used to describe him.
At the age of 6 years of is when Willie Bosket first experienced negative labels from his mother. His father was a well-known criminal who spent years in the criminal justice systems and his mother would remind him that he was just like his father. Other family members also contributed to his mother’s behavior, because they would reiterate to him that he will not be successful in life. Family members would let him know that his actions were bad just like his fathers. As a result of their action, the negative labels resulted in him alienating himself from his family and changing the wat that he viewed himself and amplified his delinquency during childhood. Labeling theorist would explain Willie’s behavior change in behavior to be known as reflected appraisal. Delinquent acts that he engaged in as a child such as stealing, and truancy were a direct result of how his family always placed negative labels on him.
As Willie got older he continued to engage in delinquent acts which resulted in him ending up in the juvenile justice system and the labeling continued. This time the labeling came from child care workers, social workers, and clinicians. “Willie often heard comments like “You’re turning out to be quite a problem,” and man you crazy”(Butterfield, p. 52). The labeling that Willie received from the juvenile justice system played a great contribution to him engaging in more serious and violent crimes such as murder and armed robbery.
Apparently it became embedded in Willie Boskets head that he was a bad person that was on his way to prison. Due to the negative labeling that he received from the juvenile justice systems and other social control agents it shaped and molded him to be a bad person. He once told a psychiatrist that he was going to follow his fathers’ footsteps and end up in jail just like him. Willie Bosket felt that since the world expected him to be a monster then that’s how he was going to act, just like a monster. Labeling soon took of Willie’s thinking patterns. Everyone around him labeled him as a negative person so in turn he believed that he was a negative person. In the beginning Willie blamed others for his action, but eventually he then blamed himself and took on responsibility for his actions.
There are many factors that contributed to Willie Boskets actions in terms to labeling. These factors are as follows; self-labeling, secondary deviance, and reflected appraisal. Reflected appraisal occurred when Willie Boskett started to see himself in the same manner that others viewed him in. All of the deviant activity that Willie engaged in at a young age was due to him being viewed in a negative way by members of his family. Self-labeling is a direct result of being negatively labeled. “When self-labeling occurs, individuals believe that others view them as negative, and take on that type of attitude that reflects this label.” (Siegel, p. 186). By being negatively labeled Willie Boskett felt that the only place he belonged was in the criminal justice system with other who was just like him that created deviants act.
Willie environment shaped him to become the deviant induvial as he transitioned into adulthood. Studies show that children gown up to be a product of their environment.
The positive correlation between negative adult behavior and the past legal system involvement has been associated with labeling theory. The repercussions examined are focused on adolescent youth among the foster youth venturing into the outside world after attaining adulthood status. The Midwest study from the Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth indicated that youth exiting foster care less likely to be employed by age 21. Additionally, they are more predisposed to commit crimes at the same age (Courtney & Lee, 2015). After exiting care, former foster care youths are more likely to experience social exclusion as a result of legal system involvement (Courtney & Lee, 2015).
Labeling has been observed to have negative consequence on the adult life of former foster care youth. The social and personal impacts as a result of juvenile legal system involvement have been supported by both empirical and theoretical studies which include but not limited to:
Adulthood Criminal Tendencies: Theoretical Approach
Recent hypotheses have tried to attribute labeling as the foundation of the whole process of social exclusion leading to future challenges of employment and educational opportunities. But another primary hypothesis is that the unfavorable social label has the capacity to push one into committing crime (Paternoster & Iovanni, 1989; Sampson & Laub, 1997, as cited in Courtney & Lee, 2015). Social exclusion will later culminate into someone seeking to distance himself from the society and facing stigmatization as a result (Bernburg, 2009, as cited in Courtney & Lee, 2015). The evidence of labeling therefore has a direct attribution to the deviant behavior in the adult life and other consequences such as social exclusion and sidelining in the society (Courtney & Lee, 2015). The theory, however, has not been proven to apply to foster youth attaining adulthood status.
Adulthood Criminal Tendencies: Empirical Approach
A case study, analysis of results from Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth of 732 youths from Iowa, Wisconsin and Illinois revealed the proximate relationship between delinquency and past juvenile legal system involvement (Courtney & Lee, 2015). The results indicated that the youth aged 21 who reported juvenile legal system involvement also reported significant levels of delinquency. The results, however, showed lower levels at ages 23 or 24 (Courtney & Lee, 2015). Additional other covariates such as histories of sexual abuse and neglect and more foster care attention all showed a significant contribution to the future criminal tendencies (Courtney & Lee, 2015).
Social Exclusion
Labeling theory has been hypothesized to contribute to social exclusion though in a limited way. The situation where one drops out of high school and subsequent failure to graduate has been attributed to loose bond with the learning institution. It is also linked with the incarceration experience as a juvenile (Hjalmarsson, 2008; Kirk & Sampson, 2013, as cited in Courtney & Lee, 2015). Drug use, delinquency, high unemployment rates and low high school graduation was linked to juvenile incarceration and labeling through a simple police contact (Bernburg &Krohn, 2003, as cited in Courtney & Lee, 2015). Foster youth exiting the care are the most vulnerable with inadequate justice system representation. The state, however, bears the responsibility of a parent follows the principle of parens patriae (Courtney, 2009, as cited in Courtney & Lee, 2015)
Common Stereotypes that are attached to labeled individuals
Stereotyping has a major negative impact on criminal labeling. When individuals are released back in society from the criminal justice system that are already disadvantaged because they now fall victim to being stereotyped. Stereotyping normally occurs when an individual is automatically judged without getting to know that individual. Some common stereotypes that most offenders are labeled with are being angry, poor and uneducated individuals. Members of society tend to look down on them because they feel as if they are not an asset to society and they fear that they will continue to conduct and partake in delinquent acts. Because of these stereotypes, offender are often avoided by other members of society. When these particular individuals are stereotyped and often avoided, they fall victim to the stereotype threat. As a result they are not able to perform at their full potential because they are stressed and overwhelmed with feeling of worry and anxiety.
Re-Integration Process
When an individual has served time in the criminal justice system, it means that they have paid their debt to society. True enough, everybody is not able to be rehabilitated but for the most part others are known to be successful. Re-integrating back into society upon release from the criminal justice system can be a challenging for most due to stereotypes and criminal labeling. When an individual is convicted of a felony they are stripped of their civil rights. They lose a great amount of privileges that most citizens in good standing are entitled to. Some of these privileges include; the right to have a firearm in their possession, the right to traveling abroad, jury duty, employment in certain fields, and parental benefits. The most common right that many lose is the right to vote; yet it is all based off of what state that particular individual resides in.
Upon release from the criminal justice system, most offenders come out with the mind frame that they have learned from their mistakes and they are going to make a better life for themselves. A minor problem that offenders face is forming social bonds and establishing relationships with others. Major problems that they are faced with are finding adequate employment, housing, and support. To make matters worse a lot of offender’s lack education and job skills that can benefit them when they are released from the criminal justice system.
A majority of offenders held jobs prior to being incarcerated, however offenders are faced with many barriers in regards to employment upon release. When seeking employment, offenders have to report that they have been convicted of a felony which can weaken their chances of finding employment. When offenders are incarcerated for long periods of time, it results in them weakening their social contacts that could have the potential to lead to finding employment upon their release date. Other barriers that ex-offenders face in finding and keeping a job include the lack of recent job experiences, a lessening of job-related skills and transportation difficulties (Christy) Because of all of these barriers, unemployment rates are high for offenders. When these offenders have a legal and legitimate job the chances of recidivism is less likely to occur.
Offenders are in strong need of support when they are released from the criminal justice system. When they don’t have a good support system they tend to link up with others who are labeled and in turn resort to deviant behavior because that is all they know. Labeled individuals tend to find themselves turning to other individuals who are similarly stigmatized for support and companionship. These same individuals are known to be isolated from conventional society, which can result in them feeling as if they are outcast and locked into a deviant career.
Recidivism
The bottom line up front is society does not allow offenders a second chance. One of the primary reasons labeling can continue to cause damage because it increases the chances for recidivism. Recidivism is commonly described as an ex-offenders’ relapse back into criminal behavior. Surprisingly, life for ex-offenders tends to be more difficult that it was while they were incarcerated. Recidivism rates would not be as high if these ex-offenders were not labeled by members of society. Since 1980, the United States has experienced a dramatic increase in its correction population. Imprisonment rates have risen from just over 300,00 in 1980 to more than 1.5 million in 2014 representing an increase of more than 400% (Carson, 2015).
There are many actions that can be implemented to alleviate the chances of recidivism in first time offenders. Inmates have a lot of time on their hand when they are incarcerated. While in these facilities they are provided the opportunity to participate in recidivism reducing programs. Some of these programs include vocational training, anger management, drug treatment and other educational programs. The things that individuals struggle with the most when released from the criminal justice system are housing arrangements, medical and drug treatment, and last finding a place of employment. Not have these things can become very stressful and result in life being a challenge to that ex-offender.
There are many measures that can be implemented to help offenders reduce their chances of entering back into the criminal justice system. Judges play a major role in alleviating the chances of recidivism. For example, in, in the state of Florida, judges are given the opportunity to withhold adjunction of guilt of those personnel who have been found guilty of a felony, yet they are sentenced to probation. “Reconviction data for 95,919 men and women who were adjucated are significantly more likely to recidivate in 2 years, than those who are not Chiricos, Barrick, Bales, Bontrager, 2007).
Another way that recidivism rates can be reduced is through parole. Parole officers play a vital role in the success of ex-offenders. Parole was originally meant to ease an offender’s re-integration back into society by assisting them with help in finding employment and housing. Parole is said to have both a negative and positive impact on the ex-offender. It is imperative that parole officers have a good rapport with their parolees. When there is not a good rapport the ex-offender will be less likely to comply with the guidelines and procedures that are given to them. An important caveat to the relationship between rapport and recidivism is the amount of contact that a parole officer has with his or her assigned parolee (Visher, Winterfield, & Coggeshall, 2005).)
Method
Prior research suggest that the parolee-parole officer relationship may play a critical role in reducing recidivism and enhancing parolee success (Visher, Winterfield, & Coggeshall, 2005). In order to further validate this statement I will examine a research study that collected data from serious and violent offenders over the initial 15 months after they were released from the criminal justice system. In this study researchers asked the offenders (a) how does the parolees’ perception of rapport with their officer predict recidivism? and (b) does type of rapport, supportive or non-supportive, differently impact the relationship between contact amount and type and recidivism? (Visher, Winterfield, & Coggeshall, 2005).
The data from this study was pulled from Serious and Violent Offender Reentry (SVORI) by conducting a total of four interviews with inmates who were about to be released from the criminal justice system. Participants in this study were both adult male and female offenders. The first interview was conducted while they were incarcerated and it gave the offenders the opportunity to speak on their experiences and their plans upon release; follow up interviews were conducted at 3, 9, and 15 months in order to document their experiences after being released and relationships with various support groups such as family, friends, and parole officers.
With recidivism being the dependent variable and supportive rapport and non-supportive rapport being the independent variables, researchers were able to find that the offenders that had an great rapport with their parole officers had an better chance at re-integrating back into society. In fact the study showed that parolees that had a great rapport with their parole officers had lower rates of recidivism compared to those who did not. Parolees who met with their parole officer at least once a month, regardless of the type of meeting, were less likely to recidivate than their counterparts; their odds of recidivating were approximately 47% lower than their counterparts (Visher, Winterfield, & Coggeshall, 2005). In conclusion, parole officers play a huge part in a offender’s reintegration process and great rapport between a parolee and the parole officer is built primarily on trust. When great bonds aren’t established recidivism rates typically are shown to be higher.
Data Collection
The article tends to highlight this aspect succinctly through data and study methods. For instance, secondary deviance among many offenders has negative labels and stigma largely to blame. Criminal justice system sometimes perpetuates criminal recidivism by stigmatizing and labeling incarcerated offenders. Majority of offenders after negative stigmatization normally attempt to change their behavior to match and justify the accorded label. For example, reflected appraisals of parents, teachers, and peers usually bear a significant influence on delinquent behavior among juveniles (Asencio & Burke, 2011). The same also applies to other deviant behavior among juveniles in the society. This needs to change to avoid further recurrence of crime practices.
Reflected views also influences self- views, behavior, and conduct of people such that a well-behaved individual may change to a criminal depending on changes in the surrounding environment. For example, a normal and well-behaved person if abducted by terrorists would interact with this new environment and system to subsequently change an identity to a terrorist sympathizer and finally to a criminal terrorist. Additionally, an incarcerated individual who views him or herself as a criminal is most likely to engage in criminal activities as compared to one with a contrasting perception. Criminal identity would significantly weaken with time among criminal offenders with positive perception about self-views (Asencio & Burke, 2011). This is shown clearly among imprisoned individuals engaged in a drug rehabilitation program in this article.
Going by research findings from this article, it is prudent for all prisoners as well as prison officials to engage in positive perceptions. Positive perceptions and views largely contribute to improved behavior, identity and general conduct of all. This would contribute to reduced secondary offences among prisoners (Asencio & Burke, 2011). This greatly helps in enhancing correction and rehabilitation efforts of prison facilities, since communal as well as personal perception matters a lot. Encouraging labeling and stereotypical tendencies among criminal offenders only contributes towards deepening the criminality crisis. Labeling would encourage low motivation, low self-esteem, depression and withdrawal habits, which may lead to commission of even more severe criminal activities.
Human identity and behavior is a socially constructed phenomenon that finds shape largely from the circumstances prevailing around an individual’s environment. Consequently, labeling and stigmatizing of incarcerated offenders contributes towards poor social formation of behavior and identity, which bears a negative effect. A stereotypically dominated environment breeds feelings of demotivation, low self-esteem, depression and withdrawal, which may lead to recidivism. Correction and rehabilitation officials should therefore focus more on discouraging labeling to enhance correction and rehabilitation efforts of such facilities for the overall good of the society.
References
Akers, R. (2017). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Routledge.
Asencio, E. K., & Burke, P. J. (2011). Does incarceration change the criminal identity? A synthesis of labeling and identity theory perspectives on identity change. Sociological Perspectives, 54(2), 163-182.
CHIRICOS, T., BARRICK, K., BALES, W., & BONTRAGER, S. (2007). The labeling of convicted felons and its consequences for recidivism. Criminology, 45(3), 547-581. Doc:10.1111/ Offenders are accustomed to spending countless time with others who share the same things in common with them.
Clinard, M. B., & Meier, R. F. (2015). Sociology of deviant behavior. Nelson Education.
Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2017). Labeling theory and correctional rehabilitation: Beyond unanticipated consequences. In Labeling Theory (pp. 63-85). Routledge.
Farrington, D. P., & Murray, J. (2017). Empirical tests of labeling theory in criminology. In Labeling Theory (pp. 1-9). Routledge.
Hirschi, T. (2017). On the compatibility of rational choice and social control theories of crime. In The reasoning criminal (pp. 105-118). Routledge.
Lee, J., Courtney, E. M.(2015). Labeling and the Effect of Adolescent Legal System
Involvement on Adult Outcomes for Foster Youth Aging Out of Care. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 85 (5), 441-451. doi.10.1037/ort0000090
Paetzold, R. L., & Rholes, W. S. (2017). Wal-Mart v. Dukes: Justice Scalia and Systemic Disparate Treatment Theory. Emp. Rts. & Emp. Pol'y J., 21, 115.
Visher, C. A., Winterfield, L., & Coggeshall, M. B. (2005). Ex-offender employment programs and recidivism: A meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(3), 295-316. doi:10.1007/s11292-005-8127-x