How does the proposition that “state intervention is criminogenic” “hold up” to scrutiny in labeling theory?
Chapter 7
The Irony of State Intervention:
Labeling Theory
1
Introduction
Rather than diminishing criminal involvement, state intervention--labeling and reacting to offenders as “criminals” and “ex-felons”--can have the unanticipated and ironic consequence of deepening the very behavior it was meant to halt
The criminal justice system is a major factor in anchoring people in criminal careers
2
2
Introduction
State intervention is dangerously criminogenic
Grew rapidly in popularity in the 1960s and 1970s
2.2 million American in state and federal prison and nearly 5 million on probation and parole
3
3
The Social Construction of Crime
Labeling theorists urged criminologists to surrender the idea that behaviors are somehow inherently criminal or deviant
What makes an act criminal is not the harm it incurs but rather whether this label is conferred on the act by the state
It is the nature of society that determines whether a crime has occurred
Changes over time, across societies, and so on
4
4
The Social Construction of Crime
Labeling theorists argued that criminologists could ill afford to neglect the nature and effects of societal reaction, particularly when the state was the labeling agent
Origins of criminal labels
Marijuana--Howard Becker--Federal Bureau of Narcotics
Delinquency--Andrew Platt--affluent women
Child abuse--Stephan Pfohl--pediatric radiologists
“Wife-beating”--Kathleen Tierney--media and feminist organizations
5
5
The Social Construction of Crime
What the state designated as criminal was not a constant but rather the result of concrete efforts by men and women to construct a different reality
Behaviors criminalized only when the social context is ripe for change and groups exist that were sufficiently motivated and powerful to bring about legal reform
6
6
The Social Construction of Crime
A lawbreaker’s behavior is only one factor in determining whether a criminal label is conferred
Many studies illustrate this point:
Black Panther bumper sticker study (Heusenstamm, 1975)
Juveniles’ demeanor (Piliavin & Briar, 1964)
Customers reporting shoplifting (Steffensmeier & Terry, 1973)
“Saints” and “Roughnecks” (Chambliss, 1973)
7
7
The Social Construction of Crime
The nature of state criminal intervention is not simply a matter of an objective response to illegal behavior but rather is shaped intimately by a range of extralegal contingencies
Influenced by individual characteristics such as race, class, and gender
Rates of labeling also vary according to the resources available to and political demands placed on police and other criminal justice organizations
8
8
The Social Construction of Crime
Official measures of crime depend not only on how many offenses are committed but also on the arrest practices of police
Official crime statistics may be inaccurate to the extent they reflect a systematic bias in enforcement against certain groups or fluctuations in the willingness of police to enforce certain laws
Labeling and reacting to people as criminals composed the major source of chronic involvement in illegal activity
9
9
Labeling as Criminogenic: Creating Career Criminals
Argued that causal analysis should commence not with offenders and their environments but rather with the societal reaction that other people--including state officials--have toward offenders
Labeling and treating lawbreakers as criminals have the unanticipated consequence of creating the very behavior they were meant to prevent
10
10
Early Statements of Labeling Theory
The idea that criminal justice intervention can deepen criminality did not originate in the 1960s
Bentham-- prisons are academies of crime
Lombroso--prisons create habitual criminals
Bonger--prisons create professional criminals
Tannenbaum was the earliest scholar to state in general terms the principle that state intervention is criminogenic because it “dramatizes evil”
Being caught and punished changes the person’s world and the person reconsiders his/her identity; the person is tagged, defined, and treated as a criminal and acts accordingly
11
11
Labeling as Criminogenic: Creating Career Criminals
In 1951, Lemert further formalized these insights when he distinguished between two types of deviance:
Primary
Arises from sociocultural and psychological sources
Occurs when the offender tries to rationalize the behavior as a temporary aberration or sees it as part of a socially acceptable role
Do not see self as a deviant
12
12
Labeling as Criminogenic: Creating Career Criminals
In 1951, Lemert further formalized these insights when he distinguished between two types of deviance:
Secondary
Precipitated by the responses of others to the initial proscribed conduct.
As societal reaction intensifies progressively with each act of primary deviance, the offender becomes stigmatized through “name calling, labeling, or stereotyping”
Often accepts the deviant status
13
13
Labeling as a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Howard Becker, Kai Erikson, and John Kitsuse argued most convincingly that societal reaction is integral to the creation of crime and deviance
These labeling theorists borrowed Merton’s concept of “self-fulfilling prophecy”
A false definition of the situation evoking a new behavior which makes the originally false conception come true”
14
14
Labeling as a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Labeling scholars argued that most offenders are defined falsely as criminal
The falseness in definition is tied to the fact that criminal labels, once conferred, do not simply provide a social judgment of the offenders’ behavior; they also publicly degrade the offenders’ moral character
The act and the actor are bad and the person would soon be in trouble again
15
15
Labeling as a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
The meaning of the label “criminal” in our society leads citizens to make assumptions about offenders that are wrong or only partially accurate
These assumptions are consequential because they shape how people react to offenders
Criminal becomes the person’s master status or controlling public identification
In the face of repeated designation as a criminal, the person internalized the public definition of a deviant
16
16
Labeling as a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Additionally, once labeled as a criminal, often the person is cut off from previous prosocial relationships
One solution to being a social pariah is to bond together with those of a like status
Accordingly, conditions are conducive for offenders wearing a criminal label to differentially associate with other lawbreakers
Further reinforces antisocial values and provides partners in crime
17
17
Labeling as a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
The abrogation of ties to conventional society is most probable when the state intervention involves institutionalization
Loss of employment, strains on family, contact with other criminals
The ex-convict label limits employment opportunities
18
18
Labeling as a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Assert that the false definition of offenders as permanently criminal and destined for lives of crime fulfills this very prophecy by evoking societal reactions that make conformity difficult and criminality necessary, if not attractive
The labeling process stabilizes participation in illegal roles and turns those marginally involved in crime into chronic offenders
19
19
Assessing Labeling Theory
Radical and Conflict Criminology Criticism
Labeling theorists did not go far enough in their analysis
Argued that the origins and application of criminal labels were influenced fundamentally by inequities rooted in the very structure of capitalism
Behaviors of the powerful are not criminalized
20
20
Assessing Labeling Theory
Positivists’ Criticism
Labeling theory’s major tenets wilted when subjected to empirical test
The perspective’s popularity had less to do with its empirical adequacy and more to do with its voicing a provocative message that meshed with the social times
Brought data to bear on two principal propositions
Extralegal factors, not behavior alone, shaped who was labeled
Labeling increased criminal involvement
21
21
Assessing Labeling Theory
Extralegal Factors Proposition
Seriousness of the crime, not the offender’s social background, is the largest determinant of labeling by police and courts
However, Sampson uncovered an “ecological bias” in police control of juveniles
Police were found to be more likely to make arrests in poor neighborhoods than in more affluent neighborhoods
22
22
Assessing Labeling Theory
Extralegal Factors Proposition
The controversy over labeling has resurfaced in the recent debate over “racial profiling”
Minority drivers appear to be stopped, cited, searched, arrested, and have force used against them more often
Unclear if this is due to individual prejudice or more institutionalized practices
Police spoke with “consistently less respect” toward Black as opposed to White drivers
Police killings of unarmed Black men
Consistent with labeling theory, whether individuals are subjected to social control and potentially have a criminal label attached to them is determined by more than simple legal factors
23
23
Assessing Labeling Theory
Extralegal Factors Proposition
Three theoretical perspectives concerning social reaction have potential to enrich the labeling paradigm
Deployment theory--police are more likely to arrest minorities because they are more likely to be deployed in greater numbers in inner-city neighborhoods whose residents are disproportionately people of color
Racial threat theory--level of social control exercised by the majority group will increase as the number of minorities in an area grows
Focal concerns theory--criminal justice officials make decisions based upon blameworthiness, protection of the community, and practical constraints that serve as cognitive filters or perceptual shorthand in sentencing
24
Assessing Labeling Theory
Extralegal Factors Proposition
These three theoretical perspectives move labeling theory beyond the study of whether the extralegal factors matter
Attempt to understand why and under what conditions discrimination might occur
25
Assessing Labeling Theory
State Intervention Is Criminogenic Proposition
Many offenders become deeply involved in crime before coming to the attention of criminal justice officials
Offenders become extensively involved in illegalities such as corporate crime, political corruption, wife battering, and sexual abuse without ever being subjected to criminal sanctioning
26
26
Tests of Labeling Theory
Tests of labeling theory have produced mixed results
First, some argue criminal justice labeling has no effect
State intervention is just a reaction to criminal involvement, not a cause of it
27
27
Tests of Labeling Theory
Tests of labeling theory have produced mixed results
Second, criminal justice sanctions are criminogenic under different circumstances
Effect of police officers’ mandatory arrest of batterers varies according to whether the batterers are employed
A meta-analysis has shown juvenile justice processing has no crime control effect, rather increases criminal involvement
Labeling as a felon has iatrogenic effects
Prison sanctions and recidivism are positively related
28
28
Future Directions in Labeling Theory
Specify more carefully how different types of state intervention impact the lives of different types of offenders
Conduct longitudinal research
29
29
Labeling Theory in Context
During the early 1960s, optimism ran high and people had confidence in the government
As the 1960s unfolded, this optimism declined
Most disquieting was the government’s response to political protest
The state faced a “legitimacy crisis”; citizens no longer trusted the motives or competence of government officials
This atmosphere created a ripe environment for harvesting a theory that blamed the state for the crime problem
30
30
The Consequences of Theory: Policy Implications
Labeling theory has a profound impact on social policy
The prescription for policy change was eminently logical and straightforward: If state intervention causes crime, then steps should be taken to limit it
Four policies:
Decriminalization
Diversion
Due process
Deinstitutionalization
31
31
Decriminalization
The criminalization of victimless deviance, such as drug use, creates crime in various ways
The mere existence of the laws turns those who participate in the behavior into candidates for arrest and criminal justice processing
It often drives them to commit related offenses
It creates a lucrative illicit market
The existence of the illicit market fosters strong incentives for the corruption of law enforcement officials
32
32
Decriminalization
Labeling theorists argued for the prudent use of decriminalization--the removal of many forms of conduct from the scope of the criminal law
The goal is to limit the law’s reach
Seen with abortion laws, marijuana laws, the criminal status of pornographic material, and gambling laws
33
33
Diversion
Divert from the criminal justice sanction
Some examples of diversion:
Youth service bureaus, welfare agencies, and special schools
Privately run mental health agencies, community substance abuse programs, government sponsored job training classes
Home incarceration
34
34
Diversion
Originally conceived as an alternative to involvement in the criminal justice system or to incarceration, diversion programs most often have functioned as add-ons to the system
Diversion has “widened the net” of state control by creating a “system with an even greater reach”
However, drug and other specialty courts show some promise
35
35
Due Process
Labeling theorists also were quick to join the mounting due process movement, which sought to extend to offenders legal protections
Individual justice must give way to a return to the rule of law
Individualized treatment discriminated against the powerless
Punishments should be prescribed by law, and sentences should be determinate
Reduce discretion
36
36
Due Process
Hope that these policies would result in shorter and more equitable sentences and thus would reduce the extent and worst effects of state intervention
Due process has provided offenders with needed protections against state abuse of discretion
However, it remains unclear whether the corresponding attack on rehabilitation has succeeded in creating a system that is less committed to interventionist policies and more committed to humanistic ideals
37
37
Deinstitutionalization
Labeling theorists took special pains to detail the criminogenic effects of incarceration and to vigorously advocate the policy of lessening prison populations through deinstitutionalization
States beginning to implement policies that roll back prison populations and slow their growth
38
38
Extending Labeling Theory
The key issue is not simply whether a sanction is applied but also the quality of the sanction--what actually happens to an offender during the criminal justice process
Two important attempts have been made to develop a theory of how the quality of sanctioning affects re-offending:
Braithwaite’s theory of shame and reintegration
Sherman’s defiance theory
Rose and Clear’s macro-level coerced mobility theory
39
39
Braithwaite’s Theory of Shaming and Crime
Took up the issue of the conditions under which societal reaction increases crime or decreases crime
Legal violations evoke formal attempts by the state and informal efforts by intimates and community members to control the misconduct
40
40
Braithwaite’s Theory of Shaming and Crime
Central to social control is shaming
All processes of expressing disapproval which have the intention or effect of invoking remorse in the person being shamed and/or condemnation by others who become aware of the shaming
Shaming can be:
Disintegrative
Reintegrative
41
41
Braithwaite’s Theory of Shaming and Crime
Disintegrative Shaming
Stigmatizes and excludes, thereby creating a class of outcasts
Branded as a criminal beyond forgiveness which leads to a further entrenchment into crime since denied employment and other legitimate opportunities
Reintegrative Shaming
An illegal act initially evokes community disapproval but then is followed by attempts to reintegrate the offender back into the community through words or gestures of forgiveness
42
42
Braithwaite’s Theory of Shaming and Crime
In this case, shaming has two faces:
It makes certain that the inappropriateness of the misconduct is known to the offender and all observers
It presents an opportunity to restore the offender to membership in the group
43
43
Braithwaite’s Theory of Shaming and Crime
The underlying social context determines the degree to which shaming will be reintegrative or disintegrative
America lacks the cultural and institutional basis that would encourage seeing offenders as part of an interdependent community
Social control has a strong disintegrative quality
Communitarian societies, like Japan, prefer to have reintegrative shaming
44
44
Braithwaite’s Theory of Shaming and Crime
Enriched labeling theory by illuminating not only that shaming (or labeling) varies on its nature and effects but also why this variation ultimately is contingent on the society in which shaming takes place
Braithwaite, Ahmed, and Braithwaite have marshaled evidence from an array of quantitative and qualitative sources consistent with the theory
Self-report studies have yielded promising by mixed results
45
45
Sherman’s Defiance Theory
Began with the observation that labeling theory does not account for the many examples of sanctions reducing crime
Sherman asked: Under what conditions does each type of criminal sanction:
Reduce,
Increase, or
Have no effect on future crimes?
46
46
Sherman’s Defiance Theory
The central concept is that of defiance
The net increase in the prevalence, incidence, or seriousness of future offending against a sanctioning community caused by a proud, shameless reaction to the administration of a criminal sanction
47
47
Sherman’s Defiance Theory
Factors that increase criminality
When offenders have few social bonds to the community, there is little to restrain their defiance, and arising criminal inclinations
Offenders are more likely to be defiant when they perceive the sanction as stigmatizing not their actions but rather the offenders personally
When offenders are treated unfairly or with disrespect, they are more likely to act defiantly
Criminal sanctions are not given legitimacy; rather, the sanctions evoke anger and defiance
48
48
Sherman’s Defiance Theory
Few empirical tests
Existing data sets do not contain measures of the theory’s key components
Of the studies conducted, there has been mixed support
Policy implications
Unless attention is paid to the quality of relationships between inner-city youth and criminal justice representatives, attempts to sanction these offenders may be counterproductive
49
49
Sherman’s Defiance Theory
Factors that increase criminality
When offenders deny or refuse to acknowledge the stigmatizing shame that has been opposed on them, they are more likely to respond with pride and use crime to exact revenge on conventional society
Criminal sanctions can backfire, and through processes such as defiance, create the kind of self-fulfilling prophecy first identified by labeling theorists
50
50
Tyler’s Procedural Justice Theory
Belief in the legitimacy of the criminal justice system is produced by the quality of the actions experienced directly or vicariously by police and court officials
Criminal justice intervention, through its impact on perceived legitimacy, can lead to more or less compliance with the law
51
Tyler’s Procedural Justice Theory
The key quality that determines whether state intervention will increase or decrease legal compliance is whether the actions of police and court officials manifest “procedural justice”
52
Tyler’s Procedural Justice Theory
Procedural justice includes two issues:
Fair decision-making (voice, neutrality)--that is, participatory, neutral, transparent, rule base, consistent decision-making
Fair interpersonal treatment (treatment with dignity/respect; trust in authorities)--that is, treatment involving respect for people; respect for their rights; treatment with dignity and courtesy; care and concern from authorities
53
Tyler’s Procedural Justice Theory
Police scholars and leaders have advocated the use of procedural justice as a means of tempering the negative labeling effects of proactive policing in high-crime areas
Procedural justice is effective in increasing perceived legitimacy and positive views of the police
54
Rose and Clear’s Coerced Mobility Theory
Explored what happens when the government adopts a policy of mass incarceration that disproportionately removes young, minority males from inner cities at the macro- or community-level
Nearly 1 in 10 African Americans aged 26–30 are incarcerated
Conceptualize this incarceration as a form of coerced mobility
A practice that regularly takes large numbers of males out of inner-city communities for prolonged absences
55
55
Rose and Clear’s Coerced Mobility Theory
Theorize that the mass coerced mobility of minority males may well have the unanticipated consequence of increasing, rather than decreasing, a community’s crime rate
Offenders are community liabilities and also community assets
Their incarceration lessens liabilities as well as depleting the community of assets
Removes sources of income, family life, supervision levels, depletes the “marriage pool,” and so on
Many return from prison and import prison cultural values and networks
Additionally, the stigma of incarceration is lessened
The impact on neighborhoods will differ by the area’s affluence and social organization
56
56
Rose and Clear’s Coerced Mobility Theory
State social controls have important secondary effects on family and neighborhood structure
These impede the neighborhood’s capacity for social control
At the ecological level, the side effects of policies intended to fight crime may exacerbate problems that lead to crime in the first place
57
57
Policy Implications: Restorative Justice and Prisoner Reentry
Find ways to blunt the negative, criminogenic effects of criminal justice sanctions
Restorative justice rejects the logic that equates the state’s harming of an offender with victims’ receiving any meaningful sense of justice
58
58
Policy Implications: Restorative Justice and Prisoner Reentry
Advocates of restorative justice suggest that the guiding principle of the criminal sanction should be to decrease harm by restoring:
The victim and
The offender to the community
The goal is to reintegrate the offender into the community
Often through a victim-offender conference
59
59
Policy Implications: Restorative Justice and Prisoner Reentry
In Braithwaite’s terms, restorative justice is built on the premise of reintegrative shaming rather than stigmatizing shaming
However, studies assessing restorative justice are mostly directed toward minor offenders
There are some very promising results but also conflicting findings
Most effects of restorative justice are relatively small but significant
When court-ordered, they have no effect on recidivism; when non-coerced, they show the largest reduction
More effective with low-risk offenders, but other research shows they are more effective with more serious offenders
60
60
Policy Implications: Restorative Justice and Prisoner Reentry
Many offenders leave prison with their criminogenic needs untreated or worsened by their stay behind bars
Within the last decade, there has been a new realization that failing to address prisoner reentry and pursuing a policy of stigmatizing reintegration exacerbate recidivism and pose a threat to public safety
61
61
Policy Implications: Restorative Justice and Prisoner Reentry
Many offenders face collateral consequences or what Alexander (2010) calls “New Jim Crow”
Legalized exclusion in voting, government benefits, and employment requiring state licensure seen especially among African Americans
62
Policy Implications: Restorative Justice and Prisoner Reentry
To combat this problem, we need to:
Start reentry preparation while offenders are in prison
Focus on the challenges and crises that are faced immediately upon release
Provide treatment services and support to facilitate long-term community reintegration
63
63
Conclusion
Labeling theory’s distinctive focus on societal reaction succeeded in sensitizing criminologists to the important insights that the criminal nature of behavior is socially constructed by the response to it and that a variety of factors can shape who comes to bear a criminal label
Also showed sanctions can be criminogenic
Thus, scholars must continue to understand and research differential impact of sanctions
64
64