Module 5 Assignment
Aleramz16
SCHRAM_PPT_CH11-11.pptxChapter 11
Labeling theory and conflict/Marxist/radical theories of crime
Labeling theory
Focuses on such questions as
Who applies the deviant label to whom?
Who establishes and enforces the rules?
Foundation of labeling theory
Influenced by symbolic interactionism
Charles Horton Cooley
William I. Thomas
George Herbert Mead
Erving Goffman
Frank Tannenbaum
Crime and the Community (1938)
Many scholars trace the origins of the labeling perspective to this publication.
Focused on the process that occurs after an individual has been caught and designated as having violated the law.
Dramatization of evil
The community’s point of view, or the social reaction to illegal behavior.
The first dramatization of evil has a greater influence on “making the criminal” than any other experience.
Edwin M. Lemert
Social Pathology (1951)
Primary deviance
Behavior that is situation or occasional.
A person engaging in primary deviant behavior perceives the behavior as bad; this individual, however, does not perceive himself or herself as being a bad person.
Secondary deviance
Deviant behavior or social roles based on it, which becomes a means of defense, attack, or adaptation to the overt and covert problems created by the societal reaction to primary deviation.
A key aspect to secondary deviance is not only society’s reaction to the individual’s behavior, but the individual’s response to that reaction.
Howard S. Becker
Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance (1963)
Social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction is considered deviance and by applying those rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders.
Typology of deviant behavior:
| Obedient Behavior | Rule-Breaking Behavior | |
| Perceived as deviant | Falsely accused | Pure deviant |
| Not perceived as deviant | Conforming | Secret deviant |
Edwin M. Schur
Addressed some of the criticisms and misunderstandings of the labeling perspective.
Key factors in the labeling process:
Stereotyping
Retrospective interpretation
Negotiation
Basic assumptions of labeling theory
No act is intrinsically criminal.
Criminal definitions are enforced in the interest of the powerful.
A person does not become a criminal by violating the law.
Basic assumptions of labeling theory
The practice of dichotomizing individuals into criminal and noncriminal groups is contrary to common sense and research.
Only a few persons are caught in violating the law even though many individuals may be equally guilty.
While the sanctions used in law enforcement are directed against the individual and not just the criminal act, the penalties for such an act vary according to the characteristics of the offender.
Basic assumptions of labeling theory
Criminal sanctions also vary according to other characteristics of the offender.
Criminal justice is founded on a stereotyped conception of the criminal as a pariah—a willful wrongdoer who is morally bad and deserving of the community’s condemnation.
Confronted by public condemnation and the label of an evil man, an offender may find it difficult to maintain a favorable image of himself.
Research on labeling theory
The process of deviance amplification due to labeling an individual a “criminal” or a “delinquent.”
Schwartz and Skolnick examined the effect of an employee’s criminal court record and the reaction of potential employers.
The results revealed that only one employer demonstrated an interest in the convicted folder, three in the tried-but-acquitted folder, six in the tried-and-acquitted (with the letter from the judge), and nine in the no-criminal-record folder.
Rosenhan examined how the label of “insanity” can influence the behavior and perceptions of hospital staff.
Eight individuals from various background, but deemed “sane,” applied for admission to different mental hospitals.
Critiques of labeling theory
The various propositions to be tested are not adequately specified.
Due to the lack of satisfactory data and empirical research, evaluating the adequacy of labeling theory has been difficult.
Labeling theory focuses on the reaction to criminal and/or deviant behavior. It avoids the question of causation.
Labeling theory focuses on the “reactors” rather than the “actors.”
Labeling should be viewed as a perspective rather than a theory.
Conflict perspectives
The conservative (pluralist) conflict perspectives
The primary focus of conservative (pluralist) conflict theories is power and the use of that power; this theoretical framework views society as consisting of diverse interest groups competing for power.
George Vold
Crimes arising from political protest,
Crimes resulting from labor disputes,
Crimes arising from disputes between and within competing unions, and
Crimes arising from racial and ethnic clashes.
Austin Turk
Richard Quinney
Conflict perspectives
Austin Turk
Interactions that label a criminal are influenced by various social factors.
the congruence of cultural and social norms.
level of organization
the level of sophistication of both the authorities and the subjects.
conflict is more likely when both authorities and subjects are organized.
power differential between enforcers and violators.
the enforcers have a great deal of power compared to the resisters.
realism of moves is another essential social factor.
the enforcers or resisters engage in inappropriate or unsuitable behavior
Conflict perspectives
Richard Quinney
Six propositions that describe the social reality of crime:
Proposition 1 (Definition of Crime)
Proposition 2 (Formulation of Criminal Definitions)
Proposition 3 (Application of Criminal Definitions)
Proposition 4 (Development of Behavior Patterns in Relation to Criminal Definitions)
Proposition 5 (Construction of Criminal Conception)
Proposition 6 (The Social Reality of Crime)
Conflict perspectives
The radical conflict perspectives
This theoretical framework views contemporary society as being dominated by a unified, capitalist ruling class.
Marxist criminology
Argued that societies are characterized by class struggles.
William Chambliss and Robert Seidman
Colvin and Pauly’s integrated structural-Marxist theory
Additional explanations of crime using a Marxist framework
In their book Adolescent Subcultures and Delinquency, Herman Schwendinger and Julia Siegel Schwendinger incorporated a Marxist framework to explain adolescent subcultures and delinquency.
Steven Spitzer applied a Marxian perspective to understanding deviance.
Research on conflict theories
Research using a conflict perspective can be categorized into one of two broad approaches:
Studies examining laws that are formulated in the interests of those in power
Studies examining the differential processing of certain individuals in the criminal justice system
Critiques of conflict perspectives
While there have been advancements in research methodologies, especially with the use of more sophisticated techniques using multivariate analyses, there is still a fundamental problem when testing conflict theory; specifically, a similar finding may be interpreted in more than one way.
Some research studies testing conflict theory are unable to distinguish between alternative explanations.
Few attempts have been made to develop and test well-constructed conflict theories.
Additional critical theories
Peacemaking criminology
Additional critical theories
Restorative justice perspective
Additional critical theories
Left realism
Realism contends that previous criminological theories have been incomplete in that they only emphasize one part of the square of crime: the state (as in labeling theory, neo-classicism), the public (as in control theory), the offender (as in positivism) or the victim (as in victimology).
Policies
A major policy implication of labeling research is that if deviance amplification occurs, the criminal justice agency, especially the juvenile justice system, should strive to divert certain individuals from formal processing to avoid the negative effects of such labeling.
Policies
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 and the Omnibus Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988
These sentencing laws used a 100:1 quantity ratio between the amount of crack and powder cocaine needed to instigate mandatory sentences for trafficking as well as minimum penalties for simple possession of crack cocaine.
