Labeling Theory: Juvenile Delinquency And Crime

What makes some acts and some people deviant or criminal? Theorists attempted to shift the focus of criminology and answer the questions above. Shifting towards the effects of individuals in power responding to behavior in society in a negative way. These theorists became known as “labeling theorists”. The theorists argue that policies are implemented to address social conditions, and in turn, are collectively defined by society. Issues such as juvenile delinquency and crime have long been viewed as social problems. Labeling theory serves as a simple alternative, shifting view from conventional criminological theories in how it defines deviance, and how to address juvenile delinquency. Against formal social control, labeling theory suggests

The style of thinking emphasizes that deviants, like people who are more conformist, live in a world that is socially constructed. Certain identities are available and others not available; some behaviors get you prestige and respect while others are deprecated or punished, and the behaviors that are approved or punished may change dramatically over time. It is my belief that labeling theory draws a lot of its own thought from symbolic interactionism. Not only does the idea show how the labeling can exist in our communities but further supports it with the negative and positive reactions to behaviours that were outlined in the description. The idea that negative actions result in negative reactions and possibly punished only further exemplifies labeling theory as in our current society we depend on social aspects and a negative effect of that could be being labeled as deviant. Deviants are formed by society as Durkheim showcases with his example of the “society of saints” which he states that even in a society of exemplary individuals or ‘saints’ where crime as our society defines it may not be present, “faults which appear tolerable to the layman will create there the same scandal that the ordinary offense does in ordinary consciousness.” So assuming that one would be considered by a ‘deviant’ by society then one will also be labeled as a deviant as a negative result of whatever the ‘deviant’ did to reward

In the mid-1970s the theory came under attack. Many conflict theorists and positivists despised the theory and believed it was ignoring the concept of deviance. The theorists believed that deviance is rooted in our society and that secondary deviance was useless, and a terrible concept for sociologists. This criticism has continued to challenge labeling theorists due to the recent empirical evidence on the theory. Two hypotheses have been created for this theory, the status characteristics hypothesis explains how individual attributes affect the choice of who is and who is not labeled, and the secondary deviance hypothesis which argues that negative labels cause future deviance. The criticism stems from the argument that labeling theory does not require status characteristics be the most important factor in labeling. Secondary deviance implies a long, causal chain of events. Most research conducted on labeling theory appears to take for granted that this process is a given, however, it issues problems to those who assume such without proper support. These beliefs lack societal facts, and the fact is, some individuals are more vulnerable to labeling and therefore are more susceptible to the problems that may occur as a result of being labeled. This can happen for a number of diverse reasons, such as those who have had a socially awkward past and have been outcasted by their community. Due to the vast