Crime and Deviance Are the Product of Labelling Processes Essay Sample
When analyzing offense and aberrance. in peculiar the causes of offense. it is frequently utile to look at the grounds behind why people commit offenses in the first topographic point. For interactionists. offense and aberrance is a merchandise of labelling. They believe that when a offense is committed. it is because a public application of a negative description of a powerless person has occurred and that is the ground why a offense has been committed by that person. Labelling is deterministic of your future life. Interactionists reject official statistics on offense. seeing them as little more than a societal building. They maintain that they immensely underestimate the extent of offense and make non show an accurate image of offense in society.
The interactionist Jock Young conducted a participant observation in London on marihuanas usage by flower peoples. In the past hippy use of marihuana was minor and comparatively undistinguished. Over clip. the constabulary started to see the flower peoples as dirty and scruffy. therefore giving them a negative label. Due to this constabulary reaction. the flower peoples united. experiencing different from the remainder of society. They so retreated into little closed groups. cut off from society and pervert norms and values developed. They were treated as foreigners and take to stress and show their differences by going more and more unconventional. Therefore. a aberrant calling developed. Interactionists would reason that because the constabulary had labelled them so negatively they had caused more offense. Jock Young called this deviancy elaboration. Before. the flower peoples had non been doing any problem ; they weren’t aching or trouble oneselfing anyone. until the constabulary labelled them. Once they had been given this label. they couldn’t aid but carry through their maestro position.
Lemert supports Becker’s thoughts on the effects of labelling. He maintains that primary aberrance which has non been labelled has few effects for the person concerned. However. he claims that one time aberrance is labelled it becomes secondary and impacts on the person. e. g. in footings of deriving a maestro position and subsequently developing a ego carry throughing prognostication.
Interactionists see assorted establishments as corroborating the label of aberrance. for illustration mental institutes. Erving Goffman looked at mental institutes and the intervention patients received whilst in at that place. Whilst analyzing these institutes he saw a series of interactions which had a negative consequence on the patients and located force per unit area on them. The effects were that they suffered debasement. humiliation. profanities of ego and went through a chagrin procedure where they were stripped of their individuality. The patients were left without self concepts intending that when they left these institutes they were unable to work in the outside universe. This was because of their label. There are two distinguishable attacks towards mental unwellness. One is the medical theoretical account position. in which people who exhibit marks of eccentric behaviors need to be treated by medical practicians and are acting in this manner because of hormonal instabilities or old distressing experiences. Interactions take the labelling theoretical account attack in that they say mental unwellness does non be
Harmonizing to the latest recidivism statistics. 50 % of felons reoffend. Interactionists would reason that this is because they have been negatively labeled and as a consequence experience the demand to reoffend. Once you have been given a label. they believe that this label sticks with you through your life and you fulfil the prognostication that you have been given. Howard Becker said that one time an act is labelled pervert. you are known as a felon. this is your maestro position ; you are known strictly for your label. for illustration. a drug user will ever be known in the country they live as a drug trader. Self carry throughing occurs due to this maestro label and a aberrant calling develops. Harmonizing to sociologist Roger Roots. due to the increasing cybernation and handiness of condemnable records. a negative impact is happening for recidivism rates as engineering progresss. more and more.
Prior to the computing machine revolution. individuals with condemnable records were frequently able to relocate and get down their lives over with clean slates in new communities. Once they moved to a different country. the slate was wiped clean ; they were treated as normal persons and given all the opportunities that other people have. When you are known as a felon. you are treated otherwise. you aren’t given occupations or places and people treat you otherwise. because of your label. If you are ever seen as a felon. and are non given any opportunities. the likeliness is that you are traveling to recommit offenses merely to acquire by in life. thereby increasing recidivism rates. However. the rates of recidivism in the UK have gone down. this is due to a focal point on rehabilitation and instruction of captives in the UK compared with the US focal point on penalty. disincentive and maintaining potentially unsafe persons off from society.
Recently. in the intelligence it was reported that Gordon Brown wants to “name and shame” young persons with ASBO’s. Currently young persons see their ASBO’s as “badges of honor. ” The program is that every local authorization will be told to print names and exposure of wrongdoers online and elsewhere. Interactionists would strongly oppose this. stating that one time secondary divergence has occurred and offenses are publicly acknowledged. things start to travel downhill. Once people know you are a condemnable. disintegrative shaming occurs. wherein you see disapproval and are hence more likely to go on perpetrating offenses.
If re-integrative shaming was to go on. where the act committed instead than the existent felon is labelled negatively. interactionists such as Braithwaite argue that less offense is likely to go on. because it is non the person who is being disapproved of but it is their actions which are. and that is the issue that needs to be addressed. And is it just to trade name. in this manner. a immature tearaway. who may hold. a twelvemonth or so down the line. atoned for their misbehaviors? In theory. such public earful could impact their employability and other relationships for the remainder of their lives. But Brown argues that people have a right to cognize what is go oning in their country. and what to be cognizant of. He besides says that the populace have a right to have information that they want on local persons who have blighted their communities with anti-social behaviors. While of all time people don’t experience safe when they go out. he will non be satisfied and he believes that “naming and shaming” young persons is the reply.
This leads onto the thought of rehabilitation being the solution to offense and recidivism. Interactionists believe that people who commit offense should be rehabilitated into society. and non labelled negatively. in order for offense rates to be reduced. Presently in the UK. there are bail inns for captives who have been released from prison and necessitate reintegrating into society. Bail Hostels are a type of Open Prison. used as an option to full prison. and a relocation assistance for captives who are approaching the terminal of their sentences. Interactionists would state that bond inns are a positive measure frontward towards less offense. However. clandestine BBC cinematography showed that felons who had committed more serious offenses. such as pedophilias. were housed in residential countries.
One could reason that this isn’t safe. For illustration. the BBC study found a convicted pedophile and child-killer befriending kids whilst at a bail inn. Is the interactionists solution to offense ever traveling to work? Are serious wrongdoers capable of being trusted within these bond inns? The controversial strategy to house bailed and tagged suspects and inmates in residential countries may be expanded ; Justice Minister David Hanson has said that the strategy is a success because it has reduced prison Numberss. But many occupants who live near the bond places – which are unsupervised and without formal planning blessing – say they bring the hazard of offense far excessively close to their places. Is the interactionists solution ever practical? Are at that place non other ways to cut down offense? Such as seeking to halt people from being labelled in the first topographic point?
As I have antecedently said. Braithwaite offered a solution of re-integrative shaming. in which an act instead than the pervert is labelled negatively and it is the act which needs to be addressed.
Due to the interactionists. the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act has been brought in. This means that a rehabilitation period is a fit length of clip from the day of the month of strong belief. After this period. with certain exclusions. an ex-offender is non usually obliged to advert their strong belief when using for a occupation or obtaining insurance. or when involved in condemnable or civil proceedings. Interactionists believe that by avoiding giving people a negative construct or label offense can be reduced.
Ethnomethodologists support the interactionist position that aberrance is based on subjective determination devising. and therefore a societal building. They argue that ‘deviance is in the oculus of the beholder’ ; what one individual might see as aberrant another might non. This can be illustrated with arguments about modern art. Some see the work of modern-day creative persons as pervert. whereas others celebrate it as original and inspirational.
Marxists have criticised the interactionists. Whilst Marxists accept that labelling theory raises of import inquiries. they argue that the theory has a weak position of power and societal control. For illustration. the theory fails to explicate why the nature and extent of offense and aberrance is socially constructed. They besides argue that interactionists fail to see the wider structural beginnings of offense and aberrance. This suggests that labelling theory merely offers a partial position on offense and aberrance. It is criticised for neglecting to explicate the beginnings of labels. and why people are labelled what they are in the first topographic point. However. Marxists would partly hold with the labelling in that they believe it is ever the on the job category who get labelled. therefore making deviancy.
Whilst interactionists would indicate out offense and aberrance as being the merchandise of labelling. due to legion things. others would reason that offense is a consequence of other things such as capitalist economy.
