Constructionist Flashcards
Labelling/Social Reaction Persepectives
reject using the offender as the starting point in their analysis
- Rather, these theories focus on the behaviour of those who label, react to, and otherwise seek to control offenders
- These social control efforts are what trigger the processes that trap individuals in a criminal career
–> Self-fulfilling prophecy
Lemert and Tannenbaum focused on what 3 issues for labelling theory?
- focused on social reaction, not the offender
1. Asked why certain behaviours were labeled crime and others were not and how definitions change over time
2. Asked why everyone who broke the law was not detected and designated criminal - Howard Becker argued “social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance” and applying those rules to particular people
3. Asked what the consequences of being labeled were - Self-fulfilling prophecy
- Becomes a master status
How does crime relate to labelling theory?
Crime is not a behaviour, but how we respond to behaviour
- Social groups create deviance by making rules
- Moral entrepreneurs (Becker) work to have their ideas about deviance enshrined in law
–> E.g.,gay marriage opponents, anti-abortion activists
Who is Emily Murphy?
- Talked about the harms marijuana
- Advocated the ned to change Canadian narcotics law in her 1922 book, the Black Candle
- Contributed to the criminalization of marijuana in 1923
- Understood the influence of the media in the drug debate
What do labelling theorists argue?
Drawing on the sociological theory of symbolic interactionism, labeling theorists argue a person’s identity is shaped by the messages other people deliver as to who the person is
- Over time, people begin to embrace the label, which shapes their behaviour
Labelling also shapes a persons social relationships
- Once stigmatized as criminal, the person loses conventional relationships and is forced to associate mainly with other criminals
- Also is denied opportunities (e.g., employment) in conventional society
What did criminologists say about creating criminals?
- Early criminologists recognized that placing people in prison or “houses of corruption” could deepen involvement into crime
What did Tannenbaum say about creating criminals?
- Tannenbaum discussed the “dramatization of evil”
- Argued “a decisive step in the education of the criminal” is being arrested and havbing the criminal status held up for public scrutiny
- criminals are made when they are defined as such
- argued being arrested and labeled as criminal forced the person to:
–> Associate with others defined as criminal (Leads to the exposure of criminal values)
–> Think of themself as a criminal and thus begin to act as a criminal - argued the best policy in dealing with juvenile delinquents is to not dramatize or draw attention to the crime (Radical nonintervention)
What is primary and secondary deviance?
discussed by Edwin lemert
1. Primary deviance
- occurs for both individual and situational reasons
- Peripheral to the persons identity so does not influence how the person views him/herself
- Rationalized and dealt with as functions of a socially acceptable role
–> Example; 14 year old girl is offered to smoke with a friend
2. Secondary deviance occurs when the individual no longer dissociates from his or her deviation
- His or her “life and identity are organized around the facts of deviance”
- Key factor prompting a person’s life to coalesce around deviance is the reactions of others
–> Gradual process of a cycle of deviations and negative reactions is repeated and amplified
–> Person eventually accepts his or her deviant status
–> Make life choices that are constrained by reaffirm their deviant status
When did labelling theory become popularized?
1960s
How did labelling theory fall out of favour?
Empirically weak
- Argued societal reaction was the key in the stability of criminal behaviour; however, research has shown that stability occurs early in the life course before formal interventions
- Does not recognize the impact of criminogenic environments (e.g., dysfunctional family, failing at school, antisocial associates)
What was the Chambliss Saints and Roughnecks?
- Ethnographic study of two groups of high school boys
–> Saints and roughnecks - Similar amount of wayward behaviour labeled differently
–> Saints not labeled criminal and escaped life of crime
–> Roughnecks labeled criminal and often continued criminal trajectory - Impact of class status
Who were the Saints?
- Upper middle class white boys
- None arrested during study; senen as less serioud; sowing oats
- Drink heavily; get high; harass girls; less visible to home community
- Highly successful; popular;hekd class iffuces; cheat; given benefit of the doubt in school
- Police were convinced boys were good; did not arrest
- Apologetic demeanor
- most successful in conventional society in their adult careers
- conventional behaviour internalized
Who were the roughnecks?
- lower class white boys
- constantly in trouble: labeled gang members, seen as dangerous
- drinking limited to gang members; theft common; more visible to home communities
- seen as headed for trouble; incapable of meeting academic standards
- often arrested; sporadically harassed by police
- hostile; disdainful
- some successful in careers others involved in crime
- delinquent identity internalized
What is contemporary labelling theory about?
societal reactions can impact criminal behaviour
- studies show contact the CJS increases recidivism
–> family disruptions (family may not visit prison, stigma attached to offence, limited social welfare due to having a criminal in the family)
–> Job prospects (employers don’t want ex-offenders as employees)
What is it like for criminals to find work?
- lack of savings and financial support
- many have to find work to support families
- they often remain in a state of socratic and temporary work
- engage in foraging behaviour for low skill work
- many deal with un or underemployment prior to their imprisonment
