interactionism and labelling theory

Question 1

becker

Answer 1

moral entrepreneurs (police etc) label people and actions as deviant

Question 2

cicourel

Answer 2

justice is negotiable - the police assume the wc are most likely to be criminal so they patrol those neighbourhoods more, the mc are more likely to get away with it or be let off due to wealth or not ‘looking’ like a criminal

Question 3

who gets labelled

Answer 3

working class
ethnic minorities
young people
men

Question 4

the dark figure of crime

Answer 4

unrecorded, unreported, undetected crime in society that we’re unaware of

Question 5

alternative stats

Answer 5

victim surveys can be used for accuracy, yet they run the risk of lying, forgetting, or exaggerating

Question 6

interactionist view

Answer 6

crime is socially constructed because people in the CJS decide how to proceed

Question 7

lemert

Answer 7

primary deviance = acts that haven’t been labelled as deviant, rationalised as ‘moments of madness’

secondary deviance = acts that are publicly labelled as deviant, making ‘criminal’ the ‘master status’ of the actor, which can lead to further crime through an SFP

Question 8

cohen

Answer 8

‘deviance amplification spiral’

case study = mods and rockers (media reactions further demonised groups)

Question 9

labelling and criminal justice policy

Answer 9

having less rules to follow makes crime easier to control because labelling less harshly reduces SFPs and, as a result, deviant behaviour

Question 10

braithwaite

Answer 10

positive roles of labelling - two types

1. disintegrative shaming - excluding the criminal from society because both they and the crime are seen as bad
2. reintegrative shaming - only the crime is seen as bad, not the actor and so actors can be forgiven and crime rates reduced