Labeling, Interaction, and Crime: Societal Reaction and the Creation of Criminals
description
Transcript of Labeling, Interaction, and Crime: Societal Reaction and the Creation of Criminals
Labeling, Interaction, and Crime: Societal Reaction and the Creation of Criminals
Part VII
Unlike other sociological theories, the labeling/social reaction perspectives reject using the offender as the starting point in their analysis◦ Rather, these theories focus on the behavior 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
Labeling/Social Reaction Perspectives
Early criminologists recognized that placing people in prison, or “houses of corruption,” could deepen involvement into crime
Tannenbaum discussed the “dramatization of evil”◦ Argued “a decisive step in the
education of the criminal” is being arrested and having the criminal status held up for public scrutiny Thus, criminals are made when
they are defined as such
Creating Criminals
Tannenbaum argued being arrested and labeled as criminal forced the person to:◦ Associate with others defined
as criminal
Leads to the exposure of criminalvalues
◦ Think of himself as a criminal and thus begin to act as a criminal
Tannenbaum argued the best policy in dealing with juvenile delinquents is to not dramatize or draw attention to the crime
◦ Radical nonintervention
Creating Criminals
Edwin Lemert (1951) discussed primary and secondary deviance◦ Primary deviance: “polygenic, arising out of a
variety of social, cultural, psychological, and physiological factors” Peripheral to the person’s identity so does not
influence how the person views him/herself
Rationalized and dealt with as functions of a socially acceptable role
Lemert: “Primary and Secondary Deviance”
Edwin Lemert (1951) discussed primary and secondary deviance◦ Secondary deviance: occurs after the deviance inspired a
social reaction When a person begins to employ his deviant behavior or
role based upon it as a means of defense, attack, or adjustment to the overt and covert problems created by the consequent societal reactions to him/her
This affects identity and conception of self
Narrows the ability to choose conventional ways of life
One’s “life and identity are organized around the facts of deviance”
Lemert: “Primary and Secondary Deviance”
Seldom one deviant act will provoke a strong enough societal reaction to create secondary deviance, unless the individual projects anticipatory fears onto the situation
Frequently, there is a progressive reciprocal relationship between the deviation of the person and the social reaction
Lemert: “Primary and Secondary Deviance”
The sequence leading to secondary deviance is as follows:
1. Primary deviation
2. Social penalties
3. Further primary deviation
4. Stronger penalties/rejections
5. Further deviation (perhaps with hostilities and resentment upon those doing the penalizing)
6. Crisis reached in the tolerance quotient, formal action by the community stigmatizing the deviant
7. Strengthening of the deviant conduct as a reaction to the stigmatizing and penalties
8. Ultimate acceptance of the deviant social status and efforts at adjustment on the basis of the associated role
Lemert: “Primary and Secondary Deviance”
Current research suggests that crime is rooted more fully in individual differences and in family, school, and community life
However, societal reaction is not inconsequential ◦ Not the main source of persistent criminality, but
societal reaction can reinforce a criminal lifestyle and make desistence more difficult
Lemert: “Primary and Secondary Deviance”
In the 1960s, based off the work of Lemert and Tannenbaum, criminologists focused on social reaction, not the offender
Focused on three main issues1. Asked why certain behaviors were labeled as crime and
others were not and how definitions change over time
2. Asked why everyone who broke the law was not detected and designated as 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
The Rise and Fall of Labeling Theory
Drawing on the sociological theory of symbolic interactionism, labeling theorists argue a person’s identify 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 behavior
Labeling also shapes a person’s 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
The Rise and Fall of Labeling Theory
Labeling theory grew in popularity as the 1960s progressed◦ An interesting theory
◦ Critiqued the state’s power
However, labeling theory soon fell out of favor◦ Empirically weak
Argued societal reaction was the key in the stability of criminal behavior; 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)
The Rise and Fall of Labeling Theory
Many abandoned labeling theory as it did not have empirical support
Recently, a revisionist position has emerged arguing that societal reactions can impact criminal behavior◦ Several studies show contact with the CJS
increases recidivism Imprisonment disrupts family relationships and
decreases job prospects
Contemporary Labeling Theories
Three theoretical developments have emerged that helped revitalize the study of social reactions
1. Matsueda’s focus on informal reactions
2. Braithwaite’s focus on reintegrative shaming
3. Sherman’s focus on defiance
Contemporary Labeling Theories
Labeling theory is usually interpreted as contending that the application of formal criminal sanctions is the key societal reaction leading to subsequent criminal behavior◦ Less attention paid to informal sanctions
Reactions of parents, friends, neighbors, etc.
Ross Matsueda argues that a key proximate cause of delinquent behavior is the “reflected appraisals of others”◦ The person’s perception that others view them
as delinquent or deviant
Matsueda and Informal Sanctions
When kids are labeled as delinquent or troublemakers, they perceive themselves as others see them and act upon that perception
Labeling creates a delinquent self that prompts deviant behavior
Matsueda has found support for his proposition of informal sanctions
Matsueda and Informal Sanctions
Other revitalizations have argued that the effects of societal reactions are contingent on a range of factors◦ All reactions do not increase criminal behavior (e.g.,
rehabilitation)
John Braithwaite argues when a criminal act occurs attempts are made to “shame” the person◦ Whether shaming makes things worse depends on the
quality of the societal reaction
Braithwaite’s Theory of Reintegrative Shaming
Seeks to specify the types of shaming which cause and prevent crime
Stigmatizing shaming leads to subsequent criminal behavior
The key to crime control is cultural commitments to shaming in ways that are reintegrative
Braithwaite: Crime, Shame and Reintegration
The consequence of stigmatization is the attraction to criminal subcultures◦ Formal criminal punishment has a degradation
ceremony and has maximum prospects for stigmatization
The consequence of reintegrative shaming is that criminal subcultures appear less attractive
Braithwaite: Crime, Shame and Reintegration
Reintegrative shaming is more likely when:
◦ Individuals are enmeshed in multiple relationships of interdependency
◦ They live in a communitarian society
◦ Notice some of these factors can be seen in other theories Interdependency—control theories Stigmatization and reintegrative shaming—labeling theories Subculture—subcultural theories and social learning theories Opportunity—opportunity theories
Braithwaite: Crime, Shame and Reintegration
Reintegrative shaming works to prevent crime by:1. Specific deterrence—people fear the shame of intimates
more than formal sanctions2. General deterrence—deters others who wish to avoid
shame3. These effects are greater for those who remain strongly
attached in relationships of interdependency and will accrue greater costs from shame
4. Stigmatizing shame can be counterproductive by breaking attachments to those who shame future criminality
5. Shaming leads to the cognition that certain types of crime are unthinkable
Braithwaite: Crime, Shame and Reintegration
Reintegrative shaming works to prevent crime by:6. Shaming followed by forgiveness and repentance builds
more commitment to the law than shaming alone
7. Shaming builds consciences through citizens being instruments and targets of social control
8. Once consciences have been formed, pangs of conscience become the most effective punishment for crime
9. Shaming is both the social process which builds conscience and the most important backstop to be used when conscience fails to deliver conformity
10. Gossip within wider circles of acquaintances and shaming of offenders not even known to those who gossip are important for building consciences
Braithwaite: Crime, Shame and Reintegration
Reintegrative shaming works to prevent crime by:11. Public shaming puts pressure on parents, teachers, and
others to ensure that they engage in private shaming which is sufficiently systematic.
Public shaming has a more important role with adult offenses because adults are further removed from the influence of the school and family
12. Public shaming generalizes familiar principles to unfamiliar or new contexts
13. Cultures with a heavy emphasis on reintegrative shaming establish a smoother transition between socialization practices in the family and socialization in wider society
This cultivates internal controls
Braithwaite: Crime, Shame and Reintegration
Reintegrative shaming works to prevent crime by:14. Gossip and other modalities of shaming can be
especially effective when the targets of shame are not directly confronted with shame, but are directly confronted with gestures of forgiveness or reintegration
15. The effectiveness of shaming is often enhanced by shame being directed not only at the individual offender but also at the offender’s family, workplace, etc.
These collectivities are put on notice to exercise informal social control over their members
Braithwaite: Crime, Shame and Reintegration
Key concepts of reintegrative shaming◦ Interdependency
Condition of individuals Extent to which individuals participate in networks
wherein they are dependent on them Approximately equivalent to social bonding,
attachment, and commitment elements in control theory
Measured by age, gender, marital status, employment, and educational and occupational aspirations
Braithwaite: Crime, Shame and Reintegration
Key concepts of reintegrative shaming◦ Communitarianism
Condition of societies
In communitarian societies, individuals are densely enmeshed in interdependencies that have the special qualities of mutual help and trust
Interdependencies have symbolic significance in the culture of group loyalties which take precedence over individual interests
Invoke personal obligation to others in a community of concern
Resists interpretations of dependency as weak or threatening individual autonomy
Measured by urbanization and residential mobility
Braithwaite: Crime, Shame and Reintegration
Key concepts of reintegrative shaming◦ Shaming
All social processes of expressing disapproval which have the intention or effect of invoking remorse in the person being shamed and/or condemnation by others who become aware of the shaming
Sets out to moralize with the offender to communicate reasons for the evil of the person’s actions
Most shaming done by individuals within interdependent communities of concern
Braithwaite: Crime, Shame and Reintegration
Key concepts of reintegrative shaming◦ Reintegrative shaming
Shaming which is followed by efforts to reintegrate the offender back into the community of law-abiding or respectable citizens through words/gestures of forgiveness or ceremonies to decertify the offender as deviant
Shaming and reintegration occur sequentially with reintegration occurring before deviance becomes a master status
Label the act as evil while striving to preserve the identity of the offender as essentially good
Shaming of criminal behavior is complemented by ongoing social rewarding of alternative behavior patterns
Has a finite duration and is terminated by forgiveness
Efforts to maintain bonds of love and respect are shown throughout the shaming period
Braithwaite: Crime, Shame and Reintegration
Key concepts of reintegrative shaming◦ Stigmatization
Disintegrative shaming
No effort made to reconcile the offender with the community
The offender is an outcast
Deviance becomes the offender’s master status
Braithwaite: Crime, Shame and Reintegration
Key concepts of reintegrative shaming◦ Criminal subcultures
Sets of rationalizations and conduct norms which cluster together to support criminal behavior
Provides systematic social support for crime Provides criminal opportunities, values, and attitudes
Braithwaite: Crime, Shame and Reintegration
In communitarian societies with highly interdependent individuals, shaming can be either stigmatizing or reintegrative
In places where the shaming is reintegrative, low crimes rates will be the result
In places where shaming is stigmatizing, criminal subcultures will be attractive and the individual is cut off from mainstream society◦ This supplies criminal role models, training, and attitudes
These areas will have higher crime rates
Braithwaite: Crime, Shame and Reintegration
High levels of stigmatization is one factor that encourages criminal culture formation by creating populations of outcasts with no stake in conformity
Another factor leading to the development of deviant subcultures is the systematic blockage of legitimate opportunities for factions of the population◦ Subcultures develop in these outcast areas that supply
illegitimate opportunity structures
Braithwaite: Crime, Shame and Reintegration
A communitarian culture nurtures deviants within a network of attachments to conventional society and inhibits the widespread outcasting of those who violate the law
Braithwaite: Crime, Shame and Reintegration
Within the U.S., restorative justice programs most closely mirror Braithwaite’s admonition to meld shaming with reintegration◦ The goal is to restore the victim, the offender, and the
community Victims receive restitution and a public apology
Offenders are granted a measure of forgiveness by victims and are reaccepted by their families and the community
Evaluations have yielded some promising results
Braithwaite: Crime, Shame and Reintegration
Lawrence Sherman observes that, depending on the circumstances, interventions can have diverse effects
Legal punishments either reduce, increase, or have no effect on future crimes depending on the types of offenders, offenses, social settings, and levels of analysis
Sherman: “Defiance Theory”
Attempts to move beyond the labeling and deterrence perspectives to develop a comprehensive theory of the criminal sanction
◦ Accounts for when sanctions create defiance, deterrence, or are irrelevant
Sherman discusses three theories that offer promise in solving the stalemate between deterrence and labeling theories
1. Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming2. Tyler’s study of compliance3. Scheff and Retzinger’s sociology of the “master emotions” of
pride and shame that dominate human responses to experienced and vicarious sanctions
Sherman: “Defiance Theory”
Braithwaite (1989)◦ Reintegrative shaming controls crime◦ Stigmatizing shaming increases crime
Tyler (1990)◦ Sanctions citizens perceive as fair increase compliance
with the law◦ Sanctions citizens perceive as unfair reduce compliance
Scheff and Retzinger (1991)◦ Individuals vary in their emotional response to
sanctions/shaming depending on the social bond to the sanctioning agent and to society in general
Sherman: “Defiance Theory”
Proposes that in the face of criminal penalties, “defiance” and thus greater crime are likely to result when offenders are poorly bonded to society and define the sanctions against them as stigmatizing and unfair
Recidivism is less likely when offenders have close ties to conventional society and see the sanctions against them as deserved and fairly applied
Offenders may react to the same sanction differently depending on their social bonds and sensitivity to justice◦ Suggests the quality of the behavior of the police, court,
and correctional officials plays a role in precipitating or depressing the likelihood of defiance
Sherman: “Defiance Theory”
There are four key concepts in the emotional response to sanctioning experiences:
1. Legitimacy
Degree of legitimacy the sanctioned offender grants to the sanctioning agent’s behavior, driven more by the agent’s respectfulness and procedural fairness than the substance of the morality the agent enforces
2. Social bonds
The bond the offender has to the sanctioning agent, the community in whose name the sanctioning agent was acting, and other close attachments
Sherman: “Defiance Theory”
There are four key concepts in the emotional response to sanctioning experiences:3. Shame
The offender either acknowledges or bypasses the shame, respectively repairing or weakening social bonds to the agent or community
4. Pride The source of pride the offender feels in the aftermath
of the sanction; social solidarity with the relevant community or isolation from that community as an unconquerable soul
Sherman: “Defiance Theory”
Defiance theory argues:◦ Sanctions provoke future defiance of the law
(persistence, more frequent or more serious violations) to the extent that offenders experience the sanctioning conduct as illegitimate, have weak bonds to the sanctioning agent and the community, and deny their shame and become proud of their isolation from the sanctioning community
Sherman: “Defiance Theory”
Defiance is the net increase in the prevalence, incidence, or seriousness of future offending against a sanctioning community caused by a proud, shameless reaction to the administration of a criminal sanction
Specific defiance is the reaction of one person to that person’s own punishment
General defiance is the reaction of a group or collectivity to the punishment of one or more of its members
Sherman: “Defiance Theory”
Direct defiance is a crime committed against a sanctioning agent
Indirect defiance is the displaced just deserts committed against a target vicariously representing the sanctioning agent(s) provoking the anger
Defiance explains variation in criminal events, not criminality
Sherman: “Defiance Theory”
Defiance occurs under four conditions:1. The offender defines a criminal sanction as
unfair
2. The offender is poorly bonded to or alienated from the sanctioning agent or the community the agent represents
3. The offender defines the sanction as stigmatizing and rejecting a person, not a lawbreaking act
4. The offender denies or refuses to acknowledge the shame the sanction has actually caused him to suffer
Sherman: “Defiance Theory”
Sanctions are defined as unfair when:1. The sanctioning agent behaves with disrespect
toward the offender, or toward the group to which the offender belongs, regardless of how fair the sanction is on substantive grounds
2. The sanction is substantively arbitrary, discriminatory, excessive, undeserved, or otherwise objectively unjust
Sherman: “Defiance Theory”
Defining sanctions as unfair:◦ Respect
Respect by punishers for the punished Matter of treating people with human dignity Offenders’ interpretations they are getting a fair hearing and
the sanctioning decision maker considers and respects that viewpoint
Groups receiving the most disrespect from the police also have the highest participation rates in crime The lower class and minorities are much more exposed to police
disrespect and brutality vicariously and in person prior to their peak years of first arrest and initial involvement in crime
Sherman: “Defiance Theory”
Defining sanctions as unfair:
◦ Substantive unfairness
Those who approach authority with defiant attitudes are often punished for their speech rather than for any substantive offense
When a sanction is used in this fashion, it is substantively unjust and another potent source of defining police as illegitimate
Disrespect toward police increases the odds of being arrested
Increases the chance that the police are seen as unfair
Nonenforcement of minor offenses with arbitrary or discriminatory cases of enforcement also leads to feelings of unfairness
Implies police laziness in looking for the truly guilty
Personal experience with unfairness may be the greatest spark of defiance
Sherman: “Defiance Theory”
Anger and displaced just deserts◦ Anger often displaced onto other people besides the
police
◦ Often borne out of disrespect shown to the offender from the police, courts, or correctional officials
◦ Deals with the conduct of everyday discourse with alienated persons who react with indignation to any hint of social disapproval Recognize large numbers of highly touchy, angry
people ready to punish any available target for the sins of their past insulters
Sherman: “Defiance Theory”
Defiance theory argues:◦ Sanctions produce future deterrence of law-
breaking (desistance, less frequent or less serious violations) to the extent that offenders experience the sanctioning conduct as legitimate, that offenders have strong bonds to the sanctioning agent and community, and the offenders accept their shame and remain proud of their solidarity with the community
Sherman: “Defiance Theory”
Defiance theory argues:◦ Sanctions become irrelevant to future law-
breaking (no effect) to the extent that the factors encouraging defiance and encouraging deterrence are fairly evenly counterbalanced
Sherman: “Defiance Theory”
Testing defiance theory◦ Need to conduct:
Randomized experiments
Ethnographic studies
Longitudinal studies Conduct interviews
immediately after arrestand on subsequent occasions
Sherman: “Defiance Theory”
Traditionally, labeling theories have stressed radical nonintervention ◦ Due to the powerful labeling effect, legal interventions
were uniformly harmful However, Braithwaite and Sherman endorse
restorative justice rather than radical nonintervention◦ Dislodge the state from its traditional role as an
adversary and instead have the state be an arbiter who works with the victim and the offender to reduce the harm associated with the criminal act
Policy Implications from Braithwaite and Sherman’s Work
Restorative justice in practice◦ Key component is the conference
Attended by the victim, offender, both their families, other community members, and a mediator
Reach a consensus on a plan that will allow the offender to restore the harm that has been caused
Reject incarceration, rather having the offender work in the community to restore their harms and receive support
Research has shown restorative justice has:◦ Increased victim satisfaction◦ Decreased recidivism
Policy Implications from Braithwaite and Sherman’s Work
Labeling theory traditionally focused on the effects of labeling a person as deviant rather than focusing on the offender him/herself◦ Traditional labeling theories did not have much
empirical support
More recent theories (Matsueda, Braithwaite, and Sherman) have focused on the conditions under which the criminal sanction has criminogenic or deterrent effects◦ Out of this research, the policy of restorative justice
has been proposed with evidence showing it can be effective and increase victim satisfaction
Summary