Crime and Deviance

Labelling theorists argue no act is inherently

criminal or deviant in itself, in all situations

and all times. instead, it only comes to be so

when others label it as such. It is that nature

of society’s reaction to the act which makes

it deviant.

For Becker, a deviant is someone to whom the

label has been successfully applied.

To answer this, sociologists are interested in

the role of what Becker calls, moral

entrepreneurs. These are people who lead a

moral ‘crusade’ to change the law in the

belief it will benefit those to whom it is

applied. But, Becker argue this new law has

2 effects...

The creation of a new group of ‘outsiders’

The creation/expansion of a social control

agency to enforce the rule and impose labels

on offenders

For example, Platt argues the idea of ‘juvenile

delinquency’ is a result of a campaign by

upper-class Victorian moral entrepreneurs to

protect young people at risk. The ‘juveniles’

has a separate court so the state could

extend it’s power into ‘status offences’ (i.e

truancy)

Becker notes social control agencies may

campaign for a change in law to increase

their power. For example, the passing of the

Marijuana Tax Act in 1937 was to outlaw its

use. He argues this law was actually to

extend the Bureau’s sphere of influence.

Thus, it is the efforts of the powerful

individuals and groups to redefine behaviour

as acceptable that leads to new laws being

created.

Whether a person is arrested, charged or

convicted depends on factors...

Their interactions with agencies of social

control

Appearance, background, biography

The situation and circumstances of the

offence

Piliavin and Briar found police decide to

arrest youths based on judgements of

physical cues. Decisions were also influenced

by class, gender, ethnicity, time and place.

Cicourel believes officers have typifications (their

commonsense stereotypes of what the typical

delinquent is like). This resulted in law

enforcement showing a class bias, so the police

patrol working class areas more intensively,

resulting in more arrests and so confirming their

typifications. Other social control agencies also

reinforce the bias. For example, probation

officers held the ‘commonsense theory’ that

juvenile delinquents came from broken homes,

poverty and lax parenting. They assume they

would offend in the future and so supported

non-custodian sentences for them.

Cicourel thinks justice is negotiable. He notes

the middle class are less likely to be charges

due to their background not fitting that of a

‘typical delinquent’ and that parents could

negotiate and be apologetic. This meant the

suspect could be ‘counselled, warned and

released’

Cicourel used official crime statistics within

his study. He argues statistics don’t give a

valid picture and so can’t be used as a

resource. Instead, they need to be treated as

a topic and we should investigate how the

statistics were created.

(this is a good point to make in any essay when statistics are

a form of evidence or even in essays regarding research

methods)

Lemert distinguishes between primary and secondary deviance.

Primary deviancedeviant acts that aren’t publically labelled. It is pointless to seek a cause as it is so widespread and is usually uncaught. It is easy to rationalise these acts as ‘a moment of madness’ for example as they aren’t part of an organised deviant way of life. They have little significance for self status or concept and so actors don’t generally seem themselves as deviant.

Secondary deviance

deviant acts which are the result of labelling.

This means an actor may now only be seen in

terms of the label by society which comes to

be their master status. This provokes a crisis

for an actors self-concept and one way to

resolve this is to accept the label which

could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Acting

out from the label is what Lemert refers to

as secondary deviance.

Young conducted a study of ‘Hippy’ marijuana

users in Notting Hill. Initially, their use of

drugs were peripheral (primary deviance).

However, labelling and the persecution by

the control culture led the hippies to see

themselves as outsiders. They retreated to

becoming a closed group and started using

drugs as a central activity (secondary

deviance)

Lemert and Young’s work illustrates that it is

the hostile social reaction that creates

serious deviance. Therefore, the social

control process produces the opposite to law

abiding behaviour.

However, Downes and Rock note we can’t

predict whether someone who has been

labelled will follow a deviant career.

The deviance amplification spiral is a process

in which the attempt to control deviance

leads to an increased level of it. This leads to

more control and so yet more deviance.

A good example of this is Cohen’s study: “Folk

Devils and Moral Panics” (more of this to be found in

the media powerpoint – to be uploaded soon!)

Recent studies have shown how increases in the

attempt to punish and control young are having

the opposite effect. Triplett notes an increasing

tendency to see young offenders as evil and to

be less tolerant of minor deviance. The criminal

justice system has relabelled status offenders

such as truancy as serious and so now there are

harsher sentences. So, as Lemert predicted, this

has led to an increase in deviance. These

findings prove labelling has important policy

implications. Logically, we should make and

enforce less rules to be broken.

Braithwaite distinguishes between 2 types of shaming...

Disintegrative: the crime and the criminals are labelled as

bad and so the offender is excluded from society.

Reintegrative: this shaming just labels the act and not the

actor.

Reintegrative shaming avoids stigmatising the offender, but

makes them aware of their actions and the impact upon

others. It also encourages society to forgive them and

accept the offender back into society. This avoids pushing

the actor into secondary deviance. He points out that in

societies where reintegrative shaming is used, crime rates

are lower.

Too deterministic

Ignores the real victims of crime

Ignores people could actively choose to deviate

Why do people commit primary deviance before they are

labelled?

It implies that without labelling, deviance wouldn’t exist

Implies deviants are unaware that they are deviant until

they have been labelled

It recognises the role of power, but ignores the source of it

by focusing on ‘middle range officials’ (it ignores who

makes the rules)

Ignores the origin of labels and why they are applied to

certain groups