LABELING EFFECT: SOCIETY'S CONCEPTUAL THOUGHT
The labeling theory is constructed from the social scientist perspective to bring an understanding to the titles we create to label people, and the impact it has on persons, groups, and society. Labeling theory centers on the social-psychological consequences of labels for individual offenders, especially with respect to identity formation and maintenance (Hirschfield 2008). It brings awareness to how one perceives another who holds the label. Commonly known as stigma's these labels have been found to have a direct effect on a person’s behavior and involvement in deviant groups. Labeling is the starting point for societal reaction. “According to labeling theory, formal criminal intervention should affect the individual’s immediate social networks. In many cases, the stigma of the criminal status may increase the probability that the individual becomes involved in deviant social groups. Deviant groups represent a source of social support in which deviant activities are accepted. Moreover, deviant groups often provide social shelter from those who react negatively toward the deviant status” (Bernburg et al. 2006)
Criminal labels are the strongest of labels, because of the association of crime, evil, and law. Tannenbaum (1938) notes, formal criminal proceedings signify the “dramatization of evil.” One would believe that a person who holds a record has partook in some form of criminal behavior. Unfortunately this is not the case in all situations. There are different types of records within the system. Criminal records, depending on the state, can include records for driving under suspension, possession of marijuana and narcotics, whether for personal use or intent to sell, sex crimes such as prostitution, and more non-violent crimes along with violent crimes. Arrest records, are records of persons who have come into contact with the judicial system, whether or not, it was voluntary or involuntary, or if, they were found not-guilty or guilty. People with exonerated records are people who have been wrongfully convicted by the court and served time for a punishment they did not commit. They are acknowledged by the court for its wrongful conviction and set free; in some cases compensation is awarded but not all the time. In order for ones record to be cleared of the wrongful conviction one must go before the court and ask for the record to be expunged and pay the cost set forth. Once again, in all cases this is not granted. Most of this information is unknown to the general public.
Suppose you are waiting in a park late at night for a friend to pick you up and the police erroneously charge you on a suspicion of being a prowler in the neighborhood. The charges were dropped but a criminal record arose out of the incidents… severe disabilities could result from disclosure of this arrest record even though the arrest did not result in conviction (Menard v Saxbe, 498 F.2d 1017 (D.C. Cir. 1974)). The problem is only lip service is given to the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty... Furthermore, when a conviction does occur and the individual has served time and paid a fine, then is it not true that the offender has “paid his debt to society?”(Buethe 1979)
Society’s understanding of people with a record is very vague and uneducated. One thinks in most cases that someone who has a record committed a crime and went to jail. Unfortunately, someone can go to jail if there is a misunderstanding in child support, taxes, or even a mistake in identity; thus, resulting in a record. The lack of understanding of mistakes made by the justice system seems to go unnoticed due to the idea that the system can never be wrong. The lack of understanding to a variation of different records contributes to the holistic view of any person possessing a record is a “criminal.” Therefore, a person who was arrested, is a criminal, or has an exonerated record can be perceived by society to be a criminal, and thus, be labeled one.
Simmons (1965/1966) has found stereotyping of social deviants is usually negative; deviants are often thought of as irresponsible and lacking self-control. Goffman (1963) pointed out that social interaction between “normal” people and the stigmatized is often characterized by uneasiness, embarrassment, ambiguity, and intense efforts at impression management and these experiences are felt by those who bear the stigma as well as those who do not. “The very anticipation of such contacts can lead normal and stigmatized to arrange life so as to avoid them” (p.13). Whether conscious or unconscious, the condoning in stereotyping and judging another person’s actions contributes to pushing people into groups that are deviant. Some also assert that deviant identity maintenance requires weakened attachments to conventional others and activities or strengthened ties to deviant others (Hirschfield 2008). These deviant groups develop from the support of people excluded from “normal groups” consisting of “normal” people. Thus, the question must be asked: Is the action of exclusion from conventional/“normal groups” mediating the role of criminal embeddedness?
CRIMINAL EMBEDDEDNESS
Criminal embeddedness refers to immersion, or involvement, in ongoing criminal networks. These networks can consist of more than just peers—they can also contain deviant family members or other acquaintances. The important point is that these individuals comprise a distinct network of which an individual is an “active” member and that this particular set of relationships is oriented toward criminal values, acts, and opportunities (Bernburg et al 2006).
The perception of persons who have a record by “normal groups” of society, defines the label that forces people seen as deviant into a supporting network; those who are deviant. Researchers have documented negative effects of official labeling on structured opportunities (Bernburg 2003b; Bernburg and Krohn 2003; Davies and Tanner 2003; De Li 1999; Sampson and Laub 1993) and parental bonding (Stewart et al. 2002) and studied the effects of labeling on the development of a deviant self-concept (Jensen 1972; Matsueda 1992) and on deviant attitudes (Ageton and Elliott 1974). Research conducted by Adams in 1996, shows that subjective labeling, support of the deviant label by friends and family, leads to subsequent association with deviant peers. Adams used longitudinal survey data to study the impact of subjective labeling on subsequent association with delinquent peers and involvement in delinquency. The study asked respondents if they thought that significant others, parents, friends, and teachers, perceived them as a “bad kid”, someone who “breaks rules”, and “gets into trouble.” The study found that subjective labeling had positive effects on ties to delinquent peers and involvement in deviant behaviors.
Bernburg (2006) longitudinal test of labeling theory examined the effect of juvenile justice intervention on subsequent involvement in serious delinquency and the mediator role of deviant networks. First, their findings support the idea that official labeling triggers processes that increase involvement in deviant groups. Second, their findings indicate that official labeling plays a significant role in the maintenance and stability of delinquency and crime at a crucial period in early and middle adolescence. The study demonstrated how labeling theory can complement established sociological approaches to crime and deviance by providing a broader viewpoint on the causes and consequences of social marginalization (Bernburg et al 2006). Theories of differential association and social learning assume that associating with delinquent and criminal others is an important immediate cause of delinquent behavior, a proposition that has been documented extensively in criminological research (e.g., Elliott et al. 1985; Jessor and Jessor 1977; Kandel and Davies 1991; Thornberry and Krohn 1997; Warr 2002; Warr and Stafford 1991). Although, in a study of English working men by Farrington in 1977, he examined if criminal convictions affected subsequent contacts with delinquent peers. He compared boys who were convicted of a crime by age 14 and those who have not been convicted of a crime, and found the boys who committed a crime by 14 were no more likely to have delinquent friends by 16 than boys who had not committed a crime (Bernburg et al 2006). Johnson, Michael, Simons, and Conger in a press conference over their research “Criminal Justice System Involvement and Continuity of Youth Crime: A longitudinal Analysis” explained they examined the long-term effects of official labeling from early through late adolescence using a small sample of rural, White males. They found official labeling in early adolescence to be associated with deviant peer associations in middle adolescence (three years later). However, the mediation hypothesis received incomplete support because deviant peer associations in middle adolescence did not have any significant effect on post-high-school delinquency (Bernburg et al 2006). According to separate longitudinal studies in Denver, Seattle,
and Pittsburgh, pluralities of black public school students in struggling neighborhoods (and city wide among Pittsburgh’s black males) are arrested as juveniles (Huizinga et al., 1998, 2007). Estimates of juvenile recidivism rates ranging from 50% nationally (Lipsey, 1999) to 80% in New York City (Frederick, 1999) also support labeling theory’s proposition that formal sanctions fail to improve or dim the prospects of delinquent youth (Hirschfield 2008). In contrast, the studies by Bernburg and all (2006), Adams (1996 also, Adams and Evans 1996), and Matsueda (1992) mentioned earlier found that delinquent peer associations mediated the effects of subjective labeling on subsequent delinquency.
Evidence from this research can help explore the question of what creates and provides the support for these deviant groups. The question must be asked if these individuals gained support in non-deviant groups that encouraged good behaviors, would deviant groups still flourish as they do now? In addition to the direct impact of official labeling on associating with deviant others, there is also the probability that the official label will lead indirectly to increased participation in deviant groups through exclusion from conventional peer groups (Bernburg et al 2006). Access to conventional roles makes it easier to maintain positive self-conceptions in the face of negative labeling (Hirschfield 2008). People labeled as a deviant only seek acceptance of those in similar situations because of the label. If the label is not present there is nothing to be shunned for. The need would no longer be present to seek shelter from stigmas if there was no acceptance of stigmas in the beginning. Thus, the understanding of society's acceptance of labels mediates criminal embeddedness resulting in the continuous engagement of deviant behaviors.
Delinquent peer association constitutes one component of criminal embeddedness; the casual effect of associating with delinquent peers on delinquent behaviors has been well documented empirically (Bernburng et all 2006). Membership of gangs is a form of criminal embeddedness (Thornberry 2003). All of these components and forms of criminal embeddedness come from a form of exclusion. Excluding people from conventional or “normal” groups/networks is the major component of criminal embeddedness according to the researcher. The researcher believes if studies were projected to examine the effects caused from conventional networks non-acceptance and stigmatizing of groups and individuals who possess a record or who have been a part of the justice system; findings would come about that show because of the initial exclusion of persons who have committed a deviant act these persons are pushed to find acceptance elsewhere. Human-beings long for the need to be wanted, for the need to fill welcomed and loved amongst others. When we begin to look upon others of our species as different, it causes a reaction from that person to prove they are not. The only way to prove this is to find others who share similar interest or the problem that is not accepted by the majority and come together to provide support for one another. According to the symbolic interaction perspective, people behave according to how others define the social order and their role in it (Hirschfield 2008). This has been seen through-out history outside of deviant groups. When African Americans were seen as slaves and nothing more than property, African Americans were slaves and found support and love from other African Americans. When girls are trafficked at a young age into the sex industry, they find support, love, and understanding from others in the same situation. We as humans don’t like to be looked upon as different due to our brain and understanding of this life. We look and understand this life differently than other species. Is how we look upon everything, correct? No! But, we are capable of justifying it to ourselves and others that it is; that is what makes us different. Therefore, we must understand we are in control of how this life operates for us. We create what is right and what is wrong. We find justification for our actions and others. We choose how to handle situations. We choose! Our actions do not just affect us but others as well. When we choose to look upon others mistakes and judge them as if we have never did wrong, we begin the process of exclusion.
