Constructionist Theories of Crime Flashcards
Labelling/Social Reaction perspectives
Unlike other sociological theories, the labelling/social reaction perspectives reject using the offender as the starting point in their analysis
The rise and fall of labelling theory
- Asked why certain behaviours were labelled crimes and others were not and how definitions change over time
- Asked why everyone who broke the law was not detected and designated criminals
- Asked what the consequences of being labelled were
Crime and labelling theory
Crime is not a behaviour, but how we respond to behaviour
Emily Murphy
Advocated the need to change Canadian narcotics laws 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
The rise and fall of labelling theory
Drawing on the sociological theory of symbolic interactionism, labelling theorists argue a person’s identity is shaped by the messages other people deliver as to who the person is
Labelling also shapes a person’s social relationships
Creating Criminals
Early criminologists recognize that placing people in prison or “houses of corruption”, could deepen involvement in crime
Tannenbaum discussed the “dramatization of evil”
Tannenbaum argued being arrested and labelled as a criminal forced the person to
Tannenbaum argued the best policy in dealing with juvenile delinquents is to not dramatize or draw attention to the crime
Primary Deviance
Primary deviance occurs for a wide range of reasons, some individuals and some situations (a 14-year-old smoking weed he got from a friend)
Rationalized and death as functions of a socially acceptable role
Secondary Deviance
Occurs when the individual no longer dissociates from his or her deviation
Key factors in prompting a person’s life to coalesce around deviance is the reactions of others
The ride and fall of labelling theory
Labelling theory grew in popularity as the 1960s progressed
However, the labelling theory soon fell out of favour
Applying theory to scholarship
Chambliss Saints and Roughnecks
- Ethnographic study of two groups of high school boys
A similar amount of wayward behaviour is labelled differently
- Saints not labelled criminal and escaped a life of crime
- Roughnecks are labelled criminals and do not often continue the criminal trajectory
Saints
Upper-middle-class white boys
None arrested during the study were seen as less serious
Drink heavily, get high, pranks
Most successful in conventional society
Roughnecks
Lower-class white boys
Constantly in trouble, labelled as gang members
Drinking was limited to gang members, left common more visible to home communities
Some were successful; others were involved in crime
Delinquent identity internalized