Labeling Theory: Theories of Deviance In sociology and criminology, labeling theorists were among the first to suggest that crime was not produced by inherent defects within the individual’s biology or character, but rather was a social construction. Labeling theorists suggested that crime was the result of society’s need to label certain individuals as deviant. This labeling became a self-fulfilling prophesy, to the point that the labeled individuals made their deviant label a part of their identity. Labeling is often used against individuals who are racially, ethnically or socio-economically determined to be abnormal or aberrant, and thus has the effect of creating ostracized groups of entire classes of people. It is ultimately an unproductive concept both for society as well as victimizes the individuals who are labeled and creates rather than prevents the existence of a criminal underclass.

Symbolic Interactionalism

The concept of labeling theory first arose in the early 1960s, when Howard Becker published The Outsiders, a work which suggested that crime was not, in and of itself, a concept inherent to a particular act or concept, but rather was an idea symbolically invested with negative meanings. For example, when two low-income juveniles fight, this is viewed as evidence of their inherent delinquency, but in a wealthier area such an act is seen as simply “boys being boys” (“The Labeling Theory of Crime,” 2016). Similarly, today, the war on drugs is an example of class-directed warfare, given that low-income individuals who abuse drugs are seen as having a problem, while affluent individuals are viewed as having a mental disorder. The power to label results in profoundly different views of what are, effectively, the same act, and results in different labels being affixed to individuals. Labels are affixed based upon class status rather than the severity of the crime the individual commits.

Avoiding Labeling in Criminal Justice

Although the media is often accused of unfairly labeling certain groups as inherently criminal, the justice system itself engages in labeling. “It is sometimes claimed, but more often an underlying assumption…public labelling in response to proven criminal guilt – e.g. of criminal convictions – is permitted, at least in part, because people who commit crimes deserve to be labelled publicly as criminals” (Hadjimatheou, 2016, p.568). Public shame, whether formal (having to state that one has...

The assumption, once again, is that crime is solely the fault of the individual and society is therefore justified in inflicting whatever punishment it deems fit upon that individual.
One way to potentially counterbalance the retributive use of labeling is to take a different view of the purpose of justice, acknowledging societal complicity in the perpetuation of crime. Marxists theories of criminology, much like labeling theorists, stress that crime is a social product. Marxists theorists are more inclined to see the classification of crime based in class-based standards and as a perpetuation of the socioeconomic status quo. But regardless, it is another way to view crime not as an individualized act of deviance but as a response to particular societal circumstances that are framed by forces outside the individual in a very particular way. Another way to view crime, and to punish or discourage crime, is the restorative model of justice, which suggests that individuals who have caused a break in the fabric of the community should make restorative amends (such as cleaning up graffiti, or engaging in community service), versus jail time (“What is Restorative Justice,” 2018). By encouraging the person who has been convicted of a criminal act to do something positive, this reduces the impact of the stigmatizing label.

Labeling theory has a number of challenges in being fully accepted as an accepted theory within the criminal justice system. First and foremost, while it seems to explain some times of crimes, particularly juvenile crimes, it cannot explain why certain crimes are considered uniformly abhorrent across the justice systems of the world and across many historical eras. It is persuasive in explaining the construction of certain types of crimes, such as status-based offenses, which are only crimes because they are committed by certain types of persons (i.e. young people). For example, juveniles can be labeled delinquents if they remain outside past curfew, consume any amount of alcohol, and do not go to school. This can result in their being labeled criminal and stigmatized.

Not only does the nature of a status-based offense suggest that society views certain types of actions by specific groups of people very differently; the variable nature with which such crimes are enforced within the justice system can create a greater tendency to label certain groups. According to the…