Labeling Theory and Its Specific

¶ … labeling theory and its specific relevance to the condition of juvenile delinquency. Through references and studies the effect of negative as well as positive labeling will be discussed and a reviewed for its particular impact on the younger offender. Also considered will be the part that labeling theory, as well as other social interactions, has played in affecting the justice system's sentencing of juvenile offenders. Though labeling theory focuses primarily on the negative impact on juveniles, it has also played a part in correcting many misuses of power in the justice system.

Labeling Theory

Social interaction is an extremely important aspect of human behavior and is an integral part of the survival instinct of the species as a whole. The human brain has developed very sophisticated methods of pattern recognition and association that has served in the past to warn of danger in a more rapid manner than might be available otherwise. By stereotyping certain people or even situations with similar characteristics, the brain shortcuts much of the rethinking involved in analyzing the circumstance or situation and is able to act and adapt more quickly.

Stereotyping is the basic premise of labeling theory (Lanier & Henry, 1998) and is expounded upon in criminology and specifically in the cases of the juvenile delinquent. Labeling theorists believe that negative labeling has long-term impact on the offender and may be a contributing cause for recidivism.

In labeling theory the self is viewed as part of the overall interactive social process of the culture. This self is always subject to the reactions of others in the environment. There are generally two types of labeling. This first is formal labeling, which includes evaluation by teachers, social workers, priests, therapists and other professionals. The second is informal labeling which comprises the reactions of family, peers and other community social groups. With and throughout the interactions of this process over time the youth's self-concept or self-label is created. Deviant formal labels are hypothesized to be much more detrimental than informal labels, but the overall contribution of both can certainly be devastating. Succinctly, labeling theory looks at differing labeling sources and specific relationships over time and makes an attempt to predict the onset of deviant behavior in juveniles (Downs, Robertson & Harrison, 1997). Labeling theorists believe that the act of labeling itself has the effect of pigeonholing an individual and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Take the following example that Barlowe provides:

Labeling a safecracker, for example, risks the possibility that they will have a self-identify as a safecracker affirmed by the labeling. We see the dynamics of labeling daily in the interactions of parents and teachers with young children: "You call me bad and I'll show you how bad I can be," the labeled child implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, says. (1995, p. 193)

Juveniles are much more susceptible to labeling than are adults in that they have not yet developed the necessary ego protective mechanisms and self-concepts to thwart off the negative impact of stereotyping:

Since youths are relatively powerless in society, they are predisposed to different forms of labels and tags placed on them by adults and other authority figures that exert immense levels of control. In numerous instances, when children are labeled delinquents, they take on like characteristics. (Onwudiwe, 2004)

It is this negative impact of labeling that criminologists believe greatly contributes to juvenile delinquency and is the pre-generative agency in the beginning life of a career criminal. While this stigma certainly has an impact, more research needs to be done in quantifying and qualifying the direct effects that labeling has on the youthful offender.

Juveniles are routinely bombarded with different prompts and signals as to how they are being perceived by others. Through the act of role taking and other defining situations, juveniles are able to "accurately interpret the meanings of symbols and gestures used to project labels upon them" (Adams, Robertson, Gray-Ray & Ray, 2003). This allows a projection of self into the role of an authority figure or significant other and allows the youth to make a self appraisal or assessment through the eyes of another. The all too common response, "I wonder what they are thinking about me," is a familiar refrain to us all. In some sense the self then becomes an object and at that point the youth will easily attach both positive and negative labels to the self-perception, although the propensity seems to be towards adopting the negative.

In a journal article entitled Conceptualizing Stigma the authors, Link and Phelan point out that stigma is often a matter of degrees of associations with "labeling, stereotyping, separation, status loss, and discrimination" (2001, p. 363). they go on to say that for a more permanent stigmatization to occur the use of power and authority over a youthful offender must also be in place. This leads to the conclusion that labeling theory must take into account several levels and variable when addressing the juvenile offender.

A current article in Scientific American entitled, Mother's Little Criminals, points out the initial conceptualization and labeling that can occur on the familial level. This influence is seen in the following data from forensic psychologist Kathryn Seifert of Eastern Shore Psychological Services in Maryland, who has been studying youth delinquency for 30 years:

Children don't just wake up one day and say 'I want to be a thief when I grow up,' " Seifert says. "It is, at least in part, learned behavior." Of the delinquent youths Seifert works with in her clinic, 62% have parents who are either antisocial, mentally ill or substance abusers. (Wenner, 2007, p. 12)

They do admit that some of this behavior could be imitative, but Dr. Seifert contends that the majority of the behavior is taught, either directly by the parents, or indirectly as a stigma or a label attached to the children of criminal offenders. This starts them out with a label before they even have has any chance to prove themselves in the world.

Social interaction on all levels is one of the most important developmental factors in the growing child. This is one of the primary reasons that labeling theory has taken such a strong hold in the evaluation of juvenile delinquency and socialization. Labeling theorist are in somewhat of a contrasting position to the social control and bonding theorist who view labeling of behavior as an important stage as any in development of a growing child. Labeling theory instead views this as the problem:

For these theorists, the issue is not so much what we learn or how we bond to others but how our sense of self-identity is built on the composite views that others have of us and how this identity can be negatively impacted through other people's reactions to our behavior. (Lanier & Henry, 1998, p. 167)

Furthermore, once the initial negative labeling process has occurred the psychological event of self labeling takes on a life of its own. Even when the original labeling stimulus is eliminated or reversed, quite often the juvenile has placed the stigma on him or herself as a criminal, regardless of outside circumstance. "They may even join groups of similarly labeled deviants, forming a deviant or criminal subculture in which the members provide support for each other" (Lanier & Henry, 1998, p. 169).

One of the most immediate consequences of negative labeling is a general downward spiral in regards to the youth's place in the social or cultural hierarchy. The stigma of attributing connections to undesirable characteristics reduces the youth status in the eyes of the outside world. Human beings exhibit a seemingly natural behavior to create these hierarchies, typical in most animal group socialization. A pecking order is either implied or expressly set down. This is evident in processes as complex as flow and organizational charts to as simple a concept as the seating order in a conference room meeting (Link & Phelan, 2001). This type of negative displacement can have ramifications later on when applying for employment and can certainly contribute to the furthering of criminal behavior to supplement the missing income (McCarthy, 2002).

Once the self-concept of a growing mind has been tarnished by labeling it is often extremely difficult to change the self-destructive behavior that follows:

Perceived negative labels were related to increased involvement in self-reported delinquent behavior. The study also showed that teachers and peer groups are important sources of negative labels which can lead to the adoption of a deviant self-concept. The results also indicate that labeling variables are better predictors of general and serious delinquency... (Adams, Robertson, Gray-Ray & Ray, 2003)

Labeling does not necessarily mean learning and expressing the wrong values or attaching to conventional mores, or even acting as a rebel against them. The real issue is how these differences are reacted to and perceived by the community, and more importantly, by the self. Deviants in the slightest degree are often responded to out of all proportion to the act and this can be completely devastating for their future self-concept. This in turn more often than not leads the stigmatized to acquire more and more deviant and possibly criminal identities (Lanier & Henry, 1998).

There can, of course, be other antecedents prior to labeling that can enhance the process of delinquency in juveniles. Mental and/or psychological impairments must also be considered as a contributing factor. Certain of these attributes can also contribute to highly suggestible levels in regards to behavior and allow socially sensitive entities to be easily swayed by stigma and stereotype.

Such deficits in neuropsychological functioning, such as self-control (especially impulse control), may serve to maintain antisocial behaviour throughout life. In contrast... antisocial behaviour that emerges during adolescence is, on this account, the result of an individual reaching biological maturity prior to reaching social maturity (where he or she has legal access to such liberties to consume alcohol, and operate a motor vehicle). (Carroll, Hemingway, Bower, Ashman, Houghton & Durkin, 2006)

To those that are waking a razor's edge of sanity, what may be considered healthy daydreams and fantasies that alleviate tension may be the precursors of adverse reactions to stigmatization and create the acting out of criminal scenarios. "What is cleansing to a healthy mind may overwhelm a less balanced psyche" (Robertz, 2007, p. 58). These seem to be the possible reactions associated with the current seemingly accelerated levels of violence taking place in schools.

One study purports three neuropsycholoigcal factors that can contribute to the increased stigmatization of labeling in juveniles. This is called this PEN-model (Van Dam, De Bruyn & Janssens, 2007) and it shows the following three factors that are linked to criminality in juveniles:

1. Psychoticism (P): impulsive, egocentric, cold, aggressive, unempathic, and tough minded

2. Extraversion (E): sociable, active, lively, sensation-seeking, carefree, dominant, surgent, assertive, and venturesome.

3. Neuroticism (N): anxious, depressed, moody, shy, tense, irrational, guilt feeling, low self-esteem, and emotional.

According to this study most juvenile delinquents score high on all three dimensions. It must be pointed out that these traits are independent and biologically-based rather that sociologically adapted. These factors also tend to create a personality that is often much less sensitive to punishment by caregivers or the justice system. This can ultimately result in poor conscience development and sociopathic tendencies.

That being said, while PEN may be a predictor of a tendency to evaluate a juvenile's environment in a more negative fashion, the adding of labeling and the stigmatization of stereotyping youthful offenders would certainly add to the overall profile of a blooming career criminal. There are, of course, opposing ideas to this framework. Some believe that labeling theorist are missing a larger piece of the puzzle when they attribute overwhelming importance to the stigma imposed by society and the labeling framework. The initial incentive for rule breaking may be caused by many sources, but labeling theorists have a tendency to believe that ongoing rule breaking is the conceptualizing of a poor self-image from labeling bias. Taylor, Walton and Young believe this in an error and that the, "labeling model fails to seriously consider the possibility that deviant behavior may be persisted in even when the rule-breaker has every opportunity to return to the status of non-deviant because of a positive attachment to rule-breaking" (1988, p. 154). However, labeling theory can certainly explain a great deal of this behavior, not only from a self-concept point-of-view, but also in regards to the view that the criminal justice system imposes upon labeling juvenile offender, more on this particular aspect in a later section of this report.

There are many theories as to why children and adolescents succumb to criminal behavior and in general there are three predictors as regards their environment. These are family, peer, and attitudinal variables (Hoge, Andrews & Leschied, 1994). It must be recognized that wide ranges of personal and situational factors are involved in juvenile delinquency. These factors often interact in complicated ways and a one theory fits all attitude may not apply. But certainly labeling, and the consequent stigma it presents in the juvenile, is a strong predictor and perpetuator of ongoing criminal personas.

Although the role of the family on child behavior is an important one, the contribution of the child's cognitive and social behavior cannot be underestimated...Both overall social skills and extreme levels of child problem behavior fit well within the framework of existing literature. Social skills problems such as difficulty developing pro-social interpersonal relationships, difficulty with peers and teachers, and an inability to interact well with adults, including police officers and other authority figures, have been associated with later delinquency (Mann & Reynolds, 2006)

This is a crucial concept in labeling. Once the juvenile has been labeled (even the word juvenile has negative connotations) as exhibiting criminal behavior, no matter how minor the infraction, the stigma begins and is often perpetuated by the adults in authority an in a power position over the youth. This then lends a jaundiced eye to the attitudes of authority when dealing with the offender and certainly may influence the scales regarding the depth of the punishment involved. The cycle begins, the youth sees it as a "me against them" campaign and begins to expect the same treatment and usually is not disappointed (Tittle & Grasmick, 1997). This can also apply to groups as well as individuals. Some groups can be more stigmatized than others, much as an individual can be and it is important to remember this when looking at particular cases (Link & Phelan, 2001).

The juvenile's self-concept of the situation is that there is no need to bother to even try to obey the laws since they expect me to fail, and he or she often does not disappoint this expectation.

Etiological statements of labeling theory focus on the negative consequences of labeling an individual as delinquent (Lemert 1951, 1972; Tannenbaum 1938). The response of the community -- initially parents, peers, and teachers, and later, members of the juvenile justice system -- to initial acts of primary deviance is to label the youth as "bad" or "delinquent." (Bartusch & Matsueda, 1996, p. 148)

Bartush and Matdueda in their article, Gender, Reflected Appraisals, and Labeling: A Cross-Group Test of an Interactionist Theory of Delinquency, go on to point out that for the most part these labels are by no means random or haphazard. They are more likely than not to be applied to the disenfranchised in the community. Labels and stereotypes are more easily placed on the poor, the powerless and disadvantaged by authority figures who claim that anyone should be able to lift themselves up by their own bootstrap and that there must be something wrong with them if they cannot. In this case juveniles who have actually committed criminal offenses and are labeled delinquents may be looked at in the same way that the justice and authority systems look at the disadvantaged and poor. Constituting, as the authors put it, "The falsely accused" (Bartusch & Matsueda, 1996, p. 148).

Since the labeling argument is concerned mainly with individual ability to resist sanctions imposed by authorities, it suggests that those youth of lower socioeconomic status, minority racial or ethnic status, and from non-intact homes will more likely be severely sanctioned regardless of strictly legal considerations such as the seriousness of the offense. This is so because such youth are presumably disadvantaged in marshalling resources on their own behalves. (Curran, 1988, p. 29)

According to labeling theory males are more likely to be victims of labeling than females. This is a two-part dilemma in that the data bears out that males are more likely to engage in rule breaking behavior than females. However, this may be caused in part because the common view of delinquency is portrayed as a very male oriented phenomenon. Interestingly, even though the incidence for labeling is lower for females, this stigmatization is seen to affect females more strongly. Generalizing that females are often more relationship oriented than males, they may be more vulnerable or more aware of the consequences of both positive and negative labeling (Bartusch & Matsueda, 1996).

The attitudes and acceptance or rejection by peers through labeling is also a strong predictor of criminal outcomes in youth. Early educational experiences, the negative impact by teachers and peers in school, have been sited as having direct connections to later criminal and rule-breaking behavior. "Some studies have identified a peer effect on delinquency, where the peer group influences individual participation in delinquent behavior, which influences the later onset of delinquency" (Mann & Reynolds, 2006).

While doing poorly in school may have many variables associated with the child, certainly the reaction of others and the discouragement or encouragement by those in authority has a direct impact on the way the student perceives him or herself. This has been found to have not only societal but far reaching career goal impact as well. Conversely, positive labeling at an early age and continued positive encouragement by peers and caregivers and other authority figures has a tremendous influence in the further prevention or rule-breaking and future malfeasant behavior.

The crux of labeling theory as a predictor of deviant juvenile behavior is the differentiation and separation of individuals and groups from their access to power, power in making available the same opportunities and advantages that society deems advantageous. This is usually denied to the stigmatized and forces them to achieve this power by any alternative means necessary.

The act of labeling or public discrediting is important to the extent that it can foreclose on opportunities to engage in conventional activities, but it does not by itself explain acts of deviant behavior. The distribution of the power to apply labels is indicative of the social differentiation ultimately expressed in different behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs. (Sullivan & Wilson, 1995)

Put another way, the act of labeling prevents the stigmatized from interacting effectively with the larger society. This in turn creates a feeling of isolation, but the isolated often find each other and create a sub-culture of gangs and violence, labeling themselves proudly as rebels and opportunists, satisfying both themselves and the society that has labeled them. At first those in power had the ability to apply the labels; the powerless than pick them up as badges of courage and create their own counter-culture power structure.

Again, here there is also a more powerful and detrimental use of labeling when it comes to the female gender. Society expects women to act and behave in a certain way, in a sense to often care about others more than themselves, the maternal instinct so to speak. Even to the expense of the restricted development of their personal interests and well being at time. When deviating against these cultural expectations, society often responds harshly. First with slurs on the character, which can then lead to escalated repercussions throughout the justice system and the increase of the sanctions involved (Sullivan & Wilson, 1995)?

Law and order, society and the social order are inextricably linked. Those in power create and interpret the laws and being human are apt to stigmatize certain groups while making allowances for other, depending upon their inclinations and experiences.

Crime is a status. Criminal is a socially constructed public stereotype or "master status" for those who control agents identify as breaking the rules of those in power. We can all become criminals if we have the misfortune to become subject to processing by the criminal justice system. (Lanier & Henry, 1998, p. 180)

The larger society decides which behaviors are criminal and which are acceptable. When someone is labeled a criminal that stigma will follow him or her for the rest of their lives. Especially true for youthful offenders, instead of rehabilitation through the justice and prison systems, all we have recidivism. The theorists believe that labeling also demonstrates the inherent danger in any attempt to try and change someone or alter their personality. This becomes even more prevalent when punitive justice that is meted out is inaccurately and dishonestly presented as a program of reform and remedy, when it fact it often exacerbates the situation beyond all repair. This creates what Lanier and Henry term a "spoiled identity" (1998, p. 172). Therefore, if labeling theorists are correct that an over zealous reaction to minor rule breaking in juveniles results in an increased likelihood of criminal behavior in the future, then the onus is on the criminal justice system to temper the punishment, in effect to more appropriately fit penalty to the crime and not the label. "This will minimize the production of secondary (or extra) rule breaking and, in particular, prevent minor rule breakers from entering criminal careers" (Lanier & Henry, 1998, p. 174).

Of course this seems a simple solution to a rather complex and self-perpetuating problem. In their book, the New Criminology: For a Social Theory of Deviance, the authors Taylor, Walton and Young point out the possibly Pollyanna nature of this argument:

Among the theoretical problems are the previously stated failure to consider the continuing effects of the social structural and psychological sources of initial rule-breaking in the development of career deviance, the lack of sources of concern with the vulnerability of certain rule-breakers to self-labeling processes which may reduce the significance of objective labeling practices in determining deviant careers, and the related omission of any serious analysis of the types and severity of actual social sanction which facilitate 'successful' labeling. (1988, p. 164)

In general it has proven unsuccessful to apprehend, punish and incarcerate a large group of criminal offenders with the result of reducing or preventing further crime. Yet, of course, it is not practical, nor popular, to abandon punishment altogether (Felson & Clarke, 1995). Yet there must be some method of creating a just punishment when necessary and forgiveness and rehabilitation when possible. Shaming has long been the reason behind labeling and punishment. The concept is that a shamed person would not want to go on being shamed, yet if stigmatization occurs, he or she may have no choice. There is a theory of reintegrative shaming which takes very seriously labeling and all of its possible consequences, both good and bad. According to this perspective there are two types of shaming, one is reintegrative shaming and the other is stigmatization, or disintegrative shaming. When shaming is reintegrative, crime is reduced, because the shaming results in a reintegration to acceptable societal conditions. Stigmatizing shaming creates the self-fulfilling prophecy of labeling theory and the inclination to a life of crime may be increased.

The crucial theoretical move is this partitioning of shaming into a type that has a counterproductive effect on crime and a type that has a productive effect. Actually, practices of shaming are conceived as lying along a continuum ranging from highly reintegrative forms of shaming to highly stigmatizing forms. All cultures are complex mixes of reintegrative and stigmatizing shaming practices. But to the extent that reintegrative shaming is more dominant than stigmatization in a culture, the culture will have less crime. (Braithwaite, 1995, p. 193)

There is an implied assumption by the proponents of labeling theory that officials will exert their power whenever and wherever they can and go as far as the situation or the context will permit. Rather than exercising any judgement or restraint, those in power will always use their power to the ultimate extreme (Curran, 1988). While this is certainly not the case one hundred percent of the time, it is certainly seems an apparent reality for most juveniles.

Independent researchers and other observers have criticized the criminal justice system for its uneven and sometimes irrational treatment towards particular races and/or even classes of children. In regards to the contention that labeling theory predicts that adolescents exposed to this type of prejudice will often become the victims of irrevocable stereotypes themselves. Thomas, Stubbe and Pearson in their article, Race, Juvenile Justice, and Mental Health: New Dimensions in Measuring Pervasive Bias, point to the following instance as proof of this practice: