Labeling theory could very easily be
applied to the issue of mass incarceration. First, let’s define labeling
theory. In general, labeling theory proposes that someone commits crimes
because they have been labeled a criminal. The first labeling theorist, Frank
Tannenbaum, goes into a little more detail in his book Crime and the Community:
The
person becomes the thing he is described as being. Nor does it seem to matter
whether the valuation is made by those who would punish or by those who would
reform. In either case the emphasis is upon the conduct that is disapproved of.
The parents or the policeman, the older brother or the court, the probation
officer or the juvenile institution…Their very enthusiasm defeats their aim.
The harder they work to reform the evil, the greater the evil grows under their
hands. The persistent suggestion, with whatever good intentions, works
mischief, because it leads to bringing out the bad behavior that it would
suppress. The way out is through a refusal to dramatize the evil. The less said
about it the better. The more said about something else, still better
(Braithwaite, 17).
Tannenbaum’s
suggestion about refusing to dramatize the evil is very interesting. In some
ways it seems like a good idea, and for other purposes, not so much. The idea
reminds me of training a dog or how adults tell children to handle bullies. If
a dog is begging, trainers say to ignore the behavior, because if they get
attention when they beg they will learn that they get attention every time they
do so and they’ll continue to do it. When someone was picking on you in school
the adults said to just ignore them and they’ll stop. To apply this idea to
actual crimes, we could ignore crimes and maybe the people committing them will
stop doing so. This of course could not apply realistically to all crimes,
especially ones with an identifiable victim. However, if we decriminalized the
use, possession and sale of drugs we would definitely have less people in our
correctional system. After all, what people choose to put into their body, no
matter how bad it is, is their choice. Alcohol and greasy foods are legal and they
are bad for your body.
Okay
rant over (for now), back to labeling theory.
Labeling theory assumes that the
opinion of others and society at large matters to the deviant person, or
effects them in any way. I don’t know about you, but I never believe someone
when they say they don’t care what others think. This assumption of course is
more than just worrying what someone might think of you. It’s about how
society’s view of a person affects their life.
For example, if someone is convicted of a felony they are labeled a
felon, which means they do not have the same rights as other Americans. For
example, they cannot receive federal student loans and in some states they
cannot vote. They also have a hard time finding a job. Most applications ask
the applicant to check a box asking whether or not they have been convicted of
a felony. Also more and more jobs conduct background checks before hiring a
person. This legal form of discrimination really hurts a felon’s (or anyone
else with a criminal record) chance at getting a job. If a convicted drug
dealer was making enough money to live comfortably when he was dealing, what is
his motivation to apply to a number of businesses, only to get turned down by
every one of them? Could you really blame that person for going back to the
profitable work they know?
Another way labeling effects crime
and our society is labeling a person as deviant because of their race. As
discussed in previous posts, a disproportionate amount of African Americans are
in the correctional system in the United States. Evidence shows that because of
that (and because of racism), police officers tend to stop and arrest them more
than others. Therefore, African Americans (especially those that live in
disadvantaged neighborhoods) are labeled as criminals. Discrimination also
occurs during sentencing. When judges and juries look at an African American
who allegedly committed a drug crime, they most likely see them as just another
thug dealing drugs. However, if a white person is on trial for the same crime,
they see them as a kid who got mixed up with the wrong people. These
assumptions are based on sentence disparities between races, not personal
assumptions about their thought processes.
I work as a probation officer and I see
my coworkers discriminate all the time. When we’re out in the community and we
see a child or teenager glares at us, or even if they are just playing with
friends, my coworkers have said things like “unfortunately, they’ll probably be
on probation when they grow up”. As if saying unfortunately makes it not
racist, or makes it seem like they care. When people are labeled as criminals
at young ages because of their race, neighborhood or family members they are
much more likely to fulfill that prophecy.
References:
Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, Shame and
Reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment