How Criminal Labeling Negatively Impacts Offenders

Abstract
When offenders are released from prison, they are faced with
many hardships and barriers that will result in them not being
successfully re-integrated into society. They struggle with
finding housing, employment, and good support systems.
Offenders are normally stereotyped and labeled by other
members of society. The labeling and stereotyping often poses
as a challenged for these offenders that also results in offenders
having a high recidivism rate. Since offenders are normally
excluded from other members of society, they tend to link up
with others who share the problems as them. When offenders
are stereotyped and labeled it leads to the offenders
participating in deviant behaviors and forcing them to be
persistent criminals. This study examines how much damage
that labeling can pose on an offender. Throughout this paper,
secondary data from various scholarly articles will be utilized to
support the problems that labeled offenders face upon being
released from prison. In conclusion, this paper will also discuss
various ways that recidivism can be mitigated in order to
alleviate offenders from continuing to be processed in the
criminal justice system.
Introduction

When an individual is implicated in criminal behavior, what
normally would follow involves some form of criminal labeling;
usually known as a public criminal labeling. According to
labeling theorist, most people commit a crime at some point in
their lives; however, they assert that not everybody is labeled as
a criminal or a deviant individual. The most striking point worth
noting are the groups of individuals that are being labeled. Our
society tends to label individuals based on the environment in
which they reside in, their family settings and social groups.
Society also tends to imply that these individuals are more
likely to commit crimes and pose as an imminent danger to
society. Public criminal labeling is a stereotype that poses
negative effects on victims and has the potential to result in
individuals engaging in deviant acts.
When an individual has been successfully labeled as a criminal,
that particular label then is attached to them, that label becomes
dominant and is likely to be considered more important than
other aspects of that particular individual. Public crime labeling
seems to prove that the role of various criminal justice agencies
is misplaced because instead of preventing crime it increases it.
Crime labeling typically results in an individual to participating
in deviant behavior and pushes offenders to become persistent
criminals. One of the main reasons it due to stereotypes. In
addition to being labeled offenders are also stereotyped. The
purpose of this paper is to analyze the effects of stereotyping
and criminal labeling. Once an individual has been stereotyped
and labeled as a criminal offender how much damage does the
label do?
What is the labeling theory?
The labeling theory is a perspective of how an individual`s
behavior and identity are influenced or determined by various
aspects that are used to describe them in the society. The
labeling theory was propounded by several sociologists

including Emile Durkheim. This theory asserts that individuals
behave and identify themselves in accordance with the labels
that are given to them by others in the society. When an
individual is treated as being criminally deviant in the society,
they then become deviant so as to conform to the label (Hirschi,
2017). The labeling theory, therefore, helps members of society
to understand how deviance and criminal behavior is developed
in an individual`s life. It also asserts that only those in
positions of power define criminality in the society through the
formulation of laws regarding crimes in the society. Deviant
behavior is therefore as a result of the interactions between the
deviants and non-deviant individuals of society.
The branches of the Criminal Justice system; the Police and the
Courts are the avenues play a major role in labeling members of
society. In other modern societies, even the experts in different
fields and the school administrators also do label individuals as
deviant members in a given society by reinforcing the rules that
should govern the conduct of individuals in a given society
(Hirschi, 2017). The individuals and bodies in a particular
society that are responsible for labeling individuals in the
society empower and reinforces the authority structures in a
given society. They define the expected norms in the society. It
is therefore evident that the dominant group of individuals in
the society label their subordinates as deviant members by
reframing the social norms in the society.
For instance, the rich label the poor, men label women, ethnic
and racial majorities label the minority groups, and even the
older people label the younger individuals in a given society.
This theory also includes an understanding of how social
control efforts determine the changes in the anti-social and
criminal behaviors through an individual. The social controls,
therefore, explain the dimensions of criminal behavior in an
individual. For instance, the age of onset of criminality, its
prevalence, and even the duration of criminality in an
individual`s life.
Therefore, factors that explain one type of offender in the

society does not necessarily explain the other. Major life
transitions and changes in the environment help in examining
the criminal behaviors in an individual in the society. There is
an underlying assumption that when an individual becomes
older, old age may increase, decrease, initiate or stop the rate of
one`s offending behavior in the society.
Background Information
Looking at the visibility of crime labels both within and
between different jurisdictions, it varies widely. For instance,
as pointed out by Farrington & Murray (2017), in many
European nations, both state and federal authorities hide the
identity of individuals charged with crimes, even though some
public interest exceptions occur. In the United Kingdom, some
offenders who serve community service sentenced are forced to
put on specific clothing such as high visibility orange vest as
they work. It alerts their status to the public while some are
publicized by police officers in the media and posters.
When an individual has been labeled as a public criminal, the
label could be dominant and viewed by community members as
more important and thus disregards good aspects of the
individual. As asserted by Farrington & Murray, (2017), the
victim could then resort to become either a thief or a hooligan
rather being a responsible person to the society. Farrington and
Murray say that each label often poses prejudices and images.
This will allow other people to interpret the act of the labeled
individual as criminal in nature. For example, if a member of
society is labeled as a thief, then others would always suspect
him of stealing.
It is imperative to see how much damage labeling can do to an
individual. Research throughout this paper was guided to
investigate how much damage criminal labeling can do to an
individual; however in order to further highlight adverse effects
of criminal labeling I would like to pose the following questions
1) Who are the individuals that are normally labeled? 2) Is the
criminal justice system biased or unbiased against the working
and middle class? 3) Are law enforcement officers following

proper protocol when they label individuals?
Who are the individuals that are normally labeled?
Studies have shown that race plays an important role in
labeling. For instance, police brutality is at a higher rate against
the blacks in a given society than the whites. In this context,
there is no evidence that only the black people commit more
crimes than the white people in the society (Hirschi, 2017).
Even in the learning institutions, the black students and pupils
do get frequent and harsh punishments from their teachers and
administrators as compared to the white students and pupils.
Still, there is no proof behind the differences in wrongdoing
between the black students and whites students or pupils in the
school.
Social stratification in the society leads to discrimination and
social struggles between the dominant and minority society
members. For instance, the acquisition of education. This is the
whereby the most learned individuals discriminate against those
who are less or non-learned individuals in the society (Akers,
2017). These differences, therefore, makes the learned society
members to label the non-learned individuals in the society. The
learned, therefore, tend to know their rights and they want to
dictate the behaviors of non-learned individuals since they
cannot compare to them in various aspects of life.
The principle behind this theory is that, once an individual has
been labeled as deviant, it is therefore very difficult for them to
do away with the label. Labeling and conformation to the label
by the victim can land them into prison for punishment in
response to their criminal behavior. This, therefore, breaks the
reputation of the victim in the entire society since their criminal
history and records will be preserved such that even getting a
job after they have completed their prison sentence terms will
be equally difficult (Hirschi, 2017).
This, therefore, leads to stigmatization on the labeled
individual, since he/she will now be rejected and ex-
communicated by others of the same group, or even by the
entire society members. Due to this isolation, the individual

labeled will, therefore, accept the label and conforms to the
expectations of those responsible for labeling. He/she will then
commit crimes so as to rationalize their status even if the label
was as a result of no action committed in prior
Equality in the distribution of natural resources in the society
should always be upheld by the respective authorities so as to
balance the relationship among the members of the society.
Each individual in the society should have an equal right to
basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others within
a given society. Social and economic inequalities are to be
arranged so that; they are both reasonably expected to be to
everyone’s advantage. Therefore, everyone should share in the
society`s natural resources and all the benefits that come with it
(Akers, 2017).
Straining to get these resources by the minority groups of
individuals in the society so as to make ends meet, are sources
of labeling. This is simply because the rich who enjoy the
economies of scale at their disposal will start underrating the
minority middle class individuals in the society, and hence
labeling them as deviant or delinquent members in a given
society. It is a general observation that the working class or the
haves will no longer compare themselves with the middle class
or have-nots in a given society.
The models in the society that focus on interactive processes
can best explain human behaviors that occur as a result of social
interaction with others in the society, who are not labeled.
Therefore, studies have shown that even the children who are
closely bonded to their parents are more likely commit
themselves and excel in class work, adopt the conventional
values, and can, therefore, refrain from delinquency in the
society (Akers, 2017).
In other words, some individuals in the society who behave as if
they are using drugs, though, in a real sense, they are not.
Therefore, the deviant behavioral trait assumed of that
individual labeled as a drug user or addict is generalized to
other situations. These people who are labeled as drug addicts

are said to be non-comprehending in-class work, and that they
are the group of people who are always prone to examination
malpractice in school. They are also believed to perform poorly
when they are given tasks to accomplish by their employers at
work, and hence their employers will not be satisfied with their
input at work.
In the extreme situations, some employers will fire these types
of employees and recruit new ones, though there is no
justification that those who use drugs cannot perform better at
work than those who are not using such drugs in the society. On
the other hand, some may be denied access to proper
employment and even to drugs. Therefore, due to frustrations
and desperations for money to support drug use and other social
needs by these individuals, they would then resort to anti-social
activities in the society so as to support their conditions in life.
At this stage, the individual will now view criminal activity as a
normal part of life in society, and therefore, they engage in it
(Akers, 2017).
Is the Criminal Justice System is Biased or Unbiased against the
Working and Middle Class?
Criminal justice officials should always uphold the dignity of
the system and act in accordance with the objectives of the
system. A system is generally an inclusion of different modules
or components that work to achieve a given goal under some
proper instruction. The way cases are dealt with does not
portray the “system” as it should be. The cases should be
processed in a sequence, from one stage to the other until
justice is dispensed to the labeled victim or to the society at
large.
According to this theory, the criminal justice system is biased
against the middle class people in the society. This is very
evident in the way they punish the deviant members in the
society. It is generally accepted that punishment for a particular
crime committed should be proportionate to the crime
committed. In this perspective, the criminal justice system
actors do not follow this notion. They are only guided by the

views of the working or dominant class of people in the society
(Paetzold & Rholes, 2017).
Corruption and politics have also found their ways into the
criminal justice system avenues. This is whereby the actors
within the criminal justice system love and embrace corruption
in a kind way, such that if one is not keen, then they identify
this vice within the system. The Police are always known to be
taking bribes so as to lengthen a given case and render it minor
or even useless. All these are only meant to favor the haves or
working class members in the society (Paetzold & Rholes,
2017).
The notion that justice is sold to the highest bidder also plays
an important role in this perspective. Since the middle-class
people cannot afford to buy justice within the avenues of justice
dispensation; the courts, the working class individuals,
therefore, take advantage of this opportunity by reinforcing the
justice system with incentives that mostly will render a case as
minor or null and void in favor of the working class members of
the society.
The rules of punishment in relation to crime in the society also
state that once a crime has been committed, the punishment
should be effected immediately (Paetzold & Rholes, 2017). In
other cases, the middle class people will be made to go through
a lengthy prosecution process that is literally meant to
disadvantage them at the end of the day. This, therefore, follows
the principle of "Justice Delayed is Justice Denied."
Biasness in the criminal justice system is also evident in the
sense that, even after the victim of the label has been sentenced
to prison, when he/she shall have completed the prison term, the
individual still will not enjoy the economies of scale. Getting a
job still becomes a problem because the job market is linked to
the criminal justice system records (Paetzold & Rholes, 2017).
The victim`s criminal records will therefore not allow them to
acquire formal employment so as to meet their needs in the
society. It is generally believed that the major role of prisons is
to rehabilitate the offenders for the stated period before they are

released back to the society. It is therefore upon the criminal
justice system professionals to ensure that the offender is
properly rehabilitated and their rehabilitation progress should
be thoroughly monitored.
Therefore, after being released back into the society, they
should be accepted normally as full society members, but still
under the monitoring departments, for serious offenders. These
labeled victims still find it difficult to cope up with life in the
free society, since their reputation is compromised, and they
still feel alienated from the others.
The society members refuse to accord the labeled victims an
equal status as before. For instance, the criminal justice
officials will thoroughly scrutinize the behaviors of these
victims, and most of the times when a crime has been
committed, and the Police are looking for suspects, they will
first of all turn to these victims as the first suspects of the
committed crime in the society.
This, therefore, breeds the stigma inside their minds. Inferiority
complex, therefore, emerges in between them and the society
members since they cannot now socialize normally and
effectively with their fellow members in the same society. Some
victims would decide to pursue criminality so as to rationalize
their life issues and even to get a livelihood (Paetzold &
Rholes, 2017).
Are Law Enforcement Officials Following Proper Protocol when
they Label Individuals?
Although punishment reduces criminal and deviant behaviors in
the society, it sometimes worsens it. Therefore, the law
enforcement officials do not follow the proper protocol when
they label individuals in the society as delinquent or deviant
members in the society. This is simply because there is no
empirical support for this theory. Criminal justice officials are
mostly guided by the rules and powers that are reinforced and
imposed by the dominant groups of people in the society who
make rules that have infractions which constitute deviance.
They apply these rules to a particular group of people in the

society and label them as outsiders. Therefore, deviance is not a
quality of the act that an individual commits, but rather, a
consequence of the application by the rules and sanctioning
procedures.
There are ethical codes of conduct that govern a profession.
Therefore, the law enforcement officials also employ ethics
before they label an individual. First, they have to understand
the adverse impacts of the label on an individual. It is evident
that labeling leads to stigmatization on an individual since
he/she will be isolated by the society members and even be
excommunicated.
The stigma in the victim can make the victim to commit a more
serious offense so as to conform to the label in the society. The
role of the criminal justice system is to dispense justice and
fairness in all their dealings, so as to make the society a better
place to live in (Clinard & Meier, 2015). Therefore, the society
can only be a good place to live in only when morality is
upheld. The Law enforcement careers come with a number of
duties and responsibilities for which moral behavior is
mandatory. The criminal justice officials should, therefore, be
independent in all their undertakings so as to avoid being
compromised by the majority members in the society for
favoritism purposes.
We live in a society whereby the due process is believed to be
protecting individuals from the violation of the law and in
which certain freedoms are expected. Therefore, we expect law
enforcement officers to use their discretion with due process in
mind. Every individual in the society must, therefore, be treated
equally in the justice system. The decisions of the criminal
justice officials should therefore not be compromised by the
dominant members of the society. Of more importance is that
criminal justice system officers have the power to deprive
people of their freedom.
It is critical that law enforcement officials possess moral
character so that their decisions become balanced and fair in the
case rulings or prosecution before they label an individual as

deviant. The law enforcement officials should also understand
that some dominant members in the society label their
subordinates as a result of conflicts between them and minority
members. Therefore, they must put into consideration, all the
factors that led to the label, and then critically make a decision
regarding the issue.
The criminal justice officials; the Police officers, should always
conduct a proper investigation against the suspects before
labeling them as deviant members in the society. The
investigation goes hand in hand with the sufficient evidence
collected from various necessary sources to prove that indeed
the suspect committed the crime in question (Clinard & Meier,
2015). There are those individuals in the society who commit
some acts and still go scot free; without being noticed, punished
and even without being labeled as deviant or delinquent
members in the society. The police should, therefore, conduct a
thorough investigation and search of the relevant suspects of a
given crime committed in the society before they label an
individual who may sometimes be innocent about the crime in
question.
There are various avenues of employing force by the criminal
justice officials. The use of force can only be applied when the
Police want to affect the arrest and the suspect is evading arrest.
Some Police officers abuse the use of force. They are always
brutal to a given group of people in the society. Even when
Police brutality results in the death of the suspect, it is always
very rare to hear that they are charged with a crime of murder in
this situation, and charged with murder on such a case, the
justice system will rush the case so fast as to dispose of it.
Majorly, this is to confuse the public or blindfold them that
there is justice in practice (Clinard & Meier, 2015).
Literature Review
In order to highlight further adverse effects of criminal
labeling, I would like to consider the labeling theory and
correctional rehabilitation by Cullen & Johnson (2017). In this
literature review Cullen & Johnson reveal that labeling can

change the way an individual behaves throughout their lives
most likely if hat individual finds it difficult to bear the label.
According to Cullen & Johnson, many people within the society
believe that engaging in criminal activity does in fact break the
law. A great case study that can be utilized show the negative
effects that labeling has on individual is the Willie Bosket case
and how it ties into the labeling theory. Willie Bosket is a prime
example that shows how an individual’s life can be impacted by
negative labels that were used to describe him.
At the age of 6 years of is when Willie Bosket first experienced
negative labels from his mother. His father was a well-known
criminal who spent years in the criminal justice systems and his
mother would remind him that he was just like his father. Other
family members also contributed to his mother’s behavior,
because they would reiterate to him that he will not be
successful in life. Family members would let him know that his
actions were bad just like his fathers. As a result of their action,
the negative labels resulted in him alienating himself from his
family and changing the wat that he viewed himself and
amplified his delinquency during childhood. Labeling theorist
would explain Willie’s behavior change in behavior to be
known as reflected appraisal. Delinquent acts that he engaged in
as a child such as stealing, and truancy were a direct result of
how his family always placed negative labels on him.
As Willie got older he continued to engage in delinquent acts
which resulted in him ending up in the juvenile justice system
and the labeling continued. This time the labeling came from
child care workers, social workers, and clinicians. “Willie often
heard comments like “You’re turning out to be quite a
problem,” and man you crazy”(Butterfield, p. 52). The labeling
that Willie received from the juvenile justice system played a
great contribution to him engaging in more serious and violent
crimes such as murder and armed robbery.
Apparently it became embedded in Willie Boskets head that he
was a bad person that was on his way to prison. Due to the
negative labeling that he received from the juvenile justice

systems and other social control agents it shaped and molded
him to be a bad person. He once told a psychiatrist that he was
going to follow his fathers’ footsteps and end up in jail just like
him. Willie Bosket felt that since the world expected him to be
a monster then that’s how he was going to act, just like a
monster. Labeling soon took of Willie’s thinking patterns.
Everyone around him labeled him as a negative person so in
turn he believed that he was a negative person. In the beginning
Willie blamed others for his action, but eventually he then
blamed himself and took on responsibility for his actions.
There are many factors that contributed to Willie Boskets
actions in terms to labeling. These factors are as follows; self-
labeling, secondary deviance, and reflected appraisal. Reflected
appraisal occurred when Willie Boskett started to see himself in
the same manner that others viewed him in. All of the deviant
activity that Willie engaged in at a young age was due to him
being viewed in a negative way by members of his family. Self-
labeling is a direct result of being negatively labeled. “When
self-labeling occurs, individuals believe that others view them
as negative, and take on that type of attitude that reflects this
label.” (Siegel, p. 186). By being negatively labeled Willie
Boskett felt that the only place he belonged was in the criminal
justice system with other who was just like him that created
deviants act.
Willie environment shaped him to become the deviant
induvial as he transitioned into adulthood. Studies show that
children gown up to be a product of their environment.
The positive correlation between negative adult behavior and
the past legal system involvement has been associated with
labeling theory. The repercussions examined are focused on
adolescent youth among the foster youth venturing into the
outside world after attaining adulthood status. The Midwest
study from the Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of
Former Foster Youth indicated that youth exiting foster care
less likely to be employed by age 21. Additionally, they are
more predisposed to commit crimes at the same age (Courtney

& Lee, 2015). After exiting care, former foster care youths are
more likely to experience social exclusion as a result of legal
system involvement (Courtney & Lee, 2015).
Labeling has been observed to have negative consequence on
the adult life of former foster care youth. The social and
personal impacts as a result of juvenile legal system
involvement have been supported by both empirical and
theoretical studies which include but not limited to:
Adulthood Criminal Tendencies: Theoretical Approach
Recent hypotheses have tried to attribute labeling as the
foundation of the whole process of social exclusion leading to
future challenges of employment and educational opportunities.
But another primary hypothesis is that the unfavorable social
label has the capacity to push one into committing crime
(Paternoster & Iovanni, 1989; Sampson & Laub, 1997, as cited
in Courtney & Lee, 2015). Social exclusion will later culminate
into someone seeking to distance himself from the society and
facing stigmatization as a result (Bernburg, 2009, as cited in
Courtney & Lee, 2015). The evidence of labeling therefore has a
direct attribution to the deviant behavior in the adult life and
other consequences such as social exclusion and sidelining in
the society (Courtney & Lee, 2015). The theory, however, has
not been proven to apply to foster youth attaining adulthood
status.
Adulthood Criminal Tendencies: Empirical Approach
A case study, analysis of results from Midwest Evaluation of
the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth of 732 youths
from Iowa, Wisconsin and Illinois revealed the proximate
relationship between delinquency and past juvenile legal system
involvement (Courtney & Lee, 2015). The results indicated that
the youth aged 21 who reported juvenile legal system
involvement also reported significant levels of delinquency. The
results, however, showed lower levels at ages 23 or 24
(Courtney & Lee, 2015). Additional other covariates such as
histories of sexual abuse and neglect and more foster care
attention all showed a significant contribution to the future

criminal tendencies (Courtney & Lee, 2015).
Social Exclusion
Labeling theory has been hypothesized to contribute to social
exclusion though in a limited way. The situation where one
drops out of high school and subsequent failure to graduate has
been attributed to loose bond with the learning institution. It is
also linked with the incarceration experience as a juvenile
(Hjalmarsson, 2008; Kirk & Sampson, 2013, as cited in
Courtney & Lee, 2015). Drug use, delinquency, high
unemployment rates and low high school graduation was linked
to juvenile incarceration and labeling through a simple police
contact (Bernburg &Krohn, 2003, as cited in Courtney & Lee,
2015). Foster youth exiting the care are the most vulnerable
with inadequate justice system representation. The state,
however, bears the responsibility of a parent follows the
principle of parens patriae (Courtney, 2009, as cited in
Courtney & Lee, 2015)
Common Stereotypes that are attached to labeled individuals
Stereotyping has a major negative impact on criminal labeling.
When individuals are released back in society from the criminal
justice system that are already disadvantaged because they now
fall victim to being stereotyped. Stereotyping normally occurs
when an individual is automatically judged without getting to
know that individual. Some common stereotypes that most
offenders are labeled with are being angry, poor and uneducated
individuals. Members of society tend to look down on them
because they feel as if they are not an asset to society and they
fear that they will continue to conduct and partake in delinquent
acts. Because of these stereotypes, offender are often avoided
by other members of society. When these particular individuals
are stereotyped and often avoided, they fall victim to the
stereotype threat. As a result they are not able to perform at
their full potential because they are stressed and overwhelmed
with feeling of worry and anxiety.
Re-Integration Process
When an individual has served time in the criminal justice

system, it means that they have paid their debt to society. True
enough, everybody is not able to be rehabilitated but for the
most part others are known to be successful. Re-integrating
back into society upon release from the criminal justice system
can be a challenging for most due to stereotypes and criminal
labeling. When an individual is convicted of a felony they are
stripped of their civil rights. They lose a great amount of
privileges that most citizens in good standing are entitled to.
Some of these privileges include; the right to have a firearm in
their possession, the right to traveling abroad, jury duty,
employment in certain fields, and parental benefits. The most
common right that many lose is the right to vote; yet it is all
based off of what state that particular individual resides in.
Upon release from the criminal justice system, most
offenders come out with the mind frame that they have learned
from their mistakes and they are going to make a better life for
themselves. A minor problem that offenders face is forming
social bonds and establishing relationships with others. Major
problems that they are faced with are finding adequate
employment, housing, and support. To make matters worse a lot
of offender’s lack education and job skills that can benefit them
when they are released from the criminal justice system.
A majority of offenders held jobs prior to being incarcerated,
however offenders are faced with many barriers in regards to
employment upon release. When seeking employment, offenders
have to report that they have been convicted of a felony which
can weaken their chances of finding employment. When
offenders are incarcerated for long periods of time, it results in
them weakening their social contacts that could have the
potential to lead to finding employment upon their release date.
Other barriers that ex-offenders face in finding and keeping a
job include the lack of recent job experiences, a lessening of
job-related skills and transportation difficulties (Christy)
Because of all of these barriers, unemployment rates are high
for offenders. When these offenders have a legal and legitimate
job the chances of recidivism is less likely to occur.

Offenders are in strong need of support when they are released
from the criminal justice system. When they don’t have a good
support system they tend to link up with others who are labeled
and in turn resort to deviant behavior because that is all they
know. Labeled individuals tend to find themselves turning to
other individuals who are similarly stigmatized for support and
companionship. These same individuals are known to be
isolated from conventional society, which can result in them
feeling as if they are outcast and locked into a deviant career.
Recidivism
The bottom line up front is society does not allow offenders a
second chance. One of the primary reasons labeling can
continue to cause damage because it increases the chances for
recidivism. Recidivism is commonly described as an ex-
offenders’ relapse back into criminal behavior. Surprisingly,
life for ex-offenders tends to be more difficult that it was while
they were incarcerated. Recidivism rates would not be as high if
these ex-offenders were not labeled by members of society.
Since 1980, the United States has experienced a dramatic
increase in its correction population. Imprisonment rates have
risen from just over 300,00 in 1980 to more than 1.5 million in
2014 representing an increase of more than 400% (Carson,
2015).
There are many actions that can be implemented to alleviate the
chances of recidivism in first time offenders. Inmates have a lot
of time on their hand when they are incarcerated. While in these
facilities they are provided the opportunity to participate in
recidivism reducing programs. Some of these programs include
vocational training, anger management, drug treatment and
other educational programs. The things that individuals struggle
with the most when released from the criminal justice system
are housing arrangements, medical and drug treatment, and last
finding a place of employment. Not have these things can
become very stressful and result in life being a challenge to that
ex-offender.

There are many measures that can be implemented to help
offenders reduce their chances of entering back into the
criminal justice system. Judges play a major role in alleviating
the chances of recidivism. For example, in, in the state of
Florida, judges are given the opportunity to withhold adjunction
of guilt of those personnel who have been found guilty of a
felony, yet they are sentenced to probation. “Reconviction data
for 95,919 men and women who were adjucated are significantly
more likely to recidivate in 2 years, than those who are not
Chiricos, Barrick, Bales, Bontrager, 2007).
Another way that recidivism rates can be reduced is through
parole. Parole officers play a vital role in the success of ex-
offenders. Parole was originally meant to ease an offender’s re-
integration back into society by assisting them with help in
finding employment and housing. Parole is said to have both a
negative and positive impact on the ex-offender. It is imperative
that parole officers have a good rapport with their parolees.
When there is not a good rapport the ex-offender will be less
likely to comply with the guidelines and procedures that are
given to them. An important caveat to the relationship between
rapport and recidivism is the amount of contact that a parole
officer has with his or her assigned parolee (Visher,
Winterfield, & Coggeshall, 2005).)
Method
Prior research suggest that the parolee-parole officer
relationship may play a critical role in reducing recidivism and
enhancing parolee success (Visher, Winterfield, & Coggeshall,
2005). In order to further validate this statement I will examine
a research study that collected data from serious and violent
offenders over the initial 15 months after they were released
from the criminal justice system. In this study researchers asked
the offenders (a) how does the parolees’ perception of rapport
with their officer predict recidivism? and (b) does type of
rapport, supportive or non-supportive, differently impact the
relationship between contact amount and type and recidivism?
(Visher, Winterfield, & Coggeshall, 2005).

The data from this study was pulled from Serious and Violent
Offender Reentry (SVORI) by conducting a total of four
interviews with inmates who were about to be released from the
criminal justice system. Participants in this study were both
adult male and female offenders. The first interview was
conducted while they were incarcerated and it gave the
offenders the opportunity to speak on their experiences and
their plans upon release; follow up interviews were conducted at
3, 9, and 15 months in order to document their experiences after
being released and relationships with various support groups
such as family, friends, and parole officers.
With recidivism being the dependent variable and supportive
rapport and non-supportive rapport being the independent
variables, researchers were able to find that the offenders that
had an great rapport with their parole officers had an better
chance at re-integrating back into society. In fact the study
showed that parolees that had a great rapport with their parole
officers had lower rates of recidivism compared to those who
did not. Parolees who met with their parole officer at least once
a month, regardless of the type of meeting, were less likely to
recidivate than their counterparts; their odds of recidivating
were approximately 47% lower than their counterparts (Visher,
Winterfield, & Coggeshall, 2005). In conclusion, parole officers
play a huge part in a offender’s reintegration process and great
rapport between a parolee and the parole officer is built
primarily on trust. When great bonds aren’t established
recidivism rates typically are shown to be higher.
Data Collection
In order to validate findings that criminal labeling has a
negative effect on an offender, I would like to examine a
journal article entitle Official Labeling, Criminal
Embeddedness, and Subsequent Delinquency. In this article a
longitudinal test was conducted to test the labeling theory. In
this article it clearly states that the “stigma of the criminal
status may increase the probability that the individual becomes
involved in deviant social groups.” (Bernburg, Krohn, & Rivera

2006). Panel data was utilized to sample urban adolescents and
their involvement in deviant behavior and examine the effect of
formal criminal labeling on subsequent delinquency.
The article tends to highlight this aspect succinctly through data
and study methods. For instance, secondary deviance among
many offenders has negative labels and stigma largely to blame.
Criminal justice system sometimes perpetuates criminal
recidivism by stigmatizing and labeling incarcerated offenders.
Majority of offenders after negative stigmatization normally
attempt to change their behavior to match and justify the
accorded label. For example, reflected appraisals of parents,
teachers, and peers usually bear a significant influence on
delinquent behavior among juveniles (Asencio & Burke, 2011).
The same also applies to other deviant behavior among
juveniles in the society. This needs to change to avoid further
recurrence of crime practices.
Reflected views also influences self- views, behavior, and
conduct of people such that a well-behaved individual may
change to a criminal depending on changes in the surrounding
environment. For example, a normal and well-behaved person if
abducted by terrorists would interact with this new environment
and system to subsequently change an identity to a terrorist
sympathizer and finally to a criminal terrorist. Additionally, an
incarcerated individual who views him or herself as a criminal
is most likely to engage in criminal activities as compared to
one with a contrasting perception. Criminal identity would
significantly weaken with time among criminal offenders with
positive perception about self-views (Asencio & Burke, 2011).
This is shown clearly among imprisoned individuals engaged in
a drug rehabilitation program in this article.
Going by research findings from this article, it is prudent for all
prisoners as well as prison officials to engage in positive
perceptions. Positive perceptions and views largely contribute
to improved behavior, identity and general conduct of all. This
would contribute to reduced secondary offences among
prisoners (Asencio & Burke, 2011). This greatly helps in

enhancing correction and rehabilitation efforts of prison
facilities, since communal as well as personal perception
matters a lot. Encouraging labeling and stereotypical tendencies
among criminal offenders only contributes towards deepening
the criminality crisis. Labeling would encourage low
motivation, low self-esteem, depression and withdrawal habits,
which may lead to commission of even more severe criminal
activities.
Human identity and behavior is a socially constructed
phenomenon that finds shape largely from the circumstances
prevailing around an individual’s environment. Consequently,
labeling and stigmatizing of incarcerated offenders contributes
towards poor social formation of behavior and identity, which
bears a negative effect. A stereotypically dominated
environment breeds feelings of demotivation, low self-esteem,
depression and withdrawal, which may lead to recidivism.
Correction and rehabilitation officials should therefore focus
more on discouraging labeling to enhance correction and
rehabilitation efforts of such facilities for the overall good of
the society.
References
Akers, R. (2017). Social learning and social structure: A general
theory of crime and deviance. Routledge.
Asencio, E. K., & Burke, P. J. (2011). Does incarceration
change the criminal identity? A synthesis of labeling and
identity theory perspectives on identity change. Sociological
Perspectives, 54(2), 163-182.
CHIRICOS, T., BARRICK, K., BALES, W., & BONTRAGER,
S. (2007). The labeling of convicted felons and its consequences

for recidivism. Criminology, 45(3), 547-581. Doc:10.1111/
Offenders are accustomed to spending countless time with
others who share the same things in common with them.
Clinard, M. B., & Meier, R. F. (2015). Sociology of deviant
behavior. Nelson Education.
Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2017). Labeling theory and
correctional rehabilitation: Beyond unanticipated consequences.
In Labeling Theory (pp. 63-85). Routledge.
Farrington, D. P., & Murray, J. (2017). Empirical tests of
labeling theory in criminology. In Labeling Theory (pp. 1-9).
Routledge.
Hirschi, T. (2017). On the compatibility of rational choice and
social control theories of crime. In The reasoning criminal (pp.
105-118). Routledge.
Lee, J., Courtney, E. M.(2015). Labeling and the Effect of
Adolescent Legal System
Involvement on Adult Outcomes for Foster Youth Aging Out of
Care. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 85 (5), 441-451. doi.10.1037/ort0000090
Paetzold, R. L., & Rholes, W. S. (2017). Wal-Mart v. Dukes:
Justice Scalia and Systemic Disparate Treatment Theory. Emp.
Rts. & Emp. Pol'y J., 21, 115.
Visher, C. A., Winterfield, L., & Coggeshall, M. B. (2005). Ex-
offender employment programs and recidivism: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(3), 295-316.
doi:10.1007/s11292-005-8127-x

Writing A Literature Review and
Using a Synthesis Matrix
My professor says I have to write a literature review, what do I
do?
Well, to begin, you have to know that when writing a literature
review, the goal of the researcher is to determine the current
state of knowledge about a particular topic by asking, “What do
we know or not know about this issue?” In conducting this type
of
research, it is imperative to examine several different sources to
determine where the knowledge overlaps and where it falls
short. A
literature review requires a synthesis of different subtopics to
come to a greater understanding of the state of knowledge on a
larger
issue. It works very much like a jigsaw puzzle. The individual
pieces (arguments) must be put together in order to reveal the
whole
(state of knowledge).
So basically I just read the articles and summarize each one
separately?
No, a literature review is not a summary. Rather than merely
presenting a summary of each source, a literature review should

be organized according to each subtopic discussed about the
larger topic. For example, one section of a literature review
might read
“Researcher A suggests that X is true. Researcher B also argues
that X is true, but points out that the effects of X may be
different
from those suggested by Researcher A.” It is clear that subtopic
X is the main idea covered in these sentences. Researchers A
and B
agree that X is true, but they disagree on X’s effects. There is
both agreement and disagreement, but what links the two
arguments is
the fact that they both concern X.
This sounds like a lot of information, how can I keep it
organized?
Because a literature review is NOT a summary of these different
sources, it can be very difficult to keep your research
organized. It is especially difficult to organize the information
in a way that makes the writing process simpler. One way that
seems
particularly helpful in organizing literature reviews is the
synthesis matrix. The synthesis matrix is a chart that allows a
researcher to
sort and categorize the different arguments presented on an
issue. Across the top of the chart are the spaces to record

sources, and
along the side of the chart are the spaces to record the main
points of argument on the topic at hand. As you examine your
first source,
you will work vertically in the column belonging to that source,
recording as much information as possible about each
significant idea
presented in the work. Follow a similar pattern for your
following sources. As you find information that relates to your
already
identified main points, put it in the pertaining row. In your new
sources, you will also probably find new main ideas that you
need to
add to your list at the left. You now have a completed matrix!
2
As you write your review, you will work horizontally in the row
belonging to each point discussed. As you combine the
information presented in each row, you will begin to see each
section of your paper taking shape. Remember, some of the
sources
may not cover all of the main ideas listed on the left, but that
can be useful also. The gaps on your chart could provide clues
about the
gaps in the current state of knowledge on your topic.

CREATING YOUR SYNTHESIS MATRIX
It is probably best to begin your chart by labeling the columns
both horizontally and vertically. The sample chart below
illustrates how to do this.
Topic: ______________________________________
Source #1 Source #2 Source #3 Source #4
Main Idea
A
Main Idea
B

Label the columns across the top of your chart with the author’s
last name or with a few keywords from the title of the work.
Then
label the sides of the chart with the main ideas that your sources
discuss about your topic. As you read each source, make notes
in the
appropriate column about the information discussed in the work,
as shown in the following chart.
3
Topic: Women in WWII
Cornelsen Stewart Bruley Scott
Alteration of
women’s
roles

because of
WWII
- Women accredited the
WASP program for opening
new doors, challenging
stereotypes, and proving that
women were as capable as
men (p. 113)
- Women could compete with
men as equals in the sky
because of their exemplary
performance (p. 116)
- WASP created opportunities
for women that had never
previously existed (p. 112)
- Women’s success at flying
aircrafts “marked a pivotal
step towards breaking the

existing gender barrier” (p.
112)
- WAAC (Women’s Army
Auxiliary Corp) was 1
st
chance for women to serve in
army, given full army status in
1943 as WAC (p. 28)
- Needs of the war were so
great that women’s traditional
social roles were ignored (p.
30)
- Military women paid well
for the time period and given
benefits if they became
pregnant (p. 32)
- The 1940’s brought more
opportunities to women than

ever before (p. 26)
-Women given equal
opportunities (p. 223)
- Women joined workforce as
a break from the ordinary to
help the war (p. 220)
- Unconscious decision to
cross into male-dominated
roles (p. 221)
- Seized these new
opportunities to bring about
change (p. 230)
- Women born in the 1920’s
found new doors open to them
where they once would have
encountered brick walls (p.
526)
-Even women not directly

involved in the war were
changing mentally by being
challenged to expand their
horizons because of the
changing world around them
(p. 562)
- War also brought intellectual
expansion to many people (p.
557)
Hardships
and
oppositions
women
faced
- “From the outset male pilots
resented women’s presence in
a traditionally male military
setting” (p. 1113-4)

- “The WASP were routinely
assigned inferior planes that
were later found to have been
improperly maintained” (p.
114)
- discrimination against
WASP at every level of
military service, women were
only paid 2/3 of what men
were for doing identical tasks
(p. 114)
- Women in the military given
extensive physical and mental
tests, but still discriminated
against, ridiculed, and
considered inferior to men (p.
29)
- Women given unskilled

labor positions by government
because only seen as
temporary workers, therefore
no reason to train them (p.
221-2)
- Women given less
significant work and viewed
as less intelligent and
physically able (p. 224)
-“The Church-Bliss diary
reveals how dilution
arrangements…ensured that
women working in male
preserves were prevented
4
Cornelsen Stewart Bruley Scott

- “In the belief that women
were emotionally and
physically fragile, the military
questioned women’s
capabilities to fly an aircraft”
(p. 114-5), regardless of their
training or aptitude
- WASP’s not granted veteran
status until 1979 (p. 115)
from achieving any sort of
equality” (p. 230)
- more traditionally male jobs
resisted the integration of
women workers, while other
industries were less
resistant… but in most all
cases women were considered
temporary workers (p. 221)

- Equal pay rarely given to
women, even though women
did the same work (p. 221)
- Women occasionally found
their way to positions of
importance, but were always
treated as inferior (p. 226-8)
- After the war, women were
the first to be let go because
of their temporary status (p.
230)
- Women in the workforce
also faced discrimination from
labor unions (p. 226)
Opposition:
WWII did
NOT effect
women

- Women put in untraditional
roles during/because of the
war, but back to previous
subservient roles after the war
(p. 35)
- Women were not affected
because they still remained in
subordinate positions after the
war (p. 217)
After your chart is complete, notice patterns of information.
You may find that your sources, at times, discuss very similar
material, or that they sometimes deal with completely different
aspects of your topic. These patterns can be useful in creating a
thesis
statement that can guide your writing and keep you focused as
you begin your draft.

5
WRITING YOUR REVIEW
Here is an example from the literature review: “World War
Two and its Effect on Women.” This excerpt synthesizes
information without summarizing.
While the articles used in this research agree that women made
many advances during the Word War II period, it is crucial to
realize that not all these changes were welcomed. In most cases
women faced discrimination from just about everyone around
them. Women in the workplace were often placed in positions of
inferiority or treated as being less physically able to do the
same work the men did. Many women were often not trained
because they were viewed as temporary employees who were
only there for the duration of the war (Bruley, 2003, pp.221-
222). Women were very rarely given equal pay as men, even
though some of them did the same work. Women in the military
faced not only mental abuse but also physical harm from their
male counterparts. According to Cornelsen (2005), there were
many instances where female aviators were injured or killed due
to being made to fly ill-maintained aircrafts or aircrafts that had
been sabotaged. (p.114)

The sample above is an excellent example of how to synthesize
information adequately. Notice how when transitioning from
Bruley to Cornelsen the writer notes not only that the two
articles are similar, but also how they are similar. The writer
goes into detail
about Bruley’s discussion of women in industry facing
discrimination while noting that Stewart deals with prejudice in
the military.
The author also transitions well between the Bruley article and
the Cornelsen article; rather than summarizing, the author draws
comparisons between the two articles, giving relevant
information and at the same time synthesizing the two works.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
___________
This document was created by NC State University Writing and
Speaking Tutorial Service Tutors during Fall 2006.
Contributors were Laura

Ingram, James Hussey, Michelle Tigani, and Mary Hemmelgarn.
Special thanks to Stephanie Huneycutt for providing the sample
matrix and
paragraph. http://www.ncsu.edu/tutorial_center/writespeak
victims of crime and labeling
theory: a parallel process?
J. Scott Kenney
Department of Sociology and Social
Anthropology, Dalhousie University, Halifax,
Nova Scotia, Canada
Labeling theory tends to focus largely on the
offender. Yet, implicit in interactionist theories of
deviance is a concern for the social situation as a
whole. This logically includes the victim of crime.
This article explores the potential of extending the
interactionist perspective on deviance to the
experiences of victims of crime. Speci®cally, I
outline a parallel labeling process for victims in
which differential social reactions to this status,
¯owing from varying attributions of sympathy
worthiness, have an impact on the behaviors,
adjustment, and identities of the individuals
concerned. This process is further distinguished
from the related labeling of emotional deviance. I
then present the results of a qualitative study of
individuals who have suffered the murder of a loved
one. Through an empirical examination of the
varying social reactions to these individuals by

extended family, friends, acquaintances, and the
community, as well as victims’ varying responses
thereto, I indicate how familiar terms such as
accommodation, labeling, primary, secondary, and
tertiary deviance each have their conceptual
counterpart in the experiences of victims.
Address correspondence to J. Scott Kenney, Department of
Sociology and Social
Anthropology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia,
Canada B3H 3J5. E-mail:
[email protected]
Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23:235±265,
2002
Copyright # 2002 Taylor & Francis
0163-9625/02 $12.00 + .00
235
Crime creates problems for people. In the past much research
in this vein, particularly from the labeling perspective, has
largely focused on offenders. Yet, victims of crime often
experience the labeling process as well. This paper delineates
the processes and consequences underlying such labeling by
empirically examining the experiences of individuals who
have suffered the murder of a loved one. In this way, the
labeling perspective, as a theory rooted in the interactionist
tradition, is broadened in a direction implicit in its philoso-
phical antecedents.
PRIOR LITERATURE
The labeling perspective is grounded in the conception that
deviance is de®ned by social reactions, and that the frequency

and character of the deviation, as well as the role of the
deviant, are largely shaped by interactional response (Lemert
1951; Becker 1963). As such, it draws attention away from
the idea that there is anything objective in the actions of
individuals that is deviant, focusing instead on changes in
social de®nitional processes and their consequences. Yet this
perspective need not be restricted to the study of deviance.1
Taylor, Wood, and Lichtman (1983) note the victims often
experience negative social consequences, asserting that
``interpersonal reactions to victims are at best ambivalent, and
at worst hostile and rejecting’’ (1983:23). Indeed, they make
a distinction, parallelling Lemert (1951), between primary
victimization, that is, the initial victimizing circumstances,
and secondary victimization, the negative social reactions of
hostility, derogation, and rejection that can follow Taylor
et al. (1983:23). This often results in a ``master status’’
(Hughes, 1945) where attributes related to victimization are
highlighted and others downplayed. Ultimately:
Even the best social responses to victimization may be aver-
sive to the victim. The need to accept aid from others and the
1 It has already been extended in the study of illness by Conrad
and Schneider (1980:17±
20 et. seq). As such, the parallels outlined by examining victims
merely refer to one possible
analogy among others. Indeed, while this paper’s specific focus
is on extending labeling
theory, one can easily look to other theoretical traditions, such
as Parsons’ (1951) work on
the sick role, for additional insights.
236 J. S. Kenney

accompanying emotional reactions such as pity may indicate
the condescension of the other and underscore the loss of
power or status on the part of the victim. Help-seekers lose
face and self-esteem, and they risk evaluations of incompe-
tence by the helper. Secondary victimization can occur, then,
even when the non-victim has the best intentions (Taylor et al.
1983:24±5).
Many who are treated in such ways ®nd their victim status
almost impossible to reverse. Since others respond to victims
on the basis of the label, victims may come to internalize
these responses and perceptions, and begin to think of
themselves in the same way (Taylor et al. 1983:24). Indeed,
such individuals may feel social pressure to withdraw further
into the world of similar victims, making a change in status
even more dif®cult. ``Whether or not the victim has lost
self-esteem due to the primary victimizing circumstances,
then, the secondary victimization of social labeling, rejec-
tion, and isolation can itself lower self-esteem’’ (Taylor et al.
1983:24±5).2
Taylor, Wood, and Lichtman’s (1983) work is exciting and
suggests more detailed theoretical and empirical examination
of a parallel labeling process for victims. However, while
theoretically pointing to such an interesting extension of
labeling theory, these authors fail to present any data of their
own, merely reviewing existing theoretical and empirical
work suggestive of their model.
A related literature exists on social responses to victims of
undesirable life events (Lepore et al. 1996; Holman and Silver
1996; Wortman and Lehman 1983; Silver and Wortman
1980; Wortman and Dunkel-Schetter 1979). This examines
situations as diverse as accidents, incest, cancer, and non-
homicide bereavement and reviews the impact of social

responses on affected individuals. Theoretically, for example,
Silver and Wortman (1988) argue that an examination of (1)
perceived social support, and (2) the relative opportunity for
free expression of feelings may further understanding of
2 Such inhibiting responses run counter to the psychoanalysis
literature that bases
treatment on support for the ventilation of feelings (Freud
1957:146±58). Indeed, recent
psychiatric literature discusses homicide bereavement with
reference to the possibilities for
sharing offered by peer support groups (Klass 1988:125±39;
151±77).
Victims of Crime and Labeling Theory 237
people’s responses to stressful outcomes and enhance our
ability to predict the nature, sequence, duration, and intensity
of their reactions. They point to studies demonstrating a
correlational relationship between perceived social support
and effective adjustment, but suggest that more emphasis
should be placed on the deleterious consequences of beha-
viors that are intended to be supportive (1980:310, 313).
They also note that despite a desire to talk, ``people who are
in the throes of serious life crises often report that they are
encouraged to be `strong’, are prevented from free expression
of their feelings, and are thus denied the ventilation they
frequently need and want’’ (1980:314). This is despite evi-
dence that many ®nd the opportunity to express their feelings
helpful, and that ``lack of communication may intensify the
strain of victimization’’ (1980:315).
Particularly interesting is the work of Wortman and Lehman
(1983), who assert that other’s well-intentioned efforts to

provide support may be regarded as unhelpful by the reci-
pient, result in negative consequences, or both. They focus
on three basic reasons why people may respond to victims of
life crises in such ways: (1) for many reasons, people appear
to hold negative feelings about others who are suffering
or distressed (particularly because such encounters make
potential supporters feel threatened and vulnerable); (2)
Most people have little experience dealing with others in the
throes of a life crisis, and may experience a great deal of
uncertainty about what to say or do; and (3) Others hold a
number of misconceptions about how people should react.
Beliefs about how much distress should be experienced and
displayed, and how long the effects of the crisis should last,
will likely in¯uence the kinds of support attempts made. To
the extent that these beliefs are in error, others’ support
attempts may be inappropriate or counter-productive (Wort-
man and Lehman 1983:464). Signi®cantly, the authors assert
that all of these factors ``are much more likely to predominate
when the consequences of the victimization are serious’’
(1983:467).
Wortman and Lehman (1983) note that because of these
feelings and beliefs, individuals engage in three types of
behaviors intended to be supportive, but that are often det-
rimental: (1) they discourage open expression or discussion of
feelings about victimization; (2) they encourage recovery or
238 J. S. Kenney
movement to the next life stage; and (3) they fall back on
automatic or scripted support attempts which may seem to
dismiss or trivialize the victim’s problem, such as giving
advice, providing a reason for what has happened, or telling
the victim that they know how he or she feels (Wortman and

Lehman 1983:468).
Considering the impact of such behaviors on the victim,
Wortman and Lehman (1983) state that there are three rea-
sons why these particular support tactics may be ineffective
and harmful: (1) they may make victims feel isolated and
alone because they curtail opportunities to share concerns
with others; (2) in many cases, they may seem to dismiss
the victims’ feelings as insigni®cant or unimportant; and (3)
they imply that the victim should not feel as bad as he or she
does. Indeed, there is evidence that victims worry about
whether their feelings of distress are normal (pp. 473±4). The
authors deduce that those who are closest to the victimÐand
therefore who have the greatest stake in the victim’s recov-
eryÐmay have the least tolerance for the victim’s distress.
Indeed, they may be especially likely to engage in the inap-
propriate support behaviors noted above.
A number of empirical studies have supported these
arguments (Lepore et al. 1996; Holman and Silver 1996;
Wortman and Lehman 1983; Wortman and Dunkel-
Schetter 1979). All of this is consistent with the labeling of
victims.
Finally, a more speci®c literature also exists on social
reaction to homicide bereavement in which further evidence
of labeling is strongly suggested. Following the violent death
of their loved one, individuals often turn to family and friends
for help and support. Yet, in many cases they do not receive
what they are looking for, and these interactions may do more
harm than good. Published accounts of homicide survivors
suggest that while family and friends are usually supportive at
®rst, this often gives way to the unspoken imperative that
``they should get on with their lives’’ (Young 1991:37). In
some cases, grieving nuclear families have been avoided by
family and friends who do not how to deal with their con-

tinuing grief (Ontario Government 1984). Indeed ``families of
homicide victims speak of losing up to 90 percent of their
friends because no one wants to talk about the crime and no
one wants to hear about the victim’’ (Young 1991:37).
Therapists corroborate such accounts. Klass (1988:151±3)
has noted that while problems with the social support system
form the basis for one element of psychotherapy with all
bereaved parents, he has observed in his experiences with
homicide support groups that the loss of support systems
surrounding parental grief ``seems to be exaggerated in the
case of murder’’ (1988:130).
Both the discussion of social reactions to victims of life
crises and the literature on those bereaved by homicide have
implications for labeling theory. First, following Taylor,
Wood, and Lichtman (1983), there may be many cases where
individuals are not reacted to as deviant, but as victims. In
such cases, this literature suggests that the quality of indivi-
duals’ social relationships following traumatic events has
important consequences for their adjustment to traumatic
experiences. In some cases, social constraints ¯owing from
the label of victim, such as stigmatization, uncertainty, and
misconceptions about appropriate response (Wortman and
Lehman 1983), can inhibit people from discussing their
traumatic experiences and increase the positive association
between intrusive thoughts and depressive symptoms (Lepore
et al. 1996). This potentiality intensi®es characteristics typical
of victimization. In other cases, the victim label is apparently
associated with unconstrained, accommodative social rela-
tionships that facilitate the processing of traumatic events and
emotional recovery. It is necessary to clarify the circum-

stances under which each response occurs.
However, it is important to further consider the issue of
stigmatization, as this constitutes the porous boundary
between the label of victim and that of deviant. Wortman and
Lehman (1983:464±5), on the one hand, review the literature
suggesting that many victims are stigmatized as such due not
only to the unsettling feelings of vulnerability and help-
lessness they evoke in others, but the common belief that we
live in a world where people get what they deserve and
deserve what they get. In particular, the work of Lerner (1980)
suggests that if an individual can believe that others do not
suffer unless something is wrong with them, or there are
weaknesses in their behavior, he or she will feel protected
from undeserved suffering in the future. On the other hand,
Thoits (1990) has introduced the term ``emotional deviance’’
to cover the labeling of behaviors that violate some standard
240 J. S. Kenney
of appropriate emotional response in a given situation.3
Intermediate between these positions are authors such as
Coates and Winston (1983) who consider the long term
depression associated with victimization to itself be deviant in
cultural terms (1983:171±77). It will thus be important to see
if stigmatization as victims, as deviants, and as emotional
deviants may be separated empirically, and, if so, to examine
the circumstances in which each occurs.
The above issues are helpfully illuminated by the work of
Clark (1987). In her work on sympathy, Clark found evidence
that crime victims may be either considered ``sympathy
worthy’’ or ``blamed’’ for their plight (1987:298). She pro-

poses a theoretical model for distinguishing individuals who
receive sympathy from those who are blamed, which revolves
around the concept of ``sympathy margin’’ (i.e., the amount
of leeway a given individual has for which he or she can be
granted sympathy and not blamed). As such it is similar to
the concept of accommodation to deviance (Lynch 1983;
Rubington and Weinberg 1987; Yarrow et al. 1955; Jackson
1954). Sympathy may either be ascribed to strangers or those
with whom one is acquainted. In the ®rst instance, status
factors such as age, social class, sex, and type of problem
are signi®cant (Rubington and Weinberg 1987:291, 298,
300±1).4 As for those in one’s social network, those in close
relationships have an obligation to create wider sympathy
margins for each other than do mere acquaintances.
Regardless of the context, however, Clark (1987) notes that
anyone who has been ascribed margin has the right to sen-
timent, empathy, and display of sympathy. Throughout,
sympathy accounts or margins do not remain constant, but
are continually negotiated. In this process, these may be
``increased, decreased, replenished, or used up entirely’’
(Clark 1987:302). One may cash in the credits built up
throughout his or her ``sympathy biography’’ in a dif®cult
3 This relates to Hochschild’s (1983) discussion of ``feeling
rules.’’ Indeed, Thoits (1990)
draws heavily on Hochschild’s work in elucidating this concept.
There is also a link with the
``doubly deviant’’ character of HIV=AIDS victims, whose
illnesses place them in an
ideologically different space from the socially sanctioned
deviance of the Parsonian model
(Llamas 1994; Kowalewski 1988).
4 This may relate to studies of charitable giving, where
presumed culpability is identified
as the major factor affecting sympathetic response to disasters

(Russell and Mentzel 1990).
situation, but should not drain the account completely. In
such cases, the potential sympathizee may not only lose
sympathy, but have to look elsewhere.
Indeed, Clark (1987) outlines four rules of ``sympathy eti-
quette,’’ which include: (1) not making false claims to sym-
pathy; (2) not claiming too much sympathy; (3) claiming
some sympathy in appropriate circumstances; and (4) reci-
procating to others for gifts of sympathy (pp. 303±13). She
also identi®es what she calls ``deviant sympathizers,’’ who
either ``underinvest’’ by not recognizing others’ rights to
sympathy, or ``overinvest’’ by giving sympathy to others who
are not worthy, whose plights are not worthy, or who do not
adhere to the rules of sympathy etiquette (pp. 313±6).
In sum, the label of victim has three possible trajectories:
1. Victims may be reacted to as such, ascribed sympathy,
and be offered unconstrained, accommodative support.
2. Victims may be reacted to as such, ascribed sympathy, but
others respond in ways that indicate uncertainty or mis-
conceptions about how to interact.
3. Victims may be reacted to as such, initially ascribed
sympathy, but others may eventually stigmatize them as
``helpless victims’’ who are unable to cope.
As for labeling as deviants, victims experience this in two ways:

1. Victims may be reacted to as emotional deviants as the
result of their ``inappropriate’’ emotions in a particular
social context. This is related to stigmatization as a help-
less victim, and may follow from it, but contains the ad-
ditional element of inappropriate behavior in public.
2. Victims may be stigmatized squarely as deviants who are
blamed for their plight in the ®rst place.
For all of these, Clark’s work may be hypothetically
incorporated into the labeling perspective as a set of sensi-
tizing concepts to help distinguish between different labeling
responses to victims, as well as between circumstances where
individuals are labeled as victims or as deviant.5
5 There may be a parallel with M. Douglas’ (1970, 1978)
Grid=Group theory, in which a
two-dimensional schema for classifying social relations is
related to varying beliefs and
accounts. While not employing a formal grid=group analysis in
this paper, the data herein
clearly illustrate that variations in respondents’ social relations
impacted their reputed labels.
242 J. S. Kenney
Finally, in an attempt to further elaborate Taylor, Wood,
and Lichtman’s (1983) theoretical ideas about victimization
and labeling, the differential labeling inherent in social
reaction to victims necessitates consideration of their
``careers’’ that follow (Becker 1963). Of particular interest is
how ``primary victimization’’ and ``primary deviance’’ are
accommodated by others (Lynch 1983; Rubington and
Weinberg 1987; Yarrow et al. 1955; Jackson 1954), and, if

these break down, whether individuals begin to employ their
behaviors, or a role based upon it, as a means of defense or
adjustment to the overt or covert problems created by this
social reaction (Lemert 1951). Moreover, such ``secondary’’
reactions (e.g., adopting the ``helpless victim’’ role) must
be contrasted with the potential for survivors to engage in
``tertiary’’ responses where they may collectively ``confront,
assess, and reject the negative identity imbedded in victimi-
zation, and transform that identity into a positive and viable
self-image’’ (Kitsuse 1980:9).
Thus, this article will focus on the idea that the type of
support offered (or not offered) to victims may sometimes
contribute to grief and powerlessness rather than alleviate it.
Following Lo¯and (1985:173), it is argued that grief is ``pro-
foundly socially shaped.’’ Indeed, there is reason to believe
that, in the interactional construction of survivors’ experi-
ences, there is a dynamic relationship between others’ con-
ceptions of appropriate behavior, on the one hand, and the
type of support (or lack of it) given to survivors on the other
(Emerson and Messinger 1977). By a careful examination of
the differential labeling that occurs in informal settings,6 and
the ways survivors individually and collectively respond,
labeling theory can be enriched and extended along a whole
new dimension.
METHODOLOGY
The methods underlying this study were qualitative in
nature. Recognizing the dif®culty of accessing highly personal
6 This article specifically focuses on the labeling dynamics
faced by victims in informal
settings, such as with friends, family, acquaintances and the
community. Their encounters
with formal agents (i.e., medical=psychiatric professionals, the

criminal justice system) are
exceedingly complex, and each warrant separate papers in their
own right.
information from a traumatized population, I used a wide
variety of direct and indirect approaches, including extensive
volunteer involvement with a prominent victims’ organiza-
tion, advertising for interview and survey respondents with a
variety of others, reviewing published accounts, and seeking
information through the legal system.7 Taken together, while
some of these strategies were more successful than others,
they ultimately resulted in a large volume of rich, qualitative
data. The overwhelming majority of data fell into three gen-
eral categories: (1) intensive interviews with 32 individuals;
(2) mail-back surveys from 22 respondents; and (3) 108
homicide ®les obtained under an agreement with a Provincial
Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (C.I.C.B.), including
information on 145 individuals. Aside from the C.I.C.B. data,
in which there was a con®dentiality agreement negotiated
for transcription and content analysis of case ®les, interview
and survey respondents were informed in advance about the
subject matter of this study, con®dentiality, and given
opportunities to ask questions before proceeding.
Possible threats to validity were dealt with by having both
academic colleagues and key members of the victims’ orga-
nization in which I was workingÐincluding survivorsÐread
and comment on the research instruments before they were
used. The valuable input received, and changes made on the
basis of these suggestions, buttressed my con®dence that the
instruments did indeed get at the issues they were intended to
elicit. In addition to face validity, the fact that the sought after

issues emerged through the use of these instruments was
suggestive of construct validity as well.
7These strategies included: (i) volunteering, conducting
fieldwork, and doing interviews
for a year with a prominent Canadian victims’ organization; (ii)
networking=advertizing with
six other Canadian victims’ rights organizations for
interview=survey respondents; (iii)
advertizing with a national U.S. support=advocacy group for the
homicide bereaved for
survey respondents; (iv) attending conferences, rallies, and
protests on victims’ issues to
observe=seek respondents; (v) contacting a prominent
bereavement support organization for
potential subjects; (vi) contacting the provincial chapter of an
organization devoted to
combatting impaired driving for comparative data; (vii)
subscribing to the newsletters of the
above organizations; (viii) reviewing biographical and
journalisitic accounts of survivors’
experiences; (ix) unsuccessfully attempting, through formal
access to information requests, to
gain access to ``victim impact statements’’ submitted by
survivors at the sentencing of
offenders; and (x) writing all Criminal Injuries Compensation
Tribunals in Canada for
information on applications by survivors.
244 J. S. Kenney
With regard to reliability, rather than rely on only one
question per issue, research instruments were constructed
such that they generally utilized several different questions to

measure or get at the same thing. As such, problems of
consistency in responses were reduced or negated.8
While the sample was neither random nor clearly repre-
sentative of any speci®ed population,9 all efforts were made to
keep it as diverse as possible within the researcher’s ability to
gain access to data.10 Hence, the ultimate conclusions are
less likely to carry an obvious bias toward any speci®c
demographic group.11 Still, broader generalizations must be
quali®ed with this in mind.12
8 More detailed information on research instruments may be
obtained from the author.
9 Facing the problem of drawing random sample from an
unknown population (Berg
1995:178±9), theoretical sampling and Glaser and Strauss’
(1967) ``constant comparison
method’’ were utilized. A purposive sample was developed
(Berg 1995:179), and, subject to
my ability to gain access to willing respondents, efforts were
made to cover an ever wider
variety of survivors as evidenced by both the literature and
completed fieldwork. This
involved such demographic variables as race, class, gender, age,
marital status, and
relationship to the deceased. Other dimensions included
circumstances surrounding the
murder, plus variations in survivors’ interactions with family,
friends, the community, self-
help and ``victims’’ organizations, mental health professionals,
and legal institutions. This
strategy was further buttressed once the C.I.C.B. data became
available. I was then able to
compare the purposive sample emerging through thoretical
sampling with the entire

population of homicide applications decided by a provincial
C.I.C.B. between 1988 and
1993.
10 Attempts were made to clarify and validate observations, to
resolve anomalies and
contradictions, and to fill in parts of the social process that had
not yet been observed
(Schwartz and Jacobs 1979:29). Sampling was thus ``an ongoing
procedure’’ (Williamson
et al. 1977), and utilizing more than one source enabled the
critical evaluation of
information provided by ``checking out’’ each form of data
gainst the other (Douglas 1976).
Indeed, at times, the data from several sources even provided
useful contrasting information
on the same individuals. By triangulating data from various
sources, a much more well-
rounded interpretive understanding of survivors’ experiences
was obtained than would
otherwise be the case. Sampling continued in this fashion until
reaching the point of
``theoretical saturation’’ (i.e., the point where incoming data
revealed nothing new).
11 As the C.I.C.B. data helped round out the largely white,
middle-class composition of
the interview and survey data, the latter helped balance the
potential biases inherent in the
demand characteristics of the C.I.C.B. process.
12 Response rates to the directly solicited interviews and
surveys were low. Through
contacts with victims’ organizations it was clear that there were
many more survivors than
were willing to be interviewed. Of the 60 mail-back surveys

distributed in Canada, and 35 to
the U.S., only 8 and 14 were received back,
respectivelyÐresponse rates of 13.3% and
40%. This reflects the extremely sensitive nature of the subject,
and subjects’ understandable
distrust. Yet, comparing the unsolicited C.I.C.B. and field data
helped round out these
sources.
Once collected, data were transcribed verbatim and
entered into the qualitative analysis software Q.S.R. NUD
IST. Using a procedure of open coding, a systematic ®ling
system was developed. Coding and analysis initially pro-
ceeded according to various common and special classes
(e.g., survivor’s relation to the deceased for the former;
involvement with the C.I.C.B. for the latter). As the analysis
progressed, these materials were coded and recoded into
theoretical categories that emerged from the data as well
(Berg 1995:185). Throughout, emerging theoretical cate-
gories and the various sources of data were continually
``cross-checked’’ and subjected to ``negative case testing’’
(Berg 1995). If inconsistencies were located, emergent ideas
were either discarded or reformulated until practical certainty
was achieved. Having outlined methodology and the sample,
it is time to discuss the results of this study.
PRESENTATION OF THE DATA
The varying social responses to survivors following a homi-
cide interactionally shaped the course of their experiences
and strongly suggested differential labeling dynamics at work.
I will brie¯y discuss these results in three parts: (1) extended

family and friends; (2) acquaintances, strangers, and the
community; and (3) subjects’ responses.
First, a minority of respondents experienced widespread,
ongoing support from the majority of their extended family
and friends.
I’ve always had people really look after me. I’ve never been
left to do this aloneÐand that made a huge difference. My
family and friends were there morning, noon, and night for at
least two years, which made me feel goodÐto know that they
were there for me (Survey #19: Female, age 45).
These individuals reported a number of sympathetic, and
reportedly helpful responses such as others visiting and
staying, providing ongoing emotional support, handling
responsibilities for them, and a wide variety of helpful com-
munication involving the ability of others to pick up subtle
cues regarding when, and how, to offer support.
246 J. S. Kenney
Running through such responses is the implicit theme that
these individuals were considered ``sympathy worthy’’ by
others (Clark 1987). On the one hand, as extended family and
friends are relatively close to survivors, they may have built
up, or feel it necessary to extend a wider ``sympathy margin’’
than others, at least initially. However, as these responses
were only mentioned by a minority in the sample, it may be
that this also has something to do with survivors adhering
to the rules of ``sympathy etiquette’’ such as making
``legitimate’’ claims to sympathy in ``appropriate’’ circum-
stances.’’ These matters are closely interrelated with survivors
``victim’’ status, and these sympathetic behaviors cannot be

understood outside of this context. Indeed, in Clark’s (1987)
terms, such helpful responses, often extending for consider-
able periods of time, suggest that suffering the murder of a
loved one prima facie constitute, for these sympathizers, a
legitimate claim for sympathy, and that the victim label, in
some instances, even broadens their de®nitions of what is too
long for victims to accept sympathy and their obligation to
reciprocate.
It also may be argued that much of the above ®ts clearly
into the idea of accommodation to deviance (Lynch 1983;
Rubington and Weinberg 1987; Yarrow et al. 1955;
Jackson 1954). Grief, in such unusual and violent circum-
stances, is frequently extreme and persistent (Rynearson and
McCreery 1993; Knapp 1986; Klass 1988), and the data in
this study certainly bore this out. Family and friends who
respond to such behavior as above are attempting to make
adjustments to accomodate survivors’ powerful emotions
without making an explicit labeling of deviance. If anything,
it may be the situation that is seen as unusual, not survivors’
reactions to it, which are considered normal for victims. As
such, the label of victim may not only play a role in
accommodation to deviance, it may indicate the entry point
of a parallel labeling process revolving around the term vic-
tim. Accommodation in one sense is thus interchanged by
labeling in the other.
On the other hand, the stigmatization of victims and the
labeling of emotional deviance generally proceed when
accomodation quickly breaks down, or doesn’t occur in the
®rst place. Together, these were the most common patterns,
and had a far different impact on survivors’ experiences.

Generally, survivors who reported a lack of support from
the majority of their extended family and friends over time felt
that this made their experience worse. One survivor noted:
The only thing I remember is that I was aloneÐall the time. All
the time. There was nobody came around. My family hasn’t
been supportive. I haven’t seen any of my family. None of
them have come, and that hurt . . . It’s been two years, and I
think you are the third person that’s been in this house
(Interview #10: Female, age 60) (Emphasis added).
Similar comments were made by survivors about their
friends:
We were ostracized in a sense. In our own minds we felt
ostracized anyway by everybody we knew (Interview #14:
Male, age 54) (Emphasis added).
This was a time for me to ®nd out who my real friends were,
and it sometimes hurt a lot to see that you friends are not
always the one that you had considered. It is a shock (Survey
#3: Female, age 58) (Emphasis added).
These individuals reported a number of unhelpful respon-
ses including initial lack of support, rapidly disappearing
support (e.g., after the funeral), inappropriate attention and
harassment, widespread avoidance by others, numerous
problems with communication such as others using ``stock’’
responses and attempting to identify with their feelings, and,
in some cases, overt con¯ict with family and friends. Taken
together, these corroborate and expand, in a new empirical
context, many of the problems noted by Wortman and Leh-
man (1983).
Most interstingly, some considered that these were the

result of their being labeled as victims, others as deviants.
Survivors’ rationales for these responses were instructive in
separating these:
Some labeled as victims asserted how many of their
extended family and friends were afraid to do or say anything
that might upset them further and avoided contact as a result.
This involved ascriptions of sympathy worthiness, labeling as
victims, but an inability to provide overt expressions of
sympathy out of uncertainty as to appropriate response.
248 J. S. Kenney
I know that my family just damn well didn’t know how to
cope and how to deal with me [sounds angry]. They were
scared. In fact we talked about it. We went home and it was
discussedÐand they said that they had no idea. They really
didn’t know how to deal with me, and were afraid to even
phone me [sounds tearful] (Interview #15: Female, age 49).
Like my friends are afraid to keep bringing it up, and they shy
away because they’re afraid you’re going to bring it up, `cause
they’re afraid they’re going to say something that’s going to
hurt you. `So they shy away. Maybe they don’t know that you
want it. That it’s all right to talk about it. So they’re afraid to. I
think that’s what happens with a lot of them, they’re afraid to
start . . . Cause, I had a few people that I’ve bumped into, and
I’ve said: `Oh, you haven’t been around.’ `Well [respondent’s
name], it’s not that we didn’t want to. It’s just that we just
don’t know what to say, and we didn’t want to say the wrong
thing and hurt your feelings’ (Interview 21: Female, age 45).
This was further exacerbated in some cases where family and
friends were considered to be so upset about the murder

themselves that seeing the survivors evoked unpleasant
sympathetic outbursts among all concerned. This response
exhibited an excess of sympathy for survivors labeled as
``victims’’ whereby others became so upset that they simply
couldn’t handle seeing the survivors:
My family, for the most part, kept their distance. And, occa-
sionally when we’d come by, they would just sob and cry,
and they’d be so upset. The few that did come by, they’d just
break down. Horrible. I think they felt they were just upsetting
us more and would be all apologetic. Then they wouldn’t
come by (Interview #31: Female, age 46) (Emphasis added).
Our friends? It varied. I think that the reason why some of
them kind of were standof®sh, was because they couldn’t
handle it themselves. I ®gure that because they knew [the
deceased] personally, they just couldn’t handle it. It was too
close to reality for them, so they kind of backed off. I was a
little bit taken aback by that, and I was very hurt. It’s been
dif®cult because you really do need your friends at a time like
that (Interview #1: Female, age 47).
These responses were particularly notable among individuals
previously close to respondents.
There also were survivors, initially labeled as victims, who
noted how the initially sympathetic responses of others
eventually gave way to privately urging them to ``get on with
your lives.’’ This signi®es a breakdown in others’ ascriptions
of sympathy worthiness and the beginning of stigmatization
as ``helpless victims.’’ These are individuals who have broken
one of the cardinal rules of sympathy etiquette: not to claim

too much sympathy for too long.
We had some very close friends who came out to visit us, but
after a while their recommendation to us was, `You’ve got to
put this in the past, like, bury this right now’ [sarcastically].
The closest friends we had! He’d say to me `[survivor’s name],
you’ve got to put this behind, get back to work, and you’ve got
to get on with your life.’ You know, `You’ve got to maintain
your business, you’ve got to . . .’ and I’m not thinking any of
this! (Interview #14: Male, age 54).
Some individuals came to feel that they were stigmatized as
emotional deviants by others due to inappropriate behavior in
public settings. For example, some talked about how their
inability to talk about subjects other than the murder, or to
remain calm, drove others away and resulted in uncomfor-
table encounters at social events. Others talked of their own
upset driving family and friends away. This is more suggestive
of labeling as emotional deviants:
They started changing the subject a lot, so we would just pick
up on it that `OK, we won’t talk about this any more.’ We
caught the vibes, right? Bad vibes. Some pulled back from us,
and this continues right up to the present. Nobody really
wants to talk (Interviews #8: Female, age 45).
I think if I’m showing signs of emotion, I mean showing tears
or emotional stress to others, they don’t feel very comfor-
table, because they don’t know how to handle it. And so, if
you are at a stage where you can’t speak about your son or
daughter clearly, openly, and without showing an awful lot
of undue stress, it drives people away (Interview #5: Male,
age 50).
250 J. S. Kenney

Finally, some individuals were simply stigmatized as
deviants. In these cases, survivors attributed others’ reactions
to the perceived stigma or discrediting that went along with
having a murder in the family, a stigma that suggested shared
deviance:
The rest of my relatives were worthless and acted like a stigma
was attached to us, like something about us caused us to have
a murder victim (Survey #7: Female, age 38).
Some asked me `How could you let him kill the kids?’ A few
other people I counted as close friends suddenly were distant.
The press had picked up that when [the offender] was arrested
he shouted that I had done it. Some of these `friends’ seem to
have doubts about my involvement (Survey #6: Female, age
37).
These were individuals who felt blamed or thought they were
somehow viewed as contributing to their plight. In some
cases this stigmatization referred to ostensibly questionable
circumstances surrounding the murder (e.g., the murder of
drug dealers; families of women who remained with abusive
partners). However, this was not necessarily the case, and
many may have simply been the result of individuals’
attempting to apportion blame in line with a cultural belief
that ``people get what they deserve’’ (Lerner 1980). Essen-
tially, these were individuals who broke (or were perceived to
break) another cardinal rule of sympathy etiquette: not mak-
ing ``false claims’’ to sympathy.
The ultimate result of such interactions, whether motivated
by stigma, uncertainty regarding how to behave, survivors’ or
others’ own upset, or generally not wanting to further upset
each other, was that survivors tended to become socially

isolated when they needed support. Moreover, while this
often upset them further, many chose to withdraw themselves
as ``people in general don’t understand . . . it’s too diff®cult’’
(Interview #29: Female, age 37).
Summing up this topic, survivors indicating a wide
variety of perceived support from their extended families and
friends reportedly fared better. These survivors reported few
insensitive comments and obvious avoidance behaviors from
those previously close to them, along with support and
encouragement. This clearly relates to the literature on
accommodation (Lynch 1983; Rubington and Weinberg
1987; Yarrow et al. 1955; Jackson 1954), but further suggests
that sensitive, overt expression of sympathy worthiness
associated with the label of victim played a signi®cant role.
Ultimately, such survivors tended to report milder grief
experiences overall, supporting the literature suggesting that
``social support is the most important factor in helping parents
®nd new social and psychic equilibria’’ (Klass 1988:179).
However, the majority of survivors who experienced many
of the unhelpful, unsupportive interactions with friends
generally assessed themselves as faring much worse than
those with perceived long-term support. Indeed, they may
experience additional losses. These interactions not only gave
survivors more reasons to be emotionally upset, such accu-
mulated indignities were often interrelated with the various
labels associated with survivors (Wortman and Lehman
1983). In some cases unhelpful behaviors were associated
with uncertainty, unexpressed or inappropriately manifested
sympathy, and the label of victim; in other cases these

behaviors were associated with stigmatization as victims or
deviants, or stigmatization as ``emotional deviants’’ (Thoits
1990). Regardless of their label, such survivors were avoided,
stigmatized, encountered dif®culties in communication, or
had increased con¯icts. Moreover, survivors’ resulting social
and emotional isolation, which was commonly employed as
a defense or reaction to this labeling, could be cited as evi-
dence of secondary victimization (Taylor, Wood, and Licht-
man 1983), secondary deviance (Lemert 1951), or secondary
emotional deviance, (Thoits 1990; Lemert 1951).
Next, and in contrast with their extended family and
friends, respondents often noted receiving remarkable sup-
port from mere acquaintances. This included many of the
matters discussed earlier, but especially emotional support.
It was really strange because you ®nd out who you could lean
on. You know, and sometimes it’s the people you least expect
(Interview #16: Female, age 56).
We found some friends that we considered to be close friends
never showed up again. Yet, there were other people that
came out that we had sort of considered acquaintances, and
we became very close (Interview #24: Male, age 47).
252 J. S. Kenney
It is hypothesized that acquaintances who labeled respon-
dents as victims considered them as legitimately sympathy
worthy as did sympathetic friends and family. However, their
expression of sympathy was not as readily blocked by their
own upset, familiarity, and personal grief.
Interestingly, respondents sometimes noted a groundswell

of support from strangers in the community as well. Strangers
sometimes volunteered to search for the deceased, sent cards,
¯owers, food, raised money, erected memorials, organized
petitions, and urged respondents to take action. Two factors
were associated with the wide sympathy margins ascribed to
such survivors: First, either the deceased, or their survivors,
were well known, had much prior community involvement,
or both:
[the deceased] had a lot of friends. She was a very popular
girl. She had a lot of friends from school. And I was very active
in the community. I belonged to the Optimist Club, I coached
baseball, I coached hockey, and so onÐso I was very active,
as far as that goes, with kids and all that all the time. I worked
in other various organizations, working bingos and fundrais-
ing. So, I mean, there were a lot of people that it stunned, too.
Then, as the trial went on, they were reading the newspaper
and were getting upset with what was being said, and most of
the people got together and wanted to do something. So,
basically that’s how it started (Interview #23: Male, age 49).
The second factor was widespread media coverage sympa-
thetic to the survivors, illustrating the impact of the mass
media on sympathy margins:
It was not until the Saturday that it made the papers. The local
paper did a good story, and people started coming to the door
then, and we had literally hundreds of total strangers just
arriving at out door in tears, very upset. It was obviously that
their prayers were with us. Food started arriving in trays,
¯owers, baskets of fruit, it was just incredible. From 10 a.m. to
10 p.m. there was just a steady stream of traf®c, and probably
thrity to forty people at all times (Interview #31: Female, age
46).
Indeed, it appeared that several respondents were cast into

How Criminal Labeling Negatively Impacts Offenders

How Criminal Labeling Negatively Impacts Offenders

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to How Criminal Labeling Negatively Impacts Offenders

Similar to How Criminal Labeling Negatively Impacts Offenders (9)

More from bartholomeocoombs

More from bartholomeocoombs (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

How Criminal Labeling Negatively Impacts Offenders