Paper Topic 7 – Opportunity and LabelingSeminar in Criminology –.docx

Paper Topic 7 – Opportunity and Labeling
Seminar in Criminology – CJ7020 (Feldmeyer)
Instructions: Please pick ONE of the following questions
(CHOICE A or B) and write a response paper. Make sure to
answer all parts of the question. Your response should be based
on the material from the lectures and reading. Your response
should be 2-3 pages in length, double spaced (times new roman,
12pt font, 1 inch margins). Your paper is DUE 03-03-16
(SUNDAY) by 9:00AM.
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
CHOICE A: OPPORTUNITY THEORY
Opportunity has been a key component of many criminological
theories, but it has often been given little direct attention.
Cloward and Ohlin changed this by offering the first theory to
give center stage to opportunity.
1. What are the main arguments of the theory, and why does
crime occur according to Opportunity Theory? In particular,
how does this perspective build on Merton’s strain theory of
crime?
2. Are there other theories that could also benefit from
incorporating the ideas of Opportunity Theory? Pick one or two
and explain how Opportunity Theory might be used to inform or
extend Control theories, Learning theories, Deterrence theory,
Labeling theory, or Biological theories. How could you
combine Opportunity theory with one or two of these other
perspectives
3. Last, what types of policy suggestions for reducing crime
might you draw from Cloward and Ohlin’s opportunity theory or
alternatively from Cohen and Felson’s Routine Activities
theory?
CHOICE B: LABELING THEORY

Deterrence is the primary justification for punishment in the
U.S. criminal justice system. But labeling theory suggests that
punishment may not always work the way deterrence theory
suggests.
1. What are the main arguments of the theory, and why does
crime occur according to Labeling Theory? What is the effect
of punishment according to Labeling Theory, and how does this
contrast with arguments of Deterrence theory?
2. Pick 1 or 2 other theories and tell me how they might be
combined with Labeling theory? For example, how might
Social Learning or Social Bonding be connected to criminal
labeling? Or, how would labeling connect with Strain or
Opportunity to inform or extend these other theories?
3. Last, what types of policy suggestions for reducing crime
might you draw from Labeling perspectives?
Published by Articulate® Presenter '13 www.articulate.com
Presentation Details:
Slides: 6
Duration: 00:18:32
Filename:
C:UsersPadenSLDesktopOpportunityOpportunity.pptx
Description:

Slide 1
Opportunity Theory
Duration: 00:00:15
Advance mode: Auto
Notes:
OPPORTUNITY THEORY
Hello. In this presentation, I’m going to provide
a short discussion of Opportunity perspectives
on crime and discuss how it builds on and
connects with several other theories we’ve
discussed in previous modules.
Slide 2
Opportunity Theory
Duration: 00:03:31
Advance mode: Auto
Notes:
OPPORTUNITY THEORY
Opportunity theory is one of our newer theories
in criminology. It is one of the more
misunderstood theories and has not been

given as much direct attention as other
perspectives. Many scholars see it as simply
an addition to Merton’s strain theory. And
while it does build on his ideas, it’s also an
independent theory that gives us some unique
perspective on crime by considering
opportunity.
The opportunity theory of crime was developed
by Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin in the
1960s, who were students of Robert Merton.
As a result, it does have a number of
similarities to Merton’s strain theory and builds
on his work.
If you’ll recall, Merton’s strain theory was all
about blocked opportunities for success. It
said there was greater pressure toward crime
on the poor because they didn’t have
legitimate means available. But people
criticized Merton because he didn’t explain
why one poor person committed crime and
another (who also had strain) didn’t. Cloward
and Ohlin had some ideas on this. They said
that Merton had only considered access to
legitimate opportunities but had overlooked
ILLEGITIMATE OPPORTUNITY. They said
that in order to explain crime, you had to
account for access to legitimate opportunity

and access to illegitimate opportunity. Or as I
like to say, you have to consider the “closed
doors” for legitimate success and the “open
doors” for crime. Just because someone can’t
get a good education or good job, doesn’t
mean they will embark on a life of drug dealing
or fraud. They may not have the open doors
for these criminal activities and may not know
the right people, have the right circumstances,
or have the technical knowhow to pull it off.
But if they have the close doors for legitimate
success and have the right connections and
opportunities for crime, then they are much
more likely to be involved in criminal activity.
Their goal in presenting these ideas was to fill
in the gaps in Merton’s strain theory by
accounting for both legitimate and illegitimate
opportunity, and they were trying to bridge
ideas from Merton’s strain theory with some of
the ideas from learning theories (as you’ll see
in the next slide) as well as social
disorganization. As a result, they added some
important points to Merton’s theory. Notably, it
isn’t common to see students critique their
mentor’s theory as these 2 scholars did, but
perhaps more notably, Merton said they were
right! He commended their work and said that
he hadn’t really discussed illegitimate

opportunities and the ways that open doors to
crime might matter. Thus, he said it was an
extremely important addition to the ideas he
presented earlier.
Slide 3
Opportunity Structures
Duration: 00:03:33
Advance mode: Auto
Notes:
OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURES
In their theory, they explained that both
legitimate and illegitimate opportunity were
shaped by 2 types of opportunity structures: 1.
Learning structures, and 2. Performance
structures. And they said that these explained
whether you had the opportunity to become a
Doctor, Lawyer, Police officer, and Professor,
but they also explained whether you had the
opportunity to cook crystal meth, run an illegal
sports betting operation, embezzle hundreds of
thousands of dollars from your company, or
become involved in organized crime. Both
legitimate and illegitimate opportunities for
success were shaped by these types of
opportunity structures.
The first component is the learning structures,
and this is where they bring in the ideas from
learning theories. They explain that you have
to have the opportunity to gain the mindset,

skills, and expertise needed to be a doctor,
lawyer, drug dealer, or white collar criminal. If
you don’t know people or have opportunities to
learn skills for a profession and learn the
mindset that says it is something worth doing,
well then you probably will find other things to
do and other ways to spend your time. Cleary,
this is closely connected to learning theories,
but they are recognizing that not everyone has
the same access to messages about different
jobs and criminal activities and they are
combining it with performance opportunities,
the second type of opportunity structure
described next.
In addition to having the knowhow, they said
you also have to have the physical
opportunities to become involved in a
profession or in a certain criminal activity. For
example, if you wanted to start your own
restaurant, you’d have to have the right
resources, tools, location, funds, marketing
help, and contacts to make it happen.
Likewise, if you wanted to go into business
selling oxycontin or other controlled
substances, you would also have to have the
right tools, contacts and connections, know the
right location, and have the resources for the
job. In other words, just having the knowhow

isn’t enough. Opportunity and open doorways
for success (in crime or legitimate work)
involves a lot of other components, tools, and
contacts.
Slide 4
Opportunity and Criminality
Duration: 00:02:20
Advance mode: Auto
Notes:
OPPORTUNITY AND CRIMINALITY
By introducing the idea of illegitimate means
and discussions both open/closed doors for
success and open/closed doors for crime,
Cloward and Ohlin were able to do something
that Merton’s strain theory couldn’t… they
were able to tell us why some people with
strain became conformists and didn’t commit
crime, while others innovated or became
retreatists. In other words, they explained not
all people who experienced strain committed
crime, and why some who didn’t have much
strain or blocked opportunity might still commit
crime. It all depended on their open/closed

doors to illegitimate opportunity (which Merton
didn’t discuss).
For example, they explained that the
innovators from Merton’s strain adaptations
were most likely to be the people who had
blocked means for legitimate success (good
jobs, education), but had plenty of open doors
for crime. So they may realize that they can’t
afford college and won’t get far at their fast
food job, AND they see their friends making
more money selling drugs and offering them a
piece of the action, and they decide to take
advantage of the opportunity.
In contrast, they explain that the conformists
are most often the people who do have
legitimate means available and have blocked
access to crime. They have legitimate
pathways to success open to them, and it
would be difficult for them to engage in
extensive criminal activity because they simply
don’t have those doorways open to them.
Last, they explained that retreatists (the drug
addicts, homeless, and vagrant populations)
that Merton described tended to be the people
that had few opportunities for legitimate
success but also had few criminal

opportunities. They essentially had no
opportunities for either legal or illegal success,
and thus fell into patterns of retreatism.
Slide 5
Strengths and Weaknesses of
Opportunity Theory
Duration: 00:02:48
Advance mode: Auto
Notes:
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF
OPPORTUNITY THEORY
As I noted on the previous slides, this
opportunity perspective helped fill in several
key gaps and criticism of Merton’s strain
theory. Notably, it could explain why there
were many good kids in bad areas, which was
a common critique of Merton’s theory (why so
many people with strain didn’t commit crime
and only a few did). Here, Cloward and Ohlin
explain that simply having closed doors for
success doesn’t mean you will instantly be a
successful career criminal and become a
major underworld entrepreneur. You must
have open doors for crime, contacts with
others, opportunities to learn messages and
definition and skills for crime, and performance
opportunities to commit the acts. Otherwise,
you will likely fall into one of the other
adaptations Merton described. In addition,

they were able to explain why some offenders
who have very little strain according to Merton
(like White Collar criminals) might commit
crime. These offenders have few blocked
opportunities for legitimate success. But at the
same time, they have little oversight and many
opportunities to break the rules and feel like
crime opportunities fall into their lap. In other
words, it’s not all about strain. Sometimes, it’s
just about whether you have access to crime
opportunities that seem too good to pass up.
However, as with all the theories, opportunity
perspectives also have some problems. By
focusing on external opportunities, they don’t
seem to pay as much attention to the role of
motivation as some of the other theories we’ve
discussed.
In addition, one of the biggest critiques is that
people don’t really think it adds that much to
our understanding of crime. The opportunity
perspective seems very straightforward (you
either have opportunity for crime or you don’t),
and so many criminologists have overlooked it
or assumed that it’s just a small addition onto
Merton’s strain theory. As a result, it hasn’t
gotten the attention it probably deserves and
we tend not to think about people’s opportunity
for crime as much as we might (which could

have important policy implications if we gave
this perspective more attention and
consideration and really tried to target criminal
opportunity).
Slide 6
Routine Activities Theory
Duration: 00:06:05
Advance mode: Auto
Notes:
ROUTINE ACTIVITIES THEORY
One theory related to opportunity perspectives
that has received much more attention from
researchers and policy makers though, is
Routine Activities Theory. The excerpts you
are reading on this theory do a nice job
summarizing the main ideas, so I won’t go into
extensive detail on this. But I will give you a bit
of history and context to this theory.
Routine Activities theory is one of our newest
theories in criminology and has received
considerable attention in the last few decades.
It was developed in the 1970s by Cohen and

Felson is considered a theory of
VICTIMIZATION. That means that instead of
trying to explain why some people become
criminals and decide to commit crime, Cohen
and Felson were trying to explain why some
people and places are more likely to be
victimized. And they said it was due to the
routine activities of victims and offenders that
bring them together in the right circumstances
to create opportunity for crime. Specifically,
they said these crime opportunities occur with
the convergence of 3 factors.
Motivated Offender
Presence of a Suitable Target, and
Absence of a Capable Guardian.
They said that these 3 things had to occur for
crime/victimization to take place and the
absence of any one factor would likely prevent
it. Now because it was a theory of
victimization, they didn’t talk about the first
factor much. They don’t really explain why
offenders are motivated and simply argue
there are always motivated offenders present
(which has been a point of substantial
disagreement for the theory). They leave
offender motivation to others to explain, and
then go on to talk about the other two factors.

They argue that when you have suitable
targets and few capable guardians, it creates
opportunity for crime and victimization (and
those motivated offenders to act). And the
idea of a capable guardian doesn’t just have to
be a human guardian like security or police
officers. Guardianship can be provided by
alarms, pedestrians walking by, someone at
home at night, ample lighting, locked doors,
cameras, or signs that say you have a security
system. Anything that seems to add
guardianship.
To help illustrate their theory, they argue that
these factors helped explain why property
crimes like burglary and theft became so much
more common in the 1970s and 80s. And
again they said, it wasn’t because of a change
in offender motivation (like many other
theorists had argued). Instead, they claimed
that it was due to changes in guardianship
and suitability of targets due to several societal
changes around this time (like women working
outside the home more, people traveling more,
and consumer goods getting more valuable,
smaller and easier to steal), which you’ll read
more about in your articles/chapters.
This theory has been extremely popular in

policy circles because it presents very
straightforward and practical policy
suggestions. If crime occurs because targets
look suitable and there’s not enough
guardianship, then simply make the targets
look less suitable and add guardianship.
These “target hardening” policy efforts have
been very popular and have been
implemented in many places. For example,
just look at the gas station the next time you fill
up your car and notice all the ways that gas
stations have changed in the last 20 to 30
years to add guardianship and make them
seem like bad targets for robbery. They have
added lighting, cameras, glass fronts, timed
safes, cameras, and reminders that the cash
drawer has less than $50, all to illustrate that
they are not suitable targets and have plenty of
guardianship. Likewise, we’ve seen these
types of approaches and similar “broken
windows” and “order maintenance” models of
crime control adopted on a larger scale in
places like New York, where the idea has been
to eliminate small crimes and signs of disorder
(vagrancy, homeless people sleeping on
benches, graffiti, litter, prostitution, etc.) to
send a message to would-be offenders that
this is not a suitable target for crime and that
guardians are present.
Overall, this theory has gained a lot of
attention and popularity among the public,
policy makers, researchers, and agents of the
criminal justice system. But people have
raised some concerns about these ideas as
well. First, it doesn’t really explain or address

offender motivation in any real way. So even if
you prevent a would-be offender from
committing crime at one location, it doesn’t
mean you’ve stopped them from causing
trouble if they just find another suitable target
without guardians. Second, one of the biggest
concerns is that by focusing on the victim, this
perspective can be pretty controversial when
applied to some offenses like rape and sexual
assault. The idea that rape or sexual assault
occurs because the target looked too suitable
or the victim didn’t have enough guardianship
around has been a bit of a lightning rod for this
theory, and is probably the reason that this
perspective tends to focus on property crime
more than crimes like rape.

Presentation Details:
Slides: 6
Duration: 00:20:18
Filename: C:UsersPadenSLDesktopLabeling.pptx
Description:
Slide 1
Labeling Theory
Duration: 00:00:57
Advance mode: Auto
Notes:
LABELING THEORY
In this presentation, I’m going to provide a
short overview of labeling perspectives on
crime. Unlike strain, learning, and control
theories, this is not typically seen as one of the
major theories of crime, but it has a place in
criminology and has received a fair amount of
attention.
As you’ll see in the following slides, the main
idea of labeling theory is that receiving

punishment and a criminal “label” is thought to
increase crime in some circumstances. As a
result, this theory is seen as the opposite of
deterrence theory, because it argues that
punishments like going to prison and being
around other criminals for long periods of time
could actually entrench people into criminal
lifestyles and patterns of behavior, rather than
straightening them out as deterrence theory
argues.
Slide 2
Labeling Theory
Duration: 00:03:45
Advance mode: Auto
Notes:
LABELING THEORY
The ideas of labeling theory are drawn from
several social psychological perspectives and
sociological perspectives on identity formation
and self-perception. Many of these ideas build
on symbolic interaction perspectives in
sociology, which explain that we are all playing
roles and acting out performances to create a

certain image. But at the same time, we are all
audience members to everyone else’s
performance and give them feedback and cues
about their performances. This quote by
William Shakespeare summarizes the
symbolic interaction position fairly well. We
are all giving performances every day for roles
of Father/Mother, boss, employee, spouse,
boyfriend/girlfriend, buddy, and so on, and we
gauge how we are doing in those roles by how
the audience (everyone else in our lives)
reacts to us.
This is very similar to George Herbert Mead’s
idea of the looking glass self, which is also
foundational for labeling perspectives on
crime. According to the looking glass self, our
self concept and self image is determined by
the reaction of others, as illustrated in this
picture. Mead argued that we don’t really have
objective self concept. Our self concept is
determined by seeing ourselves through other
people’s eyes. We use their reactions like a
reflection or looking glass to determine how we
are coming across and whether we are funny,
smart, attractive, respected, trustworthy,
friendly, and any number of other traits. And
we are constantly reevaluating our
performances and our self concept and

thinking about past and future performances
based on the reactions we get from others.
Notably, all of these perspectives argue that
we behave in line with our self concept. So if
you believe you have a good sense of humor,
then you will play on that and tell stories and
jokes, and try to make people laugh. But if you
start getting consistent negative reactions to
your jokes and stories, well then your self
image and perception may start to slowly shift,
and you may find your behavior following suit
(and you may begin to tell a few less stories
and jokes if you start to doubt your sense of
humor). And this is a key idea of labeling
theory… what happens to people when their
self concept begins to change? People’s
behavior follows their self concept, so what
happens if people start thinking of themselves
as “criminal,” “felon,” or “junky,” and are told
that they are these things by many people in
their lives. It begins to become their master
status, overshadowing their other roles of
“son/daughter,” “spouse,” or “coworker.” And
the question from labeling theory is how does
their behavior, and involvement in future crime
change as a result?

The Labeling Model
Duration: 00:04:37
Advance mode: Auto
Notes:
LABELING MODEL
This is the basic labeling model of crime.
Typically, we start the model with a behavior,
which in this case is some criminal act. As we
discussed in the last slide, a performance and
behavior like committing a crime (say a DUI or
using heroin) may be followed by audience
reactions.
In the labeling model, the audience reactions
we are usually talking about are the formal
sanctions from the criminal justice system. So,
the audience reaction to heroin use or a DUI
may be jail time, fines and fees from the court,
an arrest, a court date, a judge telling you how
badly you’ve screwed up, maybe drug/alcohol
treatment of some kind, and a probation term,
just to give a few examples. But the audience
reaction to crime is not limited to formal
sanctions. Many of the most powerful
audience reactions are informal, such as your
parents telling you how disappointed they are,
the reaction from your church and community,
having to tell your boss that you lost your
license and need time off work for a court date,
reactions from your friends/spouse/kids,
getting fired from your job, a landlord kicking

you out, and future employers or schools
turning you down because of your conviction.
All of these are powerful audience reactions
that can occur following crime.
In turn the labeling model says that when you
stack up this many strong audience reactions,
this can start to influence your self concept.
It’s not likely something that happens all at
once. You probably won’t immediately begin
to think “I guess I’m just a no good junky” after
your first arrest or after the judge scolds you in
the courtroom. But labeling theory says that all
of these audience reactions can pile up to
slowly chip away at your previous self image.
When you get these serious punishments AND
your friends and family pull away, and you lose
your job and license, and you have difficulty
getting another job, and your support network
dissolves a bit because people don’t want to
associate with a known felon, and the people
that do want to hang out with you have similar
problems like drug and alcohol use… well all of
this combined may make you begin to feel
more comfortable with others who use drugs
and who are “like you” and it starts to change
the way you think about yourself.
And labeling theory says that criminal labels

can change your behavior without having
much impact on your self concept. So even if
your self image is resilient and you think “I’m
still a good person. I just screwed up a couple
times, but I’m not a bad person or a ‘junky,”
picking up a felony conviction and the label of
“ex-con” can still substantially shape your
behavior by limiting your opportunities for
success and opening doorways to crime (to
build on the ideas from opportunity theory).
Once you have a felony conviction, you have
to abide by a different set of rules. For
example, with a felony conviction, you lose the
right to vote in some states, you lose
subsidized housing, you can’t get federal
student loans or grants, you can no longer be
employed in some professions, you lose many
gun ownership rights, and if you’ve applied for
a job recently, you know that for almost any job
you will have to “check the box” indicating you
have been convicted of a felony. Furthermore,
once you have done time, your social circle
often changes. Other ex-cons are more likely
to include you in their social circles, which
opens new doors to crime, while law-abiding
individuals are less likely to associate with you.
So even if you still think of yourself as a good
person and have a resilient self concept, your
opportunities are often substantially impacted

with a criminal label.
As you can see, these arguments provide a
stark contrast to the deterrence model of
crime. Rather than preventing crime, this
model says that punishment could cause
unintended consequences make people even
more likely to continue criminal behavior.
Slide 4
Increased Labeling
Duration: 00:03:05
Advance mode: Auto
Notes:
INCREASED LABELING
Labeling theory was quite popular in
criminology in the 1960s and 1970s, but it has
received less attention in recent decades with
the rise of the “war on drugs” and the era of
mass incarceration. Beginning in the 1980s,
the focus in the U.S. criminal justice system
was set squarely on deterrence and trying to
get tough on crime through formal punishment

and the deterrence model. As a result,
labeling theorist argue that in many ways,
labeling has expanded in recent decades.
Incarceration rates, which had been historically
pretty constant and fairly moderate in the U.S.
for nearly a century, skyrocketed in the 1980s
through 2010 largely in response to the war on
drugs. Within a 30 year span, the
incarceration rate in the U.S. increased by
approximately 400 percent (while the U.S.
population increased by only 30 percent),
giving the U.S. one of the highest incarceration
rates in the world. Although deterrence theory
suggests this is exactly what needed to
happen to curb crime, labeling theorists argue
that this has widened the enforcement net and
brought hundreds of thousands of new people
into the criminal justice system and saddled
them with criminal records and labels that
make it hard for them to make much out of
their lives after they get out of prison, as most
of them do.
Labeling theorists also note that during the last
30 years, we’ve seen several tough on crime
laws that they argue also expand the impact of
labeling, such as 3 strikes and you’re out laws,
mandatory minimum sentencing practices, and

felon disenfranchisement laws. In particular,
labeling theorists have been critical of the
mandatory minimum sentences and felon
disenfranchisement laws (which take away
voting rights and access to jobs and education
for those with felony records), arguing that they
make it difficult for people to recover from a
conviction and set their life back on track,
making them part of a permanent underclass
or second class citizen, and never really being
able to “do their time” and rejoin society.
Last, labeling advocates note that criminal
labels tend to carry a lot more weight now than
they did 40 or 50 years ago because society
has changed. It’s much easier to get online
and find out about someone’s conviction and
past offenses. Employers can easily run
background checks to see if you have a
conviction. And the job market in the U.S. has
shifted from a manufacturing base to a service
sector economy that requires more education
and credentials. So in the 1950s, if you got out
of prison, you could find a job as a welder, in a
factory, or on a construction site without too
much difficulty. But those jobs aren’t around
much anymore, and it is much harder for
someone getting out of prison to land a job in
the corporate world with long gaps in their
work history and few of the technical skills
needed for service sector jobs.

Slide 5
Extensions and Examples
Duration: 00:03:47
Advance mode: Auto
Notes:
EXTENSIONS AND EXAMPLES
The previous slides provide a basic overview
of the labeling model of crime, but there have
been some extensions of the theory worth
noting.
For example, Edwin Lemert helped clarify
labeling processes in his discussion of primary
and secondary deviance, which you will read
about. He explained that many people engage
in what he called “Primary Deviance,” or
situational and occasional deviance. In other
words, they smoke pot at parties on occasion
or commit crimes on an experimental and
sporadic basis. It’s seen as something they do
from time to time, but not something that
defines them. But Lemert explained that this
behavior can become “Secondary Deviance” if
and behavior in response to societal reaction.
In secondary deviance, it is no longer
situational or occasional. It is part of your
identity, your reputation, and your master

status. Your behavior is somewhat defined for
you and is intertwined with your identity and
self concept. So instead of using pot or pills
from time to time on occasion, where everyone
still sees you based on your other roles, in
secondary deviance they begin to think of you
as a “pothead” or a “junky” or a “pill popper”
first.
Lemert also explains that often the original
causes of initial/primary deviance are often
very different from the effective causes and the
reasons you continue deviant behavior. For
example, you may start using drugs as an
experimental thing to get high and party. But
you continue to use it long past this
experimental phase because it has become a
habit, it defines you and your life, it is part of
who you are and your identity, and others in
your life see you and your life based on this
behavior. It becomes part of you and it is
harder to quit and leave this behind when it is
part of your persona, whether we’re talking
about drug use, or regular patterns of theft and
selling stolen goods, or drug dealing that has
become part of how you are known.
In addition, you are reading an article by
Schmidt and Jones that describes something

called suspended identity. One of the authors
of this article is a “convict criminologist,” which
is a small group of scholars in criminology that
have served time in prison for crimes earlier in
their lives, but after release went on to get their
Ph.D.s and now research and teach
criminology. This article is drawn from some of
his qualitative research and does a very nice
job illustrating the labeling process from formal
punishment and how inmates’ identities begin
to change during imprisonment. They explain
that when people first go into prison, they
decide they are going to suspend their “real
identity” and put on a fake prison persona in
order to survive life in prison. But as you’ll
read, the longer they live this dual life and put
on the prison persona, the more that this new
status begins to become part of their
permanent identity. It is often very difficult for
people to perceive how someone could simply
change their identity because they were
“labeled” a criminal, but this article provides
some detailed insight into how that process
might work.
Slide 6
Suggestions from Labeling Theory
Duration: 00:04:07

Advance mode: Auto
Notes:
SUGGESTIONS FROM LABELING THEORY
Although it offers some very interesting ideas
and critiques of formal punishments in the
criminal justice system, labeling perspectives
have lost much of their momentum in
criminology and are often seen as a more
minor theoretical perspective rather than a
major addition to our understanding of crime.
In part, this is because they offer little
explanation for why someone would start
committing crime, and really only focus on why
people might continue or increase their
criminal offending after receiving a criminal
label. Also, tests of labeling theory have not
received overwhelming support. There is
some evidence that labeling and punishment
could increase crime (in some circumstances),
but the effects are often modest and are not
widely consistent.
However, labeling perspectives do offer some
policy suggestions that have captured attention
in some areas of the criminal justice system.
One of the basic ideas from labeling theory is
to simply use formal punishments less and
scale back the high levels of incarceration
we’ve seen in the last few decades. This idea
has been capturing some attention from

lawmakers, particularly as many states faced
huge budget problems in the early 2000s.
Incarceration is quite expensive, and after
looking at the price tag, some states have
begun to slow down prison growth and
consider the impact that incarceration
(especially for drug offenses) has had on
people and communities.
In addition, labeling theory suggests increased
use of diversion programs. The idea of
diversion programs is to keep people out of
prison by using more intermediate
punishments and treatments to help them
avoid the more severe sanctions and formal
punishments. These might include, use of
drug courts, rehab, community service,
probation, counseling programs, house arrest,
halfway houses, and various forms of
community incarceration. In particular, these
types of ideas have been more popular in the
juvenile justice system, where people are often
more concerned about the impact that a formal
conviction or imprisonment could have on
someone’s future.
Last, restorative justice practices and
Reintegrative Shaming (described by
Braithwaite in your reading) have a foundation
built on labeling theory ideas. The idea of this
perspective is not to eliminate punishment, but

try and make punishments work better and
work without permanently labeling offenders
and “felons.” Some of these include programs
to expunge records after completing treatment
programs for minor offenses, paying victims
directly for damages you’ve caused them with
restitution payments, and mediation programs
in which the victim, criminal justice system,
and offenders all agree on a course of action
to punish the offender but also give them the
chance to make amends for their harms and
essentially make up for what they’ve done.
The goal here is to punish and shame the
offender, but to help them avoid a permanent
label and give them a chance to pay for what
they’ve done and then reintegrate into society
as contributing member. These ideas have
been used on smaller scales (like restitution
payments), but often require substantial
resources and time on the part of all parties
involved. Also, considering that the foundation
of the U.S. criminal justice system still rests
firmly on the deterrence model, it is unlikely
that these types of “alternative sanctions” will
replace formal criminal punishments anytime
soon. Instead, they will most likely continue to
be used in select circumstances as a
supplemental tool for the criminal justice
system.

Paper Topic 7 – Opportunity and LabelingSeminar in Criminology –.docx

Paper Topic 7 – Opportunity and LabelingSeminar in Criminology –.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from danhaley45372

More from danhaley45372 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Paper Topic 7 – Opportunity and LabelingSeminar in Criminology –.docx