1. Labeling: An
Unintended
Consequence
In an attempt to curve crime it has become common practice to Label
individuals that are deemed deemed deviants and criminals by the
state. However the practice according to Labeling theorist has had
counterproductive effects of promulgating criminal activity by
becoming a self fulfilling prophecy of expected criminal Behavior.

2. • Labeling theory was developed by sociologists in
the 1960’s
• Labeling had strong ties to Tannenbaum’s and
Edwin Lemerts socially constructed behavior
research.
• Labeling Theory gained notoriety in a time of
significant social change in the United States.
• Labeling Theory is based on Crime Being A socially
constructed Phenomenon.
• The labeling theory is also often referred to as the
Social Reaction Theory
• Howard Becker, Kai Erikson and Jon Kitsuse were
major proponents of the labeling theory.
History of Labeling Theory
• Social unrest and events like the
civil rights movement brought attention
to the role of the state in in creating
criminal behavior (CIARAVOLO 2011)
• “With labeling theory, criminology saw the birth
of a theory that clearly questioned the legitimacy
and effectiveness of the criminal justice
system.” (CIARAVOLO, 7)

3. Major Tenants of Labeling Theory
1. There is a greater probability of future criminal Activity when society
attaches a criminal label i.e. Convict, Felon, Batterer, or parolee.
 Individuals that are labeled will adjust behavior in accordance to the
prescribed criminal image.
 Societies expectation's of criminal activity will be acted upon by the
labeled criminal.
2. There are distinct factors that contribute to future criminality do to the labeling
Process.
 These factors include deviant self identity, lack of scholastic and career
opportunities, and association with the criminal underworld.
 It is not necessarily the labeling that causes the undesired results, but the
secondary contributing factors.

4. Labeling Theory Leads to Policy!
.
As empirical evidence for the labeling theory expands lawmakers and criminal justice
professionals are looking at minimizing the effects of Labeling. These proposed
policies
aim to minimize the effects of arrests and the likelihood of subsequent crime and
deviance
(CIARAVOLO , 2011). Some of these policies include:
Reintegration programs that include societal commitment not to stigmatize the
individual and a sincere desire to reintegrate individuals into the folds of society.
Return to work initiatives that include Job training and a pool of employers
willing to hire offenders.
Reintegration counseling to prepare inmates in dealing with
responsibilities i.e. employment, applications, rent, relationships and conflict
resolution

5. Continued…………
 Diversionary program that take offender's attention from crime and focus it on obtaining job related skills and
educational goals.
 Giving adolescents these tools lets them know that there are other options and that a mistake will not define
them.
 Programs that aim at avoiding the label of criminal to be attached to individual's
 Such programs include Supervision that upon completion will result in non conviction
 Community service and other diversionary programs like boot camp that will leave an offender without a
permanent mark on his/her record.
 Expungement opportunities for individuals that meet time restrictions without re-offending.

6. Studies Finbd Support For Labeling Theory
Berburg and Krohn 2003 study findings “lend considerable support structural implications
of the labeling Approach” (Bernburg, 2003).
A study of Florida’s corrections system that allows adjudications to be withheld on felony
cases concluded that that recidivism within two years is more likely on those individuals
that were officially labeled. (Chiricos, Barrick, Bontrager, 20007)
In a study conducted for a dissertation by Joongyeup Lee confirmed the need to take into
consideration the effects of labeling on criminal behavior across, race, sex and ethnicity
(Joongyeup, 2012).
Joongyeup

7. References
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.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/sop.2011.54.2.163
Bernburg, J. G., & Krohn, M. D. (2003). Labeling, life chances, and adult crime: The direct and indirect effects of
official intervention in adolescence on crime in early adulthood*. Criminology, 41(4), 1287-1318.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/220692162?accountid=27966
Ciaravolo, E. B. (2011). Once a criminal, always a criminal: How do individual responses to formal labeling affect
future behavior? A comprehensive evaluation of labeling theory. The Florida State University). ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses, , 112. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/897143288?accountid=27966. (897143288).
Chiricos, T., Barrick, K., Bales, W., & Bontrager, S. (2007). The labeling of convicted felons and its consequences for
recidivism*. Criminology, 45(3), 547. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/220708643?accountid=27966