Labelling theories argue that deviance is not inherent in acts themselves, but rather defined by societal rules and the labelling of those who break them. Certain groups, like the police, benefit from expanding definitions of deviance and enforcing laws in a way that discriminates against the working class. Once labelled as deviant, people are more likely to take on that identity and continue deviant acts due to limited opportunities. While labelling can increase deviance, reintegrative shaming that distinguishes acts from persons may discourage continued deviance and encourage reacceptance.

1. Labelling Theories of Crime
By Olivia and Toby

2. The Social Construction of Crime
• Labelling theorists are interested in how and why
certain acts are defined as criminal; no act is
inherently criminal in itself. (Killing people is not
a crime if committed by soldiers in war)
Howard Becker
“Social groups create deviance by creating the
rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and
by applying those rules to particular people and
labelling them as outsiders”

3. Moral Entrepreneurs
• These are the people who benefit from the
creation of new laws. Becker argues that a new
law has two effects;
• The creation of a group of outsiders- those who
break it.
• The creation or expansion of a social control
agency to impose labels on offenders. (i.e.
Police)
• Platt (1969) argues that the idea of juvenile
delinquency was created by Victorian moral
entrepreneurs aimed at ‘protecting’ young
people at risk.

4. Who gets labelled?
• Not everyone who commits an offence is
punished for it (link to Marxism; selective
enforcement).
• Factors influencing people’s punishment:
• Previous interactions with agencies of social
control.
• Their appearance, background and history.
• The circumstances of the offence.
• Piliavin and Briar (1964) found that police
decisions to arrest youths were mainly based on
appearance – if you’re loitering at night, dress
well and you won’t get arrested.

5. Cicourel (1968)– Negotiation of
Justice
• Officers’ typifications (stereotypes) of what a
delinquent should look like led them to
concentrate on certain groups, resulting in a
class bias. This in turn led to working-class
areas being patrolled more frequently and even
more arrests being made- a vicious circle.
• Justice is seen as negotiable; e.g., if a middle
class woman was caught with a joint she would
be less likely to be charged with possession than
a working class male youth.

6. Official Statistics
• LINK TO RESEARCH METHODS
• Ciroucel’s study implies that official
statistics should be investigated rather
than used as evidence because they do
not give a valid picture of crime. This
would shed light on the process of control
agencies such as the police and the
criminal justice system.

7. Primary and Secondary Deviance
• Edwin Lemert (1951)
• Primary deviance is the act which has not been
publicly labelled as deviant. He argues that it is
pointless to seek the causes of primary deviance
as the perpetrators do not see themselves as
deviant and are not part of organised deviant
life.
• Secondary deviance is labelled; the result of
societal reaction. Those who are caught are
publicly labelled and often stigmatised. Once
they are labelled it becomes their master status.

8. Secondary Deviance (cont.)
• A change of master status may lead to a crisis of
self-identity and become a self-fulfilling
prophecy, resulting in further deviance.
• As a result of secondary deviance a convict may
find it hard to get a job and turn to deviant
subculture (Link to subcultural strain theories-
functionalism) to achieve, confirming their
deviant identity.
• Jock Young (1971) Study of hippy marijuana
users- until smoking it was made illegal drugs
where only a small part of hippy culture, but they
then retreated into a deviant subculture with
drug use at it’s centre.

9. It is not the act which is deviant
but society’s reaction to it.

10. Deviance amplification
• This is the idea that attempts to control deviance
only increase it; more and more control
produces more and more deviance.
• Stanley Cohen (1972) studied Mods and
Rockers and noted press exaggeration created a
series of moral panics, leading to higher
prosecution levels and thus higher levels of
deviance. Those at the centre of the moral panic
are made into Folk Devils.
• This is similar to Lemert’s idea of secondary
deviance.

11. Labelling Theory and Criminal
Policy.
• Triplett (2000) notes an increasing tendency to
see young offenders as evil and a lessening
tolerance of minor offences. Offences have been
re-labelled resulting in harsher sentencing.
• Therefore labelling theory has important policy
implications; by decriminalising ‘soft’ drugs we
would decrease the number of charged
offenders and the risk of secondary deviance or
a deviance amplification spiral.

12. Reintegrative Shaming
• Most labelling theorists see only the negative
consequences of labelling although John
Braithwaite (1989) identifies a more positive role.
There are two types of shaming:
• Disintegrative shaming- not only the crime but
the criminal is also labelled as bad and is
excluded.
• Reintegrative shaming- Labelling only the act,
not the person.

13. Continued
• The policy of reintegrative shaming avoids
stigmatising the offender while still making
them and others aware of the negative
impact of their offence. This encourages
forgiveness and acceptance back into
society.
• Reintegrative shaming also avoids
pushing people into secondary deviance.
• Link to functionalism- boundary
maintinence.

14. Evaluation points.
• Strengths of labelling theory:
• Highlights the reasons for differences in
deviance between cultures.
• Shows that law is often enforced in a
discriminatory way.
• Shows how attempts at control can often
backfire.
• Highlights weaknesses of official statistics.

15. Evaluation points
• Weaknesses of labelling theory:
• Often deterministic- not all those who are
labelled continue in a deviant career.
• Gives the offender a victim status and ignores
the real victims of crime i.e. a rapist is not a
victim!
• Ignores individuals who actively pursue
deviance.
• Fails to explain why people commit primary
deviance.
• The first theory to recognise the role of power in
creating deviance but fails to analyse this
source, instead focusing on ‘middle-range’
officials, such as police officers.