Labeling theory and youth crime

Anita Maria Persaud 1000734324

University of Toronto

Crime does not discriminate when it comes to age, gender or race. Almost anyone can be
involved with crime, one might even say crime is universal. Society places a large emphasis
when it comes to protecting and preventing criminal acts from taking place. However, over the
years there has been an increasing number of youth offenders in Canada. Deviance in youth is a
complex issue and addressing this problem can become difficult. There are a multitude of
avenues in which youths become involved in criminal activities, and through such a process
society tends to associate a specific set of characteristics to these youths, thus creating
stereotypes. When youths are labelled in such a demeaning way we tend to see more of them
reoffending. This is partly how the label theory operates. This paper will examine how label
theory can cause further deviance from youth who are stigmatized by a previous act committed.
Itll explore how labeling can effect an individuals perception of themselves, and how it can
cause rejection and isolation, which can both lead to further deviance.

Every culture has adopted a set of values and rules that are instilled into individuals.
These values and rules help dictate how we are expected to act. Actions that are in accordance
with these values and rules are deemed to be normal. However, as Henry(2009) stated
behaving differently, looking differently, thinking differently, in violation of those norms and
values can all be considered social deviance (p.2). Deviant behaviour is subjective as its
dependent on the culture we examine. For instance one culture may deem an act to be deviant
while others consider it normal. Labeling theory suggest that acts are considered to be deviant
only when society labels them as such (Dotter, 2001, p. 3). Further elaboration goes to show that
the reaction that is evoked by society is what differentiates an act from deviant and non-deviant.

Thus when an act induces a bad reaction from society the act is viewed as deviant, and thus the
individual who committed the act is labelled as such (Klein, 1986, p.48). Its also important to
note that there are different forms of labelling that we must first address. The two main types are,
formal and informal labelling. Formal labeling occurs from individuals of power, these are
people that make and enforce the law. For example, police officers, politicians and the criminal
justice system are the most common labelers as they have the power to prosecute any deviant
behaviour they observe. As Bernburg(2009) expressed to be formally processed as a criminal or
delinquent, testifies to and brings attention to the persons immorality and inability to follow
important social norms (p.189). For example, ceremonies that occur in the justice system such
as a criminal trial, act as a rite of transition, which formally label individuals with a deviant
status (Bernburg, 2009, p.189). Informal labelling transpires from individuals closely linked with
the juvenile in question. This would mean from parents and friends. Its often said informal
labelling is the heart of the label theory (Bernburg, 2009, p.190). Take for instance, if a young
person finds themselves in contempt of the law, they will be labelled through the juvenile justice
system (Klein, 1986, p.50). However if this information is withheld from individuals in the
community and school, there will be little to no impact on the youths life. Conversely, if the
youths actions are made aware of to the individuals in the community and their school, informal
labelling will proceed. Through this process they may face problems pertaining to exclusion
from society, which can have severe impacts on the juvenile. Thus as you see, its when informal
labelling occurs that creates further discourse in the juveniles life. This is why its essential to
examine the other aspect of the labelling theory, which goes further on to highlight the impact
labeling, formal and informal, has on an individual, more specifically youths. Labelling youth at
an early age can have serious lifelong consequences. We tend to see more youth who are labelled

early in life recommit. But why does this occur? Well explore more into the issue of labelling
youth and its correlation to crime.

Theres no doubt that crimes committed by juveniles are on a rise. Targeting this issue is
difficult, as there are different factors that come into play. An important factor that must be
addressed are reoffenders. Many of the youths who commit crimes have a previous criminal
history. The labelling theory can be effective at explaining why this ensues. When a youth acts in
such a way that society identifies as deviant, they are officially labeled by the justice system, and
as well by individuals in the community. Deviant labels are stigmatizing as they act as a marker
that people have come to associate with the individual (Bernburg, Krohn and Rivera, 2006, p.
68). Particularly, criminal labels have stigma associated with it. This means society has attached
an explicit set of negative stereotypes and images to go along with deviant and criminal
behaviour and labels. This is an important aspect in the labelling theory. These unfavourable
images and stereotypes are rooted all around us, for instance, in mainstream media, books and
movies and T.V shows (Bernburg, 2009, p.188). Take for example a Disney movie like the 101
Dalmatians, where the main antagonist Cruella de Vil, is portrayed as devious and immoral. The
audience is taught to dislike individuals who are of such an immoral and devious nature. This
reinforces the idea that criminal stereotypes are all around us and they can be taught to us at a
young age through different media outlets.

When youths are labelled because of their deviant and criminal actions, it sets into
motion a criminogenic process. But how does it occur? Well there are different processes that can

be triggered as a result of labelling (Bernburg, Krohn and Rivera, 2006, p. 68). We will begin by
analyzing labeling, the looking glass theory and the self-fulfilling prophecy theory. The label
theory is one that uses Cooleys looking glass theory of the self to help explain how labels can
create deviant behaviour. The essential notion of the looking glass theory of the self is that
individuals view themselves as others see them (Thompson, 2014, p.459). So how you perceive
yourself is dependent on how the people around you view you. So with regard to the labelling
theory, if an act that is deemed to be deviant is committed by a juvenile, they are hereby given
negative labels, and thus they begin to view themselves negatively as well(Bernburg, 2009,
p.190). If youths perceive themselves as deviant, criminal and immoral like these labels may
suggest, the self-fulfilling prophecy explains that these youth will then conform to these labels
and act in accordance. The self-fulfilling prophecy theory proposes that, Realizing and
internalizing a behavior based on a label or on expectations, resulting in person being socially
reconstructed (Barnhart, Garbay and Garcia, n.d). Simply put, this explains how through
labeling, you create stigma and unfavourable stereotypes to associate with the individual, as a
result the individual in question will eventually accept these labels and begin to act
conformingly, meaning deviant and immoral. Therefore, when you label youths as deviant and
criminals, you are also changing their perception of themselves, they begin to recognize these
labels and identify with them. Eventually they can succumb to these negative labels, and begin to
act accordingly, thus leading to even further deviance and even more offenses.

Moreover, labels can also cause further deviance through a different process. For
instance, now we will explore how labelling can result in rejection and isolation, and as well as
the effects it has on youth. As stated before, deviant labels create stigma, which can lead to

exclusion from normal groups in society. Thus through such a process, labelling may increase the
chances of juveniles becoming involved with deviant peers. But how does social exclusion
occur? There are different ways social exclusion can happen as a result of labeling. Firstly, youth
who are labelled may become mindful of the stereotypical beliefs and the other negative labels
within in their communities, or perhaps they contemplate that these beliefs and stereotypes
already exist based on their insight of what they have been taught about criminals (Bernburg,
Krohn and Rivera, 2006, p. 69). Because of this, juveniles may fear and expect rejection from
peers and society, and therefore they may withdraw from daily interactions with conventional
and normal peers. Also interactions between the stigmatized and the normal, can be classified
as embarrassing and uneasy for both parties. Especially the stigmatized individuals may feel as if
they have to over compensate in order to make a good impression. Therefore we tend to see
labeled and non-labeled adolescents avoid association with one another because of the awkward,
and uncomfortable interactions that follow (Bernburg, Krohn and Rivera, 2006, p. 70).
Consequently from this process we see more labeled individuals getting involved with deviant
groups, as they feel more comfortable around them, than compared to conventional peer groups.
Furthermore, exclusion can also occur because of the decisions made from non-labelled
individuals. The unfavourable stereotypes and negative labels linked with the juvenile in
question, may create feelings of fear and distrust among non-labeled peers and as well as other
members of the community. These conventional peers may be afraid to associate themselves with
the labeled adolescent as they might fear the stigma may ware off on them. As a result the
labelled juvenile is rejected by peer groups. Additionally, the principle of homophily can be
applied in this context to help explain further isolation labelled youth may experience. Firstly,
homophily is described as the tendency to associate with others whom you deem similar to

yourself (Bernburg, Krohn and Rivera, 2006, p. 69). Through the labeling process, it brings to
light the similarities that is shared among labeled youth and the differences between the two
groups; labelled and non-labeled (Ascani, n.d, 82). As a result we tend to see more labelled youth
associating themselves with other juveniles who are labeled in a similar way. As you can see,
exclusion can occur directly because of the actions of the labelled youth and indirectly because
of the decisions by non-labelled youth. Its the rejection and isolation from normal and
conventional peer groups that causes more youth who are labelled to seek support and
acceptance in other deviant groups. Its also because labeled adolescents want to seek out
individuals who are of a similar stature, and who can understand them and spare them of
judgment. Through any of these methods of rejection and isolation, it causes further embedding
into deviant groups for labelled youth. Increased involvement in deviant groups can lead to
further deviant behaviour. As the social norms theory emphasizes the importance of Peer
influence, and the role it plays in individual decision-making around behaviors(Peer influence,
n.d). Thus this suggest the people you surround yourself with, influence your behaviour. Thus if
labeled youth continue to associate themselves with deviant peers, their behaviour will be
influenced by them (Martin, 2006, p.66). Therefore they will be more likely to get involved in
criminal acts once again, and re-offend. As described deviant groups represent a source of
social support in which deviant labels are accepted, while at the same time providing collective
rationalization , attitudes and opportunities that encourage and facilitate deviant behaviour (as
cited in Bernburg, 2009, p. 192). Exclusionary acts can also lead to missed opportunities
regarding education and employment (as cited in Bernburg, 2009, p. 191). This can occur
because of the individuals past juvenile record, which acts as label. As weve seen the stigma
associated with this label creates rifts between the adolescent and normal peer groups. For

example, lets say an employer expects the applicants to have a clean criminal record or if not,
they are seen as unfit to be an employee, thus they are not considered for the job. Also its
possible schools will not be willing to accept students into their facilities if they feel as if they
can be a risk to the safety of others. These thoughts can arise because of a previous criminal
record, which can act as an indicator. The implications of having a criminal history can be
detrimental to an adolescents upbringing due to the lack of opportunities. As a result of the
limited opportunities, as the strain theory explains that certain strains or stressors increase the
likelihood of crime. These strains lead to negative emotions, such as frustration and anger. These
emotions create pressure for corrective action, and crime is one possible response
(Agnew&Scheurman, 2009, 172). Adolescents who are labeled may feel strained, and trapped
with limited to no opportunities, and because of this they turn to crime as a solution
(Agnew&Scheurman, 2009, 173). Hence, crime is used to help escape the strain created by their
label. Consequently juveniles labeled, will then be more willingly and motivated to reoffend.
This shows how social exclusion can create a deficiency of opportunities for labeled juveniles,
which in turn, leads to more crime among youth.

The government has been long trying to combat the issue of youth crimes, however the
prevalent method used is one that involves, control and punishment and has been shown to be
ineffective when it comes to creating deterrence for offenders. When youth are arrested and
trialed in a juvenile criminal justice setting they are hereby formally labeled by the law. If others
are made aware of the incident, the youth becomes informally labelled. Youth offenders are
negatively labelled by society and by such a process they are stigmatized. Through this
stigmatization process its likely they are made aware of such labels that are being directed to

them, and as a result, may eventually begin to believe and conform to the labels. Because of this
we are expected to see more re-offenders. Secondly, social exclusion caused by stigma can also
lead to further embedding in criminal and deviant groups. If you notice that the likely hood that
adolescents will reoffend largely depends on these labels that are being placed on individuals.
Thats why the government and society must be mindful when they label youth as it can have
lifelong consequences and often it leads to further deviance.

Bibliography

Thompson, W., & Bynum, J. (n.d.). Sociological Explanations of Juvenile Delinquency. In

Sociological Explanations of Juvenile Delinquency (9th ed., p. 554). Pearson.
Martin, G. (2005). Juvenile Delinquency Theories of Causation. In Juvenile Justice: Process and
Systems (Illustrated ed., p. 457). SAGE.
Henry, S. (2009). Social deviance (First edition ed., p. 176). Cambridge, Cambridge: Polity.
Youth Deviance: The Labeling Theory Approach. (2011, November 19). Retrieved March 19,
2015, from http://jaims.hubpages.com/hub/Youth-and-Deviance-The-Labeling-Theory-Approach
Krohn, M., Lizotte, A., & Hall, G. (n.d.). Handbook on Crime and Deviance - Google Books.
Retrieved March 19, 2015, from
http://books.google.com/books/about/Handbook_on_Crime_and_Deviance.html?
id=kKLeD2lYOrwC
Dotter, D. (n.d.). Google Books. Retrieved March 19, 2015, from http://books.google.ca/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=w9cThC3czN4C&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=Creating Deviance: An Interactionist
Approach&ots=ko2_xZyGk4&sig=ZlqbQbXl-OX9c4tyaTPcyLvph2s#v=onepage&q=Creating
Deviance: An Interactionist Approach&f=false
Bernburg, J., Krohn, M., & Rivera, C. (2009, December 16). Official Labeling, Criminal
Embeddedness, and Subsequent Delinquency A Longitudinal Test of Labeling Theory. Retrieved
March 19, 2015, from http://www.uk.sagepub.com/tibbettsess/study/articles/10/Bernburg.pdf
Thompson, G. A. (2014), Labeling in Interactional Practice: Applying Labeling Theory to
Interactions and Interactional Analysis to Labeling. Symbolic Interaction, 37: 458482. doi:
10.1002/symb.127
Klein, M. (1986). Labeling Theory And Delinquency Policy: An Experimental Test. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 13, 47-79.
Ascani, N. (n.d.). Labeling Theory and the Effects of Sanctioning on Delinquent Peer
Association: A New Approach to Sentencing Juveniles. Retrieved March 19, 2015, from
http://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/student-journals/P12_Ascani.pdf
Social Norms Theory. (n.d.). Retrieved March 19, 2015, from
http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/SB/SB721-Models/SB721-Models7.html
Barnhart, A., Gabay, S., & Garcia, D. (n.d.). EDUC 204. Retrieved March 19, 2015, from
http://www-scf.usc.edu/~sgabay/educ 204 panel presentation.htm

Agnew, R., & Scheuerman, H. (n.d.). Strain Theories. Retrieved March 19, 2015, from
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/view/document/obo9780195396607/obo-9780195396607-0005.xml