Does criminal labelling encourage criminal behaviour?

This essay explores the relationship between labelling theory and criminal activities, discussing whether criminal labelling encourages criminal behavior. It examines the impact of negative labels on self-esteem and the potential for retaliation. The essay also discusses the juvenile justice system and its role in rehabilitation. Examples from different communities are provided to illustrate the effects of labelling on criminal tendencies. Overall, the essay argues that labelling offenders based on social factors can contribute to or enhance their criminal behavior.

LABELLING THEORY 1
Question 2:
Does criminal labelling encourage criminal behaviour? Please use examples to
illustrate your argument.

LABELLING THEORY 2
Labeling theory is an approach to criminality and deviant behavior that is based on social
factors and circumstances. Benburg (2009, p.187) argues that deviant behavior by the
labelled individual is a response to the label. It is a method employed by the offender to
protect himself, to retaliate or to come to terms with the tag. Benburg explains that this is
because a negative label affects one self-esteem and causes stigma. This essay seeks to
explain the relationship between labelling theory and criminal activities.
According to Wellford (1975, pp.333-334) labelling is based on three assumptions. To begin
with, that no action of man is inherently or naturally criminal. An act that is considered
criminal varies from one social setting to another. Attaching criminality to an act is based on
the community's values and norms. Kroska, Lee, and Carr (2017) elaborate that in the context
of a society, a child's misbehaviour is likely to cause him to be at loggerheads with the adult,
not because the child is evil, but because the adults have identified the child’s action as bad or
wrong. However, the existence of traditional legal systems among primitive communities led
to the identification of universally illegal and unacceptable acts. These acts include but are
not limited to murder and rape (Wellford, 1975, p335). Secondly, an offender does not
become a criminal by contravening the set law of the land but instead becomes a criminal by
the function of the body in power. The ruling power labels an act as criminal in order to
control their subjects which in turn gives them an economic, social and political advantage.
Criminalizing acts enables the criminal justice system to wield power and control over the
other citizens of an inferior class. Finally, labelling is a practice that that consists of
producing and discerning characteristics that are of an offender which results in the
community rejecting the deviant (Wellford, 1975 pp.333-334). These labels case that deviant
to act violently or criminally in retaliation to those who reject him. Illegal behaviour brings
forth more labels. Wellford presents labeling as an endless cycle of hostility and tagging that
leads to the intensification of one’s criminal tendencies (Wellford, 1975 p.341).
Walt Disney's Beagle Boys is an example of a televised show that depicts criminals as
different from ordinary people. They are portrayed as immoral and devious. This shows how
children are socialized with a bias towards criminals’ right from that impressionable age
(Bernburg, 2009 p.189).
Youth with negative opinions about themselves are inclined to adopting character traits that
are similar to those offenders like gangsters, rapists and murderers (Kroska et al, 2017 p.76).
According to Kroska et al. (2017 p.85), “delinquency labels increase the likelihood of teen

LABELLING THEORY 3
recidivism by changing teens’ opportunity structure and their self-meanings”. The common
response of society towards crime is negative and hostile. Crime brings people with different
interests and aspirations together against one common enemy. The common enemy is the one
who has deviated from the rules and social norms of the society. Their forging together in
solidarity leads to the inevitable exclusion of the offender. The reaction reduces a criminal to
a dejected foe of the society who is in search of a means through which he can seek
vengeance for himself against those who reject him (Mead, 1918).
According to an analysis done by Benburg (2009), the juvenile system in the United States of
America is aimed at rehabilitating and reincorporating deviants back into society. The
approach of juvenile institutions is more of corrective than punitive justice. The systems put
in place usually seek to understand the offenders rather than to judge them on the face of
things. Factors that are taken into consideration are the child’s family set-up, psychological
issues, emotional challenges they may be facing and the extent of their physical development.
As per Benburg (2009) research, this system has had results that reflect the exact opposite of
their main goal. Child offenders, once released from detention or upon finishing their
sentence go back to the society and offend again at even higher rates than before their
conviction and subsequent rehabilitation. The authors argue that the secondary offenses
committed by the juveniles as a result of being labelled as delinquents by the criminal justice
system and by society as a whole. They go on to explain that labelling causes recidivism that
stems from two processes. The first is that the child offenders identify with their criminality
and lack the initiative or the proper structures to enable them to continue their lives in a
conventional manner. They perceive that the best way for them to achieve socioeconomic
success is to persist in their deviant behaviour. Secondly, once an individual has been labelled
as a criminal, the society rejects him and their conduct towards him triggers the delinquent to
act in accordance with the label. According to Wellford (1975 p.341), convicted felons and
juvenile offenders are often rejected when it comes to employment opportunities, school or
college prospects and generally acceptance in the society based on their criminal record.
Kroska et al. (2017) identify that there are two classifications of deviance, and these are
primary and secondary deviance. Primary deviance consists of seemingly insignificant acts
that are not viewed as criminal by the perpetrator and the society alike. These acts are
committed, more often than not, while an individual is in an temporary state of deviance.
These primary offenses do not serve to affect the offender's reputation severely. On the

LABELLING THEORY 4
contrary, secondary deviance has adverse effects on a person’s social standing, their
relationships with people and it also dictates how the person will conduct himself in the
future.
Chassin and Stager (1984) explain that another reason why labelling leads to or further
encourages deviant behavior is because of the relationship between the tag of being a
criminal and self-esteem. A lowered self-esteem may cause an offender to retaliate through
committing more offenses as a means of protecting himself from those who assail him and
make him feel like a degenerate.
The pygmy BaMbuti of Zaire is a hunters and gatherers community. They do not have
specific leaders and power is evenly distributed among the members of the community. The
society deals with most offenders informally, rapidly and through procedures that do not lead
to labelling. Their forms of punishment do not involve unnecessarily extended periods of
seclusion and rejection. From being involved in the activities of the community. Once an
offender completes his task, prescribed as a form of punishment, he is reincorporated into
society. In addition to this, there is hardly any mention of the events that had transpired. One
is readily accepted into the community and goes on to even become one of the most respected
members of the community. In this instance, there is the primary deviation by the deviant but
there lacks the aspect of rejection by the community and the consequent secondary
delinquency (Raybeck, 1991).
The Mehinaku community are the indigenous people of Brazil. Each village has a chief who
is chosen owing to his oratory skills and also based on how well versed he is in the cultural
heritage of the community. In this community, opinions and labels attached to individuals are
profoundly affected by their conduct (Raybeck, 1991). They label people as either good men
or bad men. 200. There are three categories of bad men. They are; "trash yardmen,
freeloaders and witches" (Raybeck, 1991). The first two tags are not very severe but the
thirds, the tag of a witch, poses an individual with a great risk of being alienated from the
society. These individuals are seen as a danger to the proper running of the activities of the
community. They are also perceived as threats to the values of society. Although this
labelling occurs in the community, through public denunciations, it is highly discouraged.
This is due to the belief that labels break the ties between the offender and the community
and cause the offender to dissociate himself and commit more offenses (Raybeck, 1991). The

LABELLING THEORY 5
community is convinced that they cannot survive if they keep severing the ties that bind its
members together.
The Semai peoples of the Malay Peninsula are also reluctant to stereotype the members of
their community owing to the fact that these negative tags lead to exclusion of the deviant
members of the society. They also face the risk of having their membership to the community
extinguished irrevocably (Raybeck , 1991). The community is averse to extreme punishments
such as murder or decapitation since they focus heavily on rehabilitation and restoration of
the deviants rather than shunning them entirely.
In conclusion, labelling offenders or non-offenders based on their social and economic class
or literacy has a direct effect on the criminality of the said individuals. It either causes or
enhances their criminal tendencies. This is illustrated clearly in the arguments of
acknowledged scholars. In addition, this stance is strengthened by the illustrations of systems
that have labelled delinquents and that have had increased crime rates as a result.
Furthermore, it is apparent from the communities of Semai, Mehinaku and Pygmy BaMbuti
that the absence of systems that tag criminals and reject them has the ramification of lower
and scarce instances of recidivism if any.

LABELLING THEORY 6
References
Wellford, C., 1975. Labelling theory and criminology: An assessment. Social
Problems, 22(3), pp.332-345. https://doi.org/10.2307/799814
Chassin, L. and Stager, S.F., 1984. Determinants of self-esteem among incarcerated
delinquents. Social Psychology Quarterly, pp.382-390. doi:10.2307/3033641
Bernburg J. G (2009). Labeling theory. In: Krohn, M.D., Lizotte, A.J. and Hall, G.P. eds.
Handbook on crime and deviance. (187-207). Springer Science & Business Media
Kroska, A., Lee, J.D. and Carr, N.T., 2017. Juvenile delinquency and self‐sentiments:
Exploring a labeling theory proposition. Social Science Quarterly, 98(1), pp.73-88.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12307
Raybeck, D., 1988. Anthropology and labeling theory: A constructive critique. Ethos, 16(4),
pp.371-397. https://doi.org/10.1525/eth.1988.16.4.02a00020