Labeling Theory lClassic Labeling l Reintegrative Shaming l

Labeling Theory l“Classic” Labeling l. Reintegrative Shaming l. Defiance Theory

The Social Context of Labeling l Many “early writings” ¡ Lemert in 1950 s ¡ Tannenbaum in 1938 l Emerged in the 1960 s as a force ¡ Social context of the 1960 s ¡ “Fit” with theory l Labeling theory = “ironic twist”

Labeling as a mix of 3 perpectives l Symbolic Interactionism ¡ Gestures/signs to communicate ¡ A single “label” can have many meanings or “baggage” l Identity (self), “master status, ” etc l Conflict Theory ¡ How the law is created and applied l Crime as “Constructed” ¡ All deviance is relative (no absolute evils)

The Classic Labeling Process Formal Sanctions Primary Deviance • Most engage in this • Typically sporadic, not serious • Degradation ceremony • Stigmatizing Change in Self-Concept • looking glass self • hard to resist formal label Secondary Deviance • Caused by new self-image as criminal or deviant

Criticisms of Labeling 1. Typically history of antisocial behavior prior to formal labeling ¡ Society doesn’t “identify, tag, and sanction individuals as deviant in a vacuum. ” 2. Controlling initial levels of deviance, formal sanctions have little (no? ) effect. 3. No “negotiation, ” obsession with “formal” sanctions. . .

Policy Implications (The 4 Ds) l Diversion l De-institutionalization l Decriminalization l Due Process ¡ How all relate to labeling l Actually part of OJJDP dialogue and policy in the 1970 s (irony here) ¡ Jerome Miller Last One Over the Wall

John Braithwaite l Austrailian Criminologist l Crime, Shame, and Reintegration l Pretty complex theory (Not parsimonious) ¡ BUT, Central concepts are not that complex Reintegrative Shaming vs. Stigmatization l Interdependency l Communitarianism l

What is “shaming? ” l Behaviors (from others) that induce guilt, shame ¡ snide comment, verbal confrontations ¡ stocks/pillory, the “scarlet letter” ¡ Naval tradition of “captains mask” l In Western society, shaming has become uncoupled from formal punishment ¡ Offenders privately sent away to warehouses by corrections or court “officials”

Braithwaite II l Interdependency ¡ “attachment” with social others (indirect control at micro level) l Communitarianism ¡ l similar to “collective efficacy” (control at macro) In communities that lack collective efficacy, and among people who are less bonded, stigmatizing punishment is likely.

Types of “Shaming” l Reintegrative ¡ ¡ Love the sinner, hate the sin Spank the child, but tell them that you still love them l Stigmatizing ¡ ¡ ¡ no effort made to reconcile the offender with the community offender as outcast, “criminal” as master status degradation ceremonies not followed by ceremonies to “decertify” deviance

Examples of Shaming l Stigmatizing ¡ United States ¡ Court, prison, etc. (remove and shun from community) l Reintegrative ¡ Japan ¡ Ceremonies to shame and welcome back

The Model Interdependency Communitarianism (MICRO) (MACRO) Type of Punishment • Reintegrative Shaming • Stigmatizing Legitimate Opportunities Criminal Subculture High Crime

Evidence for Reintegrative Shaming? l Japan vs. U. S. crime rates ¡ Since WWII, Japan U. S. (others) l Why? ¡ High Interdependency and Communitarianism ¡ Reintegrative Shaming emphasized ¡ Community has duty to shame and welcome back transgressors

Implications of Braithwaite? l Restorative ¡ Emphasis on “repairing harm” l l ¡ Justice Punishment alone is not effective in changing behavior and is disruptive to community harmony and good relationships Restitution as a means of restoring both parties; goal of reconciliation and restoration Community involvement l l Crime control the domain of the community Community as facilitator in restorative process Crime has social dimensions of responsibility Victims are central to the process of resolving a crime

Lawrence Sherman “Defiance Theory” l Defiance ¡ “the net increase in the prevalence, incidence, or seriousness of the future offending against a sanctioning community caused by a proud, shameless reaction to the administration of a criminal sanction. ”

What causes defiance? l Sanctions are defined as “unfair” Sanctioning agent behaves with disrespect for the offender or his/her group ¡ The sanction is actually unfair (discriminatory, excessive, undeserved) – COPS ¡ l Offender is poorly bonded to sanctioning agent or community ¡ l Borrowed from social bond theory Hostile reaction the labeling theory irony again (getting tough produces opposite reaction)