Labeling Theory

1. Labeling Theory Review of “Classic” Labeling Reintegrative Shaming Defiance Theory

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

3. 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...

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

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

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

7. Types of “Shaming” • Reintegrative • Love the sinner, hate the sin • Spank the child, but tell them that you still love them • 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

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

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

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

11. Implications of Braithwaite? • Restorative Justice • Emphasis on “repairing harm” • 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 • 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

12. Lawrence Sherman “Defiance Theory” • 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.”

13. What causes defiance? • 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) • Offender is poorly bonded to sanctioning agent or community • Offenders defines sanctioning as stigmatizing (reject the person) • Offenders denies or refuses to