Labelling theory
Labelling theory offers a uniquely sociological perspective on the function of social labelling in the evolution of criminality and deviation. According to labelling theory, individuals come to recognize and conduct in ways that mirror how other people label them. Because labelling somebody illegally aberrant might result in undesirable behaviour, this notion is most typically related to the sociology of criminality (Thompson,2019). For instance, labelling somebody as a felon may encourage others to regard the individual badly, and the person may behave out as a result. The idea suggests that, while aberrant behaviours can arise from a variety of reasons and circumstances when persons are classified or characterized as perverts, they frequently confront new challenges as a result of their response to unfavourable preconceptions (stigma) associated with the aberrant label (Paternoster & Bachman, 2017). These issues, in turn, can raise the chances of patterns of illegal conduct becoming steady and persistent. Thus, getting labelled or classified as a crime perpetrator by other individuals may initiate procedures that serve to perpetuate or maintain engagement in criminality and deviance, regardless of the behavioural patterns and sociological and psychological variables that prevailed before labelling.
When an individual is labelled as deviant by civilization, that person internalizes the unfavourable label and, over a period, adopts the characteristics of a deviant individual to fit society’s expectations. Everyone is aware of how other individuals perceive them based on historical relationships with other civilisation people (Greer & Reiner, 2018). The person might be considered to be shaped by society’s view of it. When a community shifts its perspective of a people and perceives them to be aberrant, the person may re-evaluate their ‘self’ based on the authorities of other person’s judgment. The dominating party or community has the power to define what comprises deviation.
According to the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998, anti-social behaviour is defined as behaving in a manner that brings discomfort to a person or a community who does not live at the exact location as the culprit. This concept can be construed broadly, with various people holding opposing opinions on what constitutes appropriate and disturbing behaviour, depending on factors such as age, geographic area, and personal experiences. As a result, the ASBO has been implemented for occurrences such as roadside drunkenness, hoax calls, bullying, and disorderly, raucous, or destructive behaviour. It is contended that it can be utilized for almost any behaviour, from excessive noise to harassment, raising worries that the sequence is too broad. An appeal for an ASBO primarily needs proof that meets a legal standard of evidence (above all reasonable suspicion) instead of a felony standard of evidence and can contain eyewitnesses. Some say that this diminishes the importance of due procedure, which underpins the British criminal court structure (Home Office Communication Directorate, 2003). Furthermore, most of the behaviours included in the execution of an ASBO are believed to be illegal, implying that the order offers a more straightforward method to penalizing the receiver rather than establishing individual offences. Furthermore, non-criminal activities are deemed unlawful when the ASBO is violated and the offender faces incarceration.
In the United Kingdom, the labelling hypothesis results in unjust targeting and stigmatization of specific populations. According to Manders (2009), the enormous scope of anti-social behaviour is increasingly prone to include disadvantaged communities such as the impoverished, teenagers, and people suffering from psychological medical issues. Campbell (2002) further claims that 84% of ASBOs are issued to individuals under the age of 21. As a result, they contend that the ASBO unjustly sends more susceptible persons into the criminal court system. Much of the discussion tends to gauge the efficacy of ASBOs by the number of violations linked with them, with detractors explicitly pointing out that the large proportion of violations shows that the order is failing to operate as a deterrence. According to Matthews et al. (2007), the bulk of ASBOs are imposed on younger individuals while they are at their height of misbehaving, and their misdemeanours would decrease with time otherwise. Furthermore, because they are prohibited from entering particular areas, ASBO members are frequently separated from their relatives and colleagues. This division can impair an adult’s capacity to create solid connections, a notion sometimes related to a desire to avoid criminality (Millie, 2009)
Issues have been raised about the disproportionate duration of certain ASBOs in the United Kingdom, which do not permit the person to grow and transform. Furthermore, labelling theory suggests that ASBOs might lead to a self-fulfilling prediction. Rather than improving behaviour, the ASBO may drive some people to a lifestyle of crime. According to numerous stories, the ASBO is a “badge of honor,” with younger individuals dwelling up to their label (Wain and Burney, 2007). The ASBO was a controversial measure that blurred the lines between civil and felony law. Several past evaluations have indicated that ASBOs are an unsuitable measure that marginalizes some sections of the community. They are also ineffectual when the directive is coupled with an overwhelming frequency of violations.
Various components of labelling theory have been explored. Labelling has been observed to assist criminality and aberrant behaviour by pushing individuals to conduct according to the labels linked to them. Based on the individual, unlawful behaviours may be unintentional or intentional at first, which is the primary deviation phase (Crossman, 2020). Nevertheless, more offences may be performed as a consequence of labelling, which is the tertiary phase of deviation. To decrease criminality, people must minimize the unfavourable implications that are attached to persons, particularly offenders.
References
Gary Manders. (2009). “The Use of Anti-Social Behaviour Powers with Vulnerable Groups: Some Recent Research.” Cambridge Core, 2009,
Roger Matthews, et al. (2007) “Assessing the Use and Impact of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders.” Policy Press
Millie, A. (2009) “Securing Respect: Behavioural Expectations and Anti-Social Behaviour in the UK.” SCCJR.
Wain, N. and Burney, E. (2007), The ASBO: Wrong Turning Dead-End, Howard League for Penal Reform, London.
Ashley Crossman. (2020) “How Labeling Theory Can Help Us Understand Bias and Criminal Behavior.” ThoughtCo.
Siobhan Campbell. (2002) “A review of anti-social behavior orders.”
Chris Greer, and Robert Reiner. (2018)”Labelling, Deviance, and Media.” Springer.
Karl Thompson. (2019) “The Labelling Theory of Crime.” ReviseSociology.
Ray Paternoster, and Ronet Bachman. (2017) “Labeling Theory.” Obo.
Home Office Communication Directorate. (2003) “A Guide to Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts.”
Leave a Reply