The Trayvon Martin murder trial illustrated the social construction of reality. The victim of the crime was defined, the aggressor's motivations were assumed, and the context of the interaction was used to create a legal interpretation of what occurred. Only race was left out of the process.
What do you think? Using the idea of the social construction of reality and interactionist sociology, what do you see in this case?
Chapter Seven Chapter Seven The Irony of State Intervention Labeling Theory Introduction Rather than diminishing criminal involvement, state intervention—labeling and reacting to offenders as “criminals” and “exfelons”— can have the unanticipated and ironic consequence of deepening the very behavior it was meant to halt. Introduction Cont. Labeling theorists argue that the criminal justice system not only is limited in its capacity to restrain unlawful conduct but also is a major factor in anchoring people in criminal careers. Pulling people into the system makes matters worse, The Social Construction of Crime Labeling theorists urged criminologists to surrender the idea that behaviors are somehow inherently criminal or deviant What makes an act criminal is not the harm it incurs but rather whether this label is conferred on the act by the state It is the nature of society that determines whether a crime has occurred Social Construction Cont. Labeling theorists argued that criminologists could ill afford to neglect the nature and effects of societal reaction, particularly when the state was the labeling agent Origins of criminal labels Marijuana Delinquency Child abuse “Wife-beating” Social Construction Cont. What the state designated as criminal was not a constant but rather the result of concrete efforts by men and women to construct a different reality Behaviors were criminalized only when the social context was ripe for change and groups existed that were sufficiently motivated and powerful to bring about legal reform. Social Construction Cont. A lawbreaker’s behavior is only one factor in determining whether a criminal label is conferred Black Panther bumper stickers study Juveniles’ demeanor “Saints” and “Roughnecks” Social Construction Cont. The nature of state criminal intervention was not simply a matter of an objective response to illegal behavior but rather was shaped intimately by a range of extralegal contingencies Criminal justice decision making was influenced by individual characteristics such as race, class, and gender Social Construction Cont. Official measures of the extent of crime, such as arrest statistics reported each year by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, depend not only on how many offenses are committed but also on the arrest practices of police Labeling and reacting to people as criminals composed the major source of chronic involvement in illegal activity. Labeling as Criminogenic: Creating Career Criminals Labeling theorists argued that causal analysis should commence not with offenders and their environs but rather with the societal reaction that other people— including state officials—have toward offenders Early Statements of Labeling Theory The idea that criminal justice intervention can deepen criminality did not originate with the labeling theorists of the 1960s Bentham Lombroso Bonger Frank Tannenbaum was perhaps the earliest scholar to state in general terms the principle that state intervention is criminogenic because it “dramatizes evil” Early Statements Cont. In 1951, Edwin Lemert further formalized these insights when he distinguished between two types of deviance: primary and secondary During primary deviance the offender often tries to rationalize the behavior as a temporary aberration or sees it as part of a socially acceptable role Early Statements Cont. Secondary deviance is precipitated by the responses of others to the initial proscribed conduct. As societal reaction intensifies progressively with each act of primary deviance, the offender becomes stigmatized through “name calling, labeling, or stereotyping” Early Statements Cont. Most often, the offender solves this problem by accepting his or her “deviant status” and by organizing his or her “life and identity . . . around the facts of deviance” Labeling as a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Howard Becker, Kai Erikson, and John Kitsuse were perhaps the most argued convincingly that societal reaction is integral to the creation of crime and deviance These labeling theorists borrowed Merton’s concept of “self-fulfilling prophecy” Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Cont. Labeling scholars argued that most offenders are defined falsely as criminal The falseness in definition is tied to the fact that criminal labels, once conferred, do not simply provide a social judgment of the offenders’ behavior; they also publicly degrade the offenders’ moral character Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Cont. Theorists observed that the meaning of the label “criminal” in our society leads citizens to make assumptions about offenders that are wrong or only partially accurate These assumptions are consequential because they shape how people react to offenders Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Cont. These reactions have the power to set in motion processes that evoke the very behavior that was anticipated The conferring of a criminal label singles out a person for special treatment Being a “criminal” becomes the person’s master status Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Cont. The constant accentuation of their criminal status and the accompanying social rebuke has the unanticipated consequence of undermining the conforming influences in their lives and of pushing them into criminal careers Offenders are likely to forfeit their self-concepts as conformists or “normal” persons and to increasingly internalize their public definition as deviants Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Cont. People who are stigmatized as criminal often are cut off from previous pro-social relationships One solution to being a social pariah is to bind together with those of a like status. Accordingly, conditions are conducive for offenders wearing a criminal label to differentially associate with other lawbreakers Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Cont. Saddling offenders with an official criminal label, particularly when they have spent time in jail and carry the status of ex-convict, limits their employment opportunities Summary of Labeling Theory Labeling theorists asserted that the false definition of offenders as permanently criminal and destined for lives of crime fulfills this very prophecy by evoking societal reactions that make conformity difficult and criminality necessary, if not attractive The labeling process stabilizes participation in illegal roles and turns those marginally involved in crime into chronic offenders Summary Cont. “Get tough” policies ultimately will prove self-defeating, for they will succeed only in subjecting increasing numbers of offenders to a self-fulfilling process that makes probable lives of crime Assessing Labeling Theory Labeling theory’s central propositions have not escaped considerable critical analysis Radical and Conflict Criminology Criticism Labeling theorists did not go far enough in their analysis Radical scholars argued that the origins and application of criminal labels were influenced fundamentally by inequities rooted in the very structure of capitalism Assessment Cont. Positivists’ Criticism Labeling theory’s major tenets wilted when subjected to empirical test The perspective’s popularity had less to do with its empirical adequacy and more to do with its voicing a provocative message that meshed with the social times Assessment Cont. Robert Sampson uncovered an “ecological bias” in police control of juveniles Police were found to be more likely to make arrests in poor neighborhoods than in more affluent neighborhoods Racial Profiling The controversy over labeling has resurfaced in the recent debate over “racial profiling” Minority drivers appear to be stopped, cited, searched, arrested, and have force used against them more often Consistent with labeling theory, whether individuals are subjected to social control and potentially have a criminal label attached to them is determined by more than simple legal factors More Labeling Theory Assessment Many offenders become deeply involved in crime before coming to the attention of criminal justice officials We know that offenders become extensively involved in illegalities such as corporate crime, political corruption, wife battering, and sexual abuse without ever being subjected to criminal sanctioning Tests of Labeling Theory Overall, tests of labeling theory have produced mixed results Criminal justice labeling has no effect Imprisonment might be criminogenic Harsh prison conditions and recidivism are positively related Summary of the Assessment Critics have provided a necessary corrective to bold claims that extralegal variables dominate the discretionary decision making of criminal justice officials and that societal reaction is the major source of career criminality It would be misguided to make the opposite error of assuming that labeling theory “points to processes that exist but their overall impact is small” and that it “appears off the mark on almost every aspect of delinquency it is asked to predict or explain” Labeling Theory in Context During the 1960s, optimism ran high As the 1960s unfolded, this optimism declined Most disquieting was the government’s response to political protest The state faced a “legitimacy crisis”; citizens no longer trusted the motives or competence of government officials This atmosphere created a ripe environment for harvesting a theory that blamed the state for the crime problem Policy Implications Labeling theory has a profound impact on social policy The prescription for policy change was eminently logical and straightforward: If state intervention causes crime, then steps should be taken to limit it Four policies: Decriminalization, diversion, due process, and deinstitutionalization Decriminalization The criminalization of victimless deviance, such as drug use, creates crime in various ways The mere existence of the laws turns those who participate in the behavior into candidates for arrest and criminal justice processing It often drives them to commit related offenses Decriminalization Cont. Criminalization creates a lucrative illicit market The existence of such illicit exchanges fosters strong incentives for the corruption of law enforcement officials Decriminalization Cont. Labeling theorists argued for the prudent use of decriminalization— the removal of many forms of conduct from the scope of the criminal law The goal was to limit the law’s reach Diversion Some examples of diversion: Youth service bureaus, welfare agencies, and special schools Privately run mental health agencies, community substance abuse programs, government sponsored job training classes Home incarceration Diversion Cont. Originally conceived as an alternative to involvement in the criminal justice system or to incarceration, diversion programs most often have functioned as add-ons to the system Diversion has “widened the net” of state control by creating a “system with an even greater reach” Due Process Labeling theorists also were quick to join the mounting due process movement, which sought to extend to offenders legal protections Individual justice must give way to a return to the rule of law Punishments should be prescribed by law, and sentences should be determinate Due Process Cont. Labeling theorists hoped that these policies would result in shorter and more equitable sentences and thus would reduce the extent and worst effects of state intervention On the one hand, due process has provided offenders with needed protections against state abuse of discretion On the other hand, it remains unclear whether the corresponding attack on rehabilitation has succeeded in creating a system that is less committed to interventionist policies and more committed to humanistic ideals Deinstitutionalization Labeling theorists took special pains to detail the criminogenic effects of incarceration and to vigorously advocate the policy of lessening prison populations through deinstitutionalization Policies have reflected this change in thinking, as we have abandoned the idea of deinstitutionalization and chosen instead to incarcerate offenders in unprecedented numbers Extending Labeling Theory The key issue is not simply whether a sanction is applied but also the quality of the sanction—what actually happens to an offender during the criminal justice process Two important attempts have been made to develop a theory of how the quality of sanctioning affects re-offending: Braithwaite’s theory of shame and reintegration Sherman’s defiance theory Braithwaite’s Theory of Shaming and Crime John Braithwaite took up the issue of the conditions under which societal reaction increases crime or decreases crime Legal violations evoke formal attempts by the state and informal efforts by intimates and community members to control the misconduct Shaming and Crime Cont. Central to social control is what Braithwaite called shaming: All process of expressing disapproval which have the intention or effect of invoking remorse in the person being shamed and/or condemnation by others who become aware of the shaming Varieties of Shaming Disintegrative Shaming: Stigmatizes and excludes, thereby creating a class of outcasts Reintegrative Shaming: An