Download Understanding Criminological Theories: A Focus on Labeling and Conflict Perspectives and more Papers Criminology in PDF only on Docsity!
European Scientific Journal February 2015 edition vol.11, No.4 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR: EVALUATION OF
LABELING AND CONFLICT
PERSPECTIVES
Olusola O Karimu, PhD
Center for Juvenile & Family Studies Inc., New York, NY
Abstract This article takes a comprehensive look at the utilities of criminological theories by analyzing and evaluating the general arguments and assumptions of labeling and conflict theories, and noted that both perspectives are part of the radical and critical theoretical orientation s in criminology. The current paper was able to justify the testability, applicability and usefulness of both theories and notes that they are responsible for some wide ranging policies and evidence based programs geared towards addressing and controlling delinquent and criminal behavior in the society. It is also the argument of this paper that theories of criminal behavior are useful in the sense that most policies response to criminality emanate s from one form or combination of theoretical perspectives.
Keywords: Criminal Behavior: Evaluation of Labeling and Conflict Perspectives
Introduction Theory has been defined as a generalization of a sort which explain s how two or more events are related to each other and the conditions under which the relationship take s place (Williams & McShane, 2004, p.2). From the same perspective, Curran and Renzetti (2001, p.2) defined theory as a set of interconnected statements or propositions that explain how two or more events or factors are related to one another (Curran & Renzetti, 2001, p.2). Akers and Sellers (2009, p.1) noted that theories are not answers to questions of what ought to be, nor are they philosophical, religious, or metaphysical systems of beliefs and values about crime and society. Rather, they are statements about relationships between actual events; about what is and what will be. A well-developed theoretical infrastructure is the heart and soul of any academic endeavor (Kraska, 2004). This is because a well-articulated theory advance s the lenses through which students, academics, researchers,
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by European Scientific Journal (European Scientific Institute)
practitioners and policy makers make sense of their object of study (Kraska, 2006). Similarly, it has been noted that theoretical work seeks to change the way we think about an issue and ultimately change the practical ways we deal with it (Garland, 1990, p.277). Within the domains of criminology and criminal justice, many theoretical perspectives have been developed to explain justice, delinquency, crime and punishment (Onwudiwe, 2004). In both fields of research theories are generated to explain crime while methods are design ed to examine whether the ideas incorporated in those theories provide a sufficient explanation to warrant our continued attention (Kubrin, Stucky & Krohn, 2009, p.2). Cuzzort (1989) calls theory “a kind of controlled fantasy” in the sense that it encourages academics, researchers and students to continue to speculate, to explore alternative explanations to their object or objects of study (Kubrin, Stucky & Krohn, 2009). In criminology and criminal justice, the term theory refer s to theories explaining crime or criminal behavior. In both fields, theoretical scholarship is focused almost exclusively on the causes of crime (Kraska, 2004). Also, most textbooks emanating from both academic disciplines focus primarily on theory courses and theory of crime causation. Therefore, studying criminological theories can be equated to determining the most efficient and effective crime control practices. Criminological theories like most theories in the social sciences if developed properly are about real situation, real experiences and about human behavior (Kraska, 2006). Criminological theories help make sense about facts. In the same way, effective theory can be tested against the new facts. For example, with regards to the relationship between limited opportunities for work and a selection of a career in crime. Ethnic succession theory suggest s that when some ethnic groups came to the United States of America, a lot of them came upon the realization that to be successful, they need to engage in a career in crime. Theory has three general questions which are, why, by what process and how does it work? Answer to these questions may provide explanation of one set of events by referring to other events. Vold (1958) noted that in general, scientific theories make statement about the relationship between observable experiences or phenomenon. Vold (1958) further indicated that theory is what will be and what is. Additionally, virtually every policy or action taken is based on some underlying theory or theories of crime. There are many theories or school of thoughts in criminology due to the fact that criminologists do not always agree on why crime occurs (Cullen & Agnew, 2011). Although this is major criticism, it is also represents one of the major strengths of the discipline as it reflects the complexity of the nature of criminal behavior. Criminal behavior like other social behavior has many
this study. The limitation of this methodology is due to the fact that it did not utilize primary data. Therefore, a primary research proposal can be used in the future to further test both theories and enhance the theoretical debate on criminological theories.
Discussion Generally speaking, there are three types of criminological theories which Sutherland (1947) has defined as the entire process of three things which are law making, law breaking and law enforcing. The theories of making and enforcing laws mean theories of law in criminal justice. They answer questions of how and why certain people are define and dealt with as criminal in the society. The five questions that these types of theory answer include why is a particular conduct considered illegal; what determines the kind of action to be taken when it occurs; how is it decided to classify those acts as criminal; who makes the decision that such conduct is criminal; and how are public resources brought to bear against those actions or conducts? Theories try to answer these types of questions by proposing that social, political and economic variables affect the law and the operation of criminal justice system. There is a strong connection between the theories of crime and the philosophies that define the desirable goal. The goal is to have effective, well managed and just criminal justice system.
Theory Evaluation Akers and Sellers (2009) identified some factors that should be utilized to evaluate theories. These factors include the logical consistency, scope and parsimony; testability and empirical validity of such theory (p.5- 6). With regards to logical consistency, scope and parsimony, it is the argument of Akers and Sellers that a sound and reliable theory need s to have well defined concepts while its logical proposition should also be clearly stated. The scope has to do with the range of theory, whether it only accounts for a narrow range of crime or it covers a wide ranging criminal behavior. The parsimony relates to how it uses concepts to explain the causes of crime. Theory testability is another method of evaluating a theory. According to Akers and Sellers (2009) a useful theory need s to be tested against empirical evidence to ensure that it is scientific. In this sense, a good theory should be measurable because if they are not measurable they will become untestable. Similarly, it is equally the position of Akers and Sellers that a theory may not be testable because it’s tautological, its propositions are untestable by being open-ended and contradictory and due to unmeasurability of its concepts. Another criterion regularly used to test a
theory is through its empirical validity which explain s whether or not a theory has been supported by research evidence, while usefulness and policy implications which refer to the ability of a particular theory to inform adequate social and criminal justice policy represent an important criterion that can equally be utilized to test a theory.
Evaluation of Labeling Theory An important theory that can be used to explain criminal behavior is labeling theory. Labeling theory is a theory that laid emphasis on the social process through the special attention devoted to the interaction between individuals and society. This theory assumes that it is likely that every person can commit criminal acts. Akers & Sellers (2009) argued that labeling theory as an explanation of criminal and deviant behavior is derived from the symbolic interactionism theory in sociology. Symbolic interaction is a theory that asserts that facts are based on and directed by symbols. The foundation of this theory is meanings. Symbolic interaction according to Aksan, Kisac, Aydin and Demirbuken (2008, p.902) examines the meanings emerging from the reciprocal interaction of individuals in social environment with other individuals and focuses on the question of “which symbols and meanings emerge from the interaction between people?” According to the labeling theory, a person is more apt to commit acts that go against what is socially acceptable if that person is labeled in such a way (Bernard, Snipes & Gerould, 2009). Similarly, from a personal experience, it can be stated without a doubt that it is not only possible but also likely that a person can become what he or she is labeled. It can also be stated that this theory applies more to children and those with low self- esteem than anyone with a positive self-image hence it has been widely utilized to explain juvenile delinquency. The labeling theory of crime deals with the results of labels, or strain on people (stigmas) and how it affects the development of criminal behavior. Labeling theory holds that society by placing labels on delinquents, criminals, stigmatizes them, therefore leading to a negative label to develop into a negative self-image (Cullen & Agnew, 2011). A court of law, other empowered agencies, a youth's family and supervisors, and/or the youth's peers give a label to the youth, often in humiliating ceremonies such as a suspension or dismissal hearing with the principal or other school staff, a court trial, or a home punishment, among others. Additionally, youths who are labeled as criminals or delinquents may hold these as self-fulfilling prophecies - believing the labels that others assign to them, thereby acting as the labels. Therefore, a youth who succumbs to a label may then proceed to act as a criminal or act as a delinquent, abandoning social norm because he or she believes that he or she is a bad person and that this is what bad people
the theory is testable. Also, it is testable because it is possible to monitor juvenile’s offenders by those who are labeled and those who are not labeled (Akers & Sellers, 2009). Therefore, if it is discovered that those offenders who are labeled commit more crimes in the future than those who are not labeled, then it can be argued that the theory is testable. Furthermore, the theory can be said to be tautological because there is a possibility that juveniles who commit serious offenses would incur the most negative stigma whereas those who commit lesser offenses will not likely have the opportunity of benefit of doubt. With regards to the usefulness of labeling theory, it is useful to explain why some youths further the road of anti-social behavior while other did not. To make it simple, the answer according to this theory is that they are labeled as such. Additionally, with regards to empirical validity, there have been some studies conducted using the theory such as Ray and Downs (1986) and as a result, Akers and Sellers (2009) argued that some social learning variables have relationship with delinquency and deviant or criminal behavior. It is important to note that most of the criticisms of the theory are unwarranted because they are not really valid. The main criticism is that people learn crime not only because they have been labelled as such. Another criticism is that there are multiples sources of crime definition that a person can learn. It should be noted that the terms as used in theory are vague because they were not operationalize.
Policy Implications of Labeling Theory The major policy implication that can be derived from the labeling theory according to Akers and Sellers (2009) is the behavior modification programs including both groups and individually focused techniques operating in most detention centers. According to Akers & Sellers, pro-social groups such as Highfields and Essexfield program have been useful in changing delinquent behavior among delinquent youths. The labeling theory has also given birth to programs such as the Provo and Silverlake Experiment which offered a semi-residential alternative to regular juvenile probation and incarceration in a state training school for delinquent boys. Other policy implications that can be derived from the labeling theory as stated by Akers and Sellers (2009) include the introduction of school- based preventive programs such as the Gang Resistance Education and Training with the aim of reducing the school’s children involvement in gang related activities and improvement of their relationship with law enforcement agents(p.118). Others include participation in such programs as alcohol and drug education/ prevention programs and community and school based programs directed towards family, children and youth which take into cognizance the assumptions of labeling theory. This involves a procedure
that enables the society the release juvenile offenders who have been apprehended and processed from the system as soon as possible unless they commit new offenses (Akers & Sellers, 2009). According to Onwudiwe (2004), labeling perspective, for example, has led to major changes in the operation of the juvenile justice system in United States of America. Most notably are the policy directions in the areas of diversion, due process, decriminalization and deinstitutionalization. Similarly, it is important to note here that the decision of the former New York City Mayor-Michael Bloomberg to merge the New York City Juvenile Justice Department with the Child Welfare Agency- the Administration for Children’s Services, bringing about a more therapeutic approach toward delinquency that will place fewer of the city’s young offenders to jail is influenced by some of the propositions of the labeling theory. It is equally important to note that based on the new system in place in New York City, youths who commit crimes that are not considered dangerous will have opportunities of arrays of in-home programs that is presently being coordinated by the New York City Administration for Children Services. This will allow them to stay in their neighborhoods with their families while following a strict set of rules requiring them to stay out of trouble, keep curfews and meet educational goals instead of the state-run juvenile prisons.
Evaluation of Conflict Theory The next important theory to be examined is the conflict theory. Conflict theory is important in criminology because it has propositions about the operations of criminal justice system that are relevant to the political and moral debate over the justness of the system (Chamlin, 2009). The goal of a just system is to treat everyone equitably base on legally relevant factors such as the nature of the criminal act and the laws related to it. Conflict theory hypothesizes that actions taken in criminal justice may be decided deferentially based on factors as race and class rather that the nature of crime. In essence, this perspective lays emphasis on race and gender rather than types of crime. The conflict perspective conceptualizes crime control as a means to further the particularistic interests of social elites (Black 1976; Blalock 1967; Chamlin, 2009; Quinney1970, 1977; Turk 1969). The decision of the criminal justice system according to conflict theory also involves political and economic consideration that has nothing to do with criminal justice system. Conflict criminology is always based on the writings of Karl Marx – that the most important relationship in an industrial culture was the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Conflict criminology attempts to look at different perspectives of the world. Austin Turk (1995) examined criminology and the legal order, he
courts and those segment in the society having power. This leads to what is known as the social reality of crime which states that the acts that are most visible and most threatening to the most powerful in the society are those that are subjected to criminal processing.
Testability of Conflict Theory With regards to the logical consistency of conflict theory, the arguments that certain conditions in the society lead to certain people being criminalized and the social reality of crime makes sense. This is because it does not require further measuring as it is something that people can see daily around them due to the glaring inequalities that exist especially in capitalist societies like United States of America. Additionally, in the realm of the scope of conflict theory, despite the fact that the theory can be applied to many crimes such as the organized and white-collar crimes, Akers and Sellers (2009) posited that the scope is much less than that because of one of their findings that it only applied to crimes that are politically or ideologically motivated. Despite the argument of Akers and Sellers (2009) that due to the fact that the validity and scope of conflict theory have not been adequately tested, its applicability and usefulness cannot be overlooked as it best explain the social life accurately than other theories while also justifying social change. Additionally, talking about illicit drugs, Reiman and Leighton (2010) noted that there is evidence to indicate that in the United States of America, the arrests of the blacks and the poor have skyrocketed in recent years out of proportion to drug arrests of the whites despite the fact that research has not shown that blacks or the poor use more drugs than the whites. The reason for this according to Reiman and Leighton (2010) is because drug arrests are often made in disorganized inner-city where blacks and the poor are most likely to reside. It is important to note here that although, the Federal Government in United States of America instituted sentencing guidelines to eliminate discretion in sentencing which many perceive as the problem to address the noted discrepancies. However, in true sense this has only transferred discretion from the judges to the prosecutors (Reiman & Leighton, 2010), thus paving the way for the continuation of the noted disparity against the poor. Another crime that supports conflict criminological theory is white collar crime which includes corporate fraud. According to Barkan (2009) regulations forbidden corporate misconducts are either weak or non- existence because corporations are very powerful and influential in the society. As a result of the influence they wield in the society they are able to prevent or water down regulatory legislation. Connected to this is the fact
that most people that are involved in corporate and white-collar crimes are always the big names in the society. Similarly, corporate violations that are punished involved fines, not imprisonment, like most street crimes (Reiman & Leighton, 2010). Although these fines may seem heavy to the ordinary people, they always have more than enough resources to pay for the fines and avoid imprisonment. From the disparity in treatment of white-collar crime, Reiman and Leighton (2010) argued further by stating that the criminal justice system reserves the harshest penalties for the lower-class clients and gives out lesser punishment when it involves the upper class or the rich. Studies such as Chamlin (2009) research on conflict, consensus, and social control; Roberts (2007) study on predators of homicide clearance by arrest; and Pickerill, Mosher and Pratt (2009) study on search and seizure have one way or the other confirmed the testability of conflict theory. Further examination of the assumptions of conflict criminology indicate clearly that there exists the tendency to agree with the position of Reiman and Leighton (2010) that the criminal justice system works to make crime appears to be the monopoly of poor and the minorities, rarely applying to the dangerous acts of the rich by more actively prosecuting and punishing the poor rather than the wealthy for the acts that are labeled crime. Additionally, in accordance with conflict criminology theory, Barnes and Kingsnorth (as cited Curry & Corral-Camacho, 2008) argue that social policy concerning drugs may not be just about controlling particular drugs but may also represent a response by society to attempt to control certain groups who are seen as threatening or problematic.
Policy Implications of Conflict Theory Conflict theory has been criticized on numbers of grounds. The biggest criticizing comes from Quinney (1974) himself who stated that the theory is overly pluralistic. It should be noted that conflict theory wants the transformation of the system and not the overthrown. The proponents of the theory also want something to reduce crime. From this Turk (1995) talks about five principles to transform society and to reduce crime. This is often known as the five principles of structural transformation. The first is that policymaking is a political process and it aims are to minimizing human causalities; to reduce crime and criminalization, there is need to change structure relationship; the policies have to be in the broad approach strategy of change and not just piece meal strategy; peace control evaluation; and the programs need to be mere viable rather than to be mere docile. Based on the stated five principles, Turk (1995) comes up with eleven policy measures that can be derived from conflict theory. These measures include the need to establish research centers, to establish gun
Bernard, T. J., Snipes, J. B., & Gerould, A. L. (2009). Vold’s theoretical criminology (6th ed.). NY: Oxford University Press. Chamlin, M. B. (2009). Threat to Whom? Conflict, Consensus, and Social Control. Deviant Behavior , 30 (6), 539-559. doi: 10.1080/ Cooley, C.H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner. Cullen, F.T., & Agnew, R. (2011). Criminological theory: Past to present (4th^ ed.).New York: Oxford University Press. Curran, D.J., & Renzetti, C. M. (2001). Theories of crime (2 nd^ ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Curry, T., & Corral-Camacho, G. (2008). Sentencing young minority males for drug offenses: Testing for conditional effects between race/ethnicity, gender and age during the U.S. war on drugs. Punishment and Crime , 10(3 ), 253-276. Retrieved from http://pun.sagepub.com.library.capella.edu Cuzzort, R.P. (1989). Using social thought. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company. Garland, D. (1990). Punishment and modern society: A study in social theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Kraska, P. B. (2004). Theorizing criminal justice: Eight essential orientations. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. Kubrin, C. E., Stucky, T.D., Krohn, M.D. (2009). Researching theories of crime and deviance. New York: Oxford University Press. Onwudiwe, I.D. (2004). Theoretical perspectives on juvenile delinquency: Root causes and control. Corrections Today , 153-156. Pickerill, J. M., Mosher, C., & Pratt, T. (2009). Search and seizure, racial profiling, and traffic stops: A disparate impact framework. Law & Policy , 31(1 ), 1-30. Retrieved from http://www.sagepublication.com Quinney, R. (1970). The social reality of crime. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Quinney, R. (1974). Criminal justice in America: A critical understanding. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Quinney, R. (1979). The production of criminology. Criminology, 16, 445-
Ray, M.C., & Downs, W.R. (1986). An empirical test of labeling theory using longitudinal data. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 23, 169-194. Reiman, J., & Leighton, P. (2010). The rich get richer and the poor get prison (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Pearson. Roberts, A. (2007). Predictors of homicide clearance by arrest: An event history analysis of NIBRS incidents. Homicide Studies 11 , 82-93. Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of criminology (4th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Sutherland, E. H., & Cressey, D. R (1960). Principles of criminology (6th ed.).Chicago: Lippincott. Turk, A. T. (1995). Criminality and the legal order. Chicago: Rand McNally. Turk, A. T. (1995). Transformation versus revolution and reformism: Policy implications of conflict theory. In H. Barlow (ed.), Crime and public policy: Putting theory to work. Boulder, CO: Westview. Vold, G.B. (1958). Theoretical criminology. New York: Oxford University Press.
