Introduction

Crime is one of the deviance behaviors prevalent in the society. There are numerous theories that have been proposed to explain why people engage in crime. Two such theories are the cultural deviance labeling theories. Labeling theory posits that people who engage in crimes do so in fulfillment or in reaction to criminal labels assigned to them by the society. The cultural deviance theory describes how individuals acquire negative values that influence them to engage in crime from culture or subculture. According to the theory, the negative values that influence people to engage in crimes are embedded in specific subcultures, which are within of the main societal culture. The cultures propagate deviant values and norms that are adopted by the members of those subcultures. This paper analyzes how the aforementioned two theories fit in explaining why people engage in crime.

Labeling Theory Analysis

Labeling theory posits that deviants or criminals are individuals who are labeled as such by others in the society and eventually end up acting or behaving in a criminal or deviant manner (Vito, Maahs & Holmes, 2006). Established by Becker and Tannenbaum, the theory suggests that there are “social entrepreneurs” in the society, who establish rules that are used by others to judge what is right or wrong. They use their views to make the rules, and use them to define certain behaviors or actions as deviant. Usually, they give negative labels to people who are socially inferior, who are implicated in crimes or who are associated with deviant groups. As a result of the labeling, the victim gradually conforms to the norms of the deviant group that he or she is associated with. For instance, a person who is labeled a felon is likely to react to the stereotype through interacting with felons and acting like them. As such, labeling is one of the factors that lead to perpetration of crime among ex-offenders (Vito et al., 2006). The labeling theory suggests that the criminal justice systems engage in stereotyping of individuals through labeling them as criminals.

To avoid stereotyping of individuals, the criminal justice system should adopt a theoretical approach and a strategy that prevents labeling. For instance, the systems can adopt rational theory, which posits that people engage in criminal activities out of their free will and not because of influence from other people. Adopting the theory implies that behaviors of people implicated in crimes will not be associated with the behaviors of certain groups of people; rather, they will be viewed to have been driven by their own decisions to engage in the crimes. In doing so, labeling can be avoided. Further, the strategy taken by the criminal justice systems should focus on supporting moral growth of the individuals implicated in crimes and avoiding approaches that lead to replacement of moral values with negative values. Precisely, the strategies taken should focus on altering the negative labeling of such ex-offenders. Examples of strategies that can be used by criminal justice systems are reparation, restitution, victim-offender forgiveness, use of empowerment schemes, conciliation and mediation and use of restorative justice strategies (Vito et al., 2006).

The labeling theory can be viewed as legitimate or justified in its explanation of causes of crime. Usually, people tend to associate people who have been implicated in crimes with those crimes, especially if they are found guilty. Even after recovery, most people in the society retain the negative perception of that person. For instance, a person who is convicted for stealing is usually associated with the vice for a long time after the conviction. The problem with such labeling is that it leads to stigmatization of people who are associated with a certain criminal behaviors. For instance, employers are likely to avoid employing a person who was once convicted for theft (Bohm & Vogel, 2010). Consequently, the victim develops a negative self-image. As well, the labeling leads to loss of self-esteem, especially when an individual is stigmatized. When a person loses sense of self-esteem, an intrinsic need to re-establish it usually emerges. In the process of doing so, a person who was once an offender is highly likely to start interacting with people associated with similar offenses since he or she feels comfortable in their midst (Bohm & Vogel, 2010).

Cultural Deviance Theory

Causes of crime can be explained using three main versions of the cultural deviance theory. The first version posits that crime in urban areas is caused by lower-class culture. The second version suggests that crime occurs as a result of different subcultures that are produced by the lower-class living in the urban areas. The third version indicates that crime in urban areas occur as a result of subcultures of crime that are formed by different people who join to work together in achieving personal goals, such as personal satisfaction and personal gain (Bohm & Vogel, 2010). The third version, which is based on the theory of differential opportunity developed by Cloward and Ohlin, is the best in explaining the sources of crimes in urban areas. This is due to the fact that the version is more comprehensive than the other two versions, and it covers them in explaining the source of crime. A comprehensive approach in understanding crime causation is essential since there are varied factors that influence different individuals to engage in criminal activities. Also, version gives a more realistic view of the causes of crime than the other two versions (Bohm & Vogel, 2010).

According to Cloward and Ohlin, all people in the society focus on attaining same or similar goals. However, people in upper social strata are in a better position to achieve them than people who are in lower social strata. In other words, people in lower socioeconomic class are usually not in a good position to achieve them. Ultimately, they lose hope for achieving the goals via legitimate means. As a result, they join like-mined individuals to form groups that provide them with support to work out ways of bridging the gap existing between them and the successful peers (Bohm & Vogel, 2010). For instance, young people from poor socioeconomic backgrounds who fail in education may feel that by joining gangs that engage in robbery or deal with drugs, they will earn just like their peers who succeed to higher educational levels. In short, young people from poor socioeconomic backgrounds may react to the existing attainment gap between them and their peers through joining retreatist gangs, conflict gangs or criminal gangs. Eventually, they learn how to engage in criminal activities from the gangs they join (Bohm & Vogel, 2010).

Case of Youths Joining Gangs

Between the two key theories examined in this paper, the cultural deviance theory is best suited to explain a case in which the youths joining gangs in a certain city and gang leaders convicted and released after developing good conduct have increased, leading to an increase in rate of violence and crime by 20%. Labeling theory focuses on secondary crime and thus, it may not be suitable to explain why youths are engaging in primary crime. The cultural deviance theory gives an elaborate explanation about how and why youths in the urban areas join criminal gangs. As explained in the theory, the rapid rise in the number of young people joining criminal gangs implies that most young people in the city lack means or do not have ample opportunities for accessing certain social or economic goals that are accessed by their peers. As a result, they seek emotional support from criminal gangs, which also invite them to use illegal means of accessing the opportunities that they are not able to access when using legitimate means. For instance, the youths may be lacking access to educational or job opportunities accessed by their peers. When the leaders of such gangs serve in prison, they reform and are released after improving their conduct. Their conduct improves since they learn the importance of using the right means to achieve opportunities while in prison. However, they can easily return to the gangs if they find it difficult to use the legitimate approaches.

Conclusion

Overall, cultural deviance and labeling theories provide justifiable explanations of causes of crime. As suggested by the labeling theory, criminal justice systems should adopt a theory and a strategy that focuses on restoring the image of an offender and preventing stereotyping. The approach can be helpful in reducing incidences in which people engage in secondary crime. On the other hand, the key implication of the cultural deviance theory is that enhancing equality to social and economic opportunities by people from different socioeconomic strata can help to reduce incidences of crime.

References

Bohm, R. M. & Vogel, B. (2010). A Primer on Crime and Delinquency Theory. New York:

Cengage Learning

Vito, G. F., Maahs, J. R. & Holmes, R. M. (2006). Criminology: Theory, Research And Policy.

2nd ed. Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett

CLICK BUTTON TO ORDER NOW