The labelling theory of crime

The argument

The labelling theory of crime describes criminal behavior as the reactions and meanings that people give to actions that deviate from the norm. On this account crime is not a property of an act but a status conferred on it by others, which places the explanation of crime in society rather than in the individual who acts. The clearest evidence is that the labels on criminal behavior shift depending on the culture. For instance, taking someone's life may seem like an act that almost everyone can agree is criminal behavior — the strongest possible candidate for an act that is wrong in itself. Yet if that person is a soldier in war, the label changes entirely, and the same act is honoured rather than prosecuted. Similarly, if someone not from an official military kills someone, they may be labelled either a "freedom fighter" or a "terrorist" depending on the beliefs of those reacting. The act is identical in each case; only the reaction differs, which shows that the criminality is supplied by the audience rather than contained in the deed. The labelling theory also explains how crime is perpetuated once the label has been applied. An ex-convict may have difficulty finding a job after serving time in prison, because they would be labeled a convict by the public. That label follows them into every situation where their future might be decided, and it closes off the lawful routes by which someone might leave crime behind. This labelling may therefore compel a person to continue a life of crime because they believe they have no other option as an ex-convict — the society that named them a criminal makes the description true. Crime, on this theory, is caused by society at both ends: in defining which acts count, and in ensuring that those it has labelled keep offending.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Many critics of the Labelling Theory argue that there are many other factors in crime that this theory ignores. One of the most important of these factors is the likelihood that Ex-convicts would have many other reasons to commit crimes other than being labelled as a criminal. One of these reasons could be that ex-convicts have more opportunities to commit crimes since many of them have contacts with other criminals either from prison or before their sentence.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Variation in what gets labelled criminal is real but bounded. A core of acts — killing, theft, assault — is prohibited across essentially every society, and the soldier and freedom-fighter examples concern contested justifications for acts already understood as grave, not disagreement about whether they are grave. [Rejecting P2] The reintegration difficulty is well documented; the causal reading is not established. Former prisoners also face lost employment history, disrupted relationships and networks formed inside, each of which predicts reoffending independently of any label. [Rejecting C] The conclusion overreaches twice. It moves from society defining crime to society causing it, which are different claims; and it accounts for offending after a label has been applied while saying nothing about the first offence, which is what most theories of crime set out to explain.