Upload
belinda-pearson
View
216
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Labeling Theory
Review of “Classic” Labeling Reintegrative Shaming
Defiance Theory
The Classic Labeling Process
Primary Deviance
•Most engage in this
•Typically sporadic, not serious
Formal Sanctions
•Degradation ceremony
•Stigmatizing
Change in Self-Concept
•looking glass self
•hard to resist formal label
Secondary Deviance
•Caused by new self-image as criminal or deviant
Criticisms of Labeling
1. Typically history of antisocial behavior prior to formal labeling Society doesn’t “identify, tag, and sanction
individuals as deviant in a vacuum.”
2. Controlling initial levels of deviance, formal sanctions have little (no?) effect.
3. No “negotiation,” obsession with “formal” sanctions...
John Braithwaite
Austrailian CriminologistCrime, Shame, and Reintegration
Pretty complex theory (Not parsimonious) BUT, Central concepts are not that complex
Reintegrative Shaming vs. Stigmatization Interdependency Communitarianism
What is “shaming?”
Behaviors (from others) that induce guilt, shame snide comment, verbal confrontations stocks/pillory, the “scarlet letter” Naval tradition of “captains mask”
In Western society, shaming has become uncoupled from formal punishment Offenders privately sent away to warehouses
by corrections or court “officials”
Braithwaite II
Interdependency “attachment” with social others (indirect control at
micro level)
Communitarianism similar to “collective efficacy” (control at macro)
In communities that lack collective efficacy, and among people who are less bonded, stigmatizing punishment is likely.
Types of “Shaming”
Reintegrative Love the sinner, hate the sin Spank the child, but tell them that you still love them
Stigmatizing no effort made to reconcile the offender with the
community offender as outcast, “criminal” as master status degradation ceremonies not followed by ceremonies to
“decertify” deviance
Examples of Shaming
Stigmatizing United States Court, prison, etc. (remove and shun from
community)
Reintegrative Japan Ceremonies to shame and welcome back
The Model
Interdependency
(MICRO)
Communitarianism
(MACRO)
Type of Punishment
•Reintegrative Shaming
•Stigmatizing
Legitimate Opportunities
Criminal Subculture
High Crime
Evidence for Reintegrative Shaming?
Japan vs. U.S. crime rates Since WWII, Japan U.S.(others)
Why? High Interdependency and Communitarianism Reintegrative Shaming emphasized Community has duty to shame and welcome
back transgressors
Implications of Braithwaite?
Restorative Justice Emphasis on “repairing harm”
Punishment alone is not effective in changing behavior and is disruptive to community harmony and good relationships
Restitution as a means of restoring both parties; goal of reconciliation and restoration
Community involvement Crime control the domain of the community Community as facilitator in restorative process Crime has social dimensions of responsibility Victims are central to the process of resolving a crime
Lawrence Sherman “Defiance Theory”
Defiance “the net increase in the prevalence, incidence,
or seriousness of the future offending against a sanctioning community caused by a proud, shameless reaction to the administration of a criminal sanction.”
What causes defiance?
Sanctions are defined as “unfair” Sanctioning agent behaves with disrespect for the
offender or his/her group The sanction is actually unfair (discriminatory,
excessive, undeserved)
Offender is poorly bonded to sanctioning agent or community
Offenders defines sanctioning as stigmatizing (reject the person)
Offenders denies or refuses to