Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Labeling Theory + Review
Document related concepts
Transcript
Review Labeling Theory Social Support Theory Review Process Theories Differential Association/Social Learning Theories (Sutherland, Akers) Evidence Policy Implications Informal Social Control Theories Types of control Theories (Hirschi, Gottfreodson and Hirschi, Sampson and Laub) Evidence Policy Implications Connections/Organization Gottfredson and Hirschi Family Context Low Direct Control Low SelfControl • Large family size, single parents, parental deviance • Inadequate supervision, recognition, punishment • Insensitive, impulsive, risktaking… Sampson and Laub Extension of Hirschi’s social bond theory Age graded Adult social bonds ○ Quality Marriage ○ Quality Job Why matter! Sampson and Laub Childhood Context Individual Differences Adolescence Parenting • Supervision • Discipline Social Bonds • Family • School Delinquent Peers Adulthood Delinquency Length of Incarceration Adult Crime Social Bonds •Marriage •Good Job Control vs. Learning • A product of sociological criminology (Hirschi) – The distinction is based on assumptions about human nature: What is the nature of human beings in… • Social Learning Theory? • Social Control/Deterrence Theory? • Strain/Anomie Theory? • Distinctions are not really important in psychology – Operant conditioning, vicarious learning, cognitive psychology are all grounded in “principles of learning” Labeling Theory ▪ Developed by Frank Tannenbaum, Edwin Lemert, and Howard Becker Key concepts ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Emphasis is on interactions between individuals and institutions of formal control (e.g., police, courts, prisons). Contact with police and the courts may create negative self-image. Formal interventions may increase criminal behavior. Roots of the Labeling Perspective (1 of 3) ▪ View of crime and deviance as relative ▪ ▪ No act is inherently evil, bad, or criminal. Deviant categorization depends on many factors ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ When/where the act is committed Who the offender is Who the victim is What the consequences are Roots of the Labeling Perspective (2 of 3) ▪ Focus on how power and conflict shape society (social context) Moral entrepreneurs ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Powerful groups define and react to deviant behavior Benefits powerful, can hurt the less powerful Criminal justice system: agents enforce the law in the interest of powerful groups Roots of the Labeling Perspective (3 of 3) ▪ ▪ Importance of self-concept Symbolic interactionism ▪ ▪ ▪ People communicate through symbols. People interpret symbolic gestures and incorporate them into their self-image. “Looking-glass self” ▪ ▪ ▪ Developed by Charles Horton Cooley One’s own self-concepts are the product of other people’s conceptions or symbolic labels Self-fulfilling prophesy A Critique of Labeling Theory ▪ ▪ Little empirical support Inaccurate assumptions ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Primary deviance as relative, sporadic, and unimportant Nature of the person predicts official reaction more than the nature of the act Effect of official sanctions on future behavior Racial bias does exist…but not sole (or most important) cause of CJ response to crime Arrest sometimes decreases future crime Policy Implications: Labeling Theory ▪ Policy implications ▪ ▪ Schur: “Radical nonintervention” Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (1974) ▪ Diversion programs ▪ Divert offenders away from the formal juvenile justice processing to programs run by other entities (i.e., social service programs) Deinstitutionalization (esp. status offenders) Due Process revolution in Juvenile Court Labeling Theory in Context Labeling theory most popular in 1960s1970s The central ideas had been around as early as the 1930s Good “fit” for the social context of 1960s Ironic Twist ○ Government, trying to do good, actually makes people worse ○ Good fit with the “can’t trust the government” social movement era Labeling Theory Extensions I ▪ Lawrence Sherman’s “Defiance” Theory ▪ Police sanctions can ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Produce defiance (escalation in offending) Produce deterrence (decrease in offending) Be irrelevant Reintegrative shaming Labeling Extensions II ▪ Reintegrative Shaming – ▪ Developed by John Braithewaite Effect of formal punishment depends upon how a person is punished. ▪ ▪ Shaming and reintegrative punishment will decrease future crime. Stigmatizing punishment will increase future crime. Policy Implication of Reintegrative Shaming ▪ Restorative Justice Goal of the criminal justice system: to repair the harm created by the offense ▪ ▪ ○ Victim central to process Community volunteers also important Punishment of offender does little to repair harm (inflicting pain not really “accountability”). Policy Implications: Reintegrated Shaming (2 of 2) ▪ Empirical research ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Victim-offender mediation Restitution Sentencing circles Mixed findings Criticism ▪ ▪ Limited (depends on voluntary participation) Might reduce funding to more effective rehabilitation programs Social Support Theory Newcomer to the theory world (mid 1990s) Francis Cullen Deterrence/control view of human nature is too simplistic Social Support as “precondition” for effective parenting (control) Social Support independently important ○ Altruism Conclusion ▪ Deviant behavior is the result of individuals interacting with social institutions over time. ▪ ▪ Social control theory: inadequate socialization ▪ Labeling theory: socialized to accept delinquent identity (interaction with the criminal justice system) ▪ Not well supported by research ▪ Revisions (e.g., informal labeling, reintegrative shaming) Differential association/social learning theory: improper socialization more promising Review of Theories for Exam II Social Structure Anomie/Strain Social Disorganization Social Process Learning Control Labeling
