This then lends a jaundiced eye to the attitudes of authority when dealing with the offender and certainly may influence the scales regarding the depth of the punishment involved. The cycle begins, the youth sees it as a "me against them" campaign and begins to expect the same treatment and usually is not disappointed (Tittle & Grasmick, 1997)
One study purports three neuropsycholoigcal factors that can contribute to the increased stigmatization of labeling in juveniles. This is called this PEN-model (Van Dam, De Bruyn & Janssens, 2007) and it shows the following three factors that are linked to criminality in juveniles: 1
" Of the delinquent youths Seifert works with in her clinic, 62% have parents who are either antisocial, mentally ill or substance abusers. (Wenner, 2007, p
Labeling theorists and advocates have also failed to pay attention to symbolic nature of labeling. Propositions of labeling theory have no intrinsically criminal acts (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990)
The criminal is avoided and treated with suspicion. He is barred from certain types of employments (Macionis & Gerber, 2011)
Labeling theorists have focused on simple application of the label as opposed to individual interpretation of response of others. They have not focused their attention on changes that occur on the self, how they are affected by an individual's characteristics, and how the strength of the label might be part of understanding its impact (Paternoster, 1987)
The society's alcoholics and the mentally hill are also perceived to be showcasing deviant behaviors. Labeling leads to creation of stigma and modification of self-image (Wright, Gronfein, & Owens, 2000)
This component of labeling theory has earned it the secondary title of "dramatization of evil" (Townsend). The argument is that the person who has been labeled by their criminality will find their opportunities limited once their punishment is over and that this additional social restriction will then lead them to recidivism (Lilly 157)
This particular aspect of the labeling theory is debatable because it seems to counter the initial position of the theory which states that socially imposed labels actually perpetuate criminality and increase the amount of crimes that are committed. Rather, there is plenty of evidence that by including a component of psychiatry into rehabilitation, which includes reexamination of the self and a new social identification will lead to scenarios wherein convicts are less likely to recommit crimes (Siegel 254)
People who commit crimes are labeled by their action as "thief" or "murderer" or whatever their crime may have been. This component of labeling theory has earned it the secondary title of "dramatization of evil" (Townsend)
Criminologists who support the labeling theory of their field believe that by providing those who break the law with labels which are unflattering is a way in which to control society and prevent others from perpetrating crimes. Even more than fear of incarceration and punishment, this theory claims that the reason people choose not to commit crimes is because they do not wish their identities to be defined by broken laws they have left in their wake (Wellford 332)
Criminologists who support the labeling theory of their field believe that by providing those who break the law with labels which are unflattering is a way in which to control society and prevent others from perpetrating crimes. Even more than fear of incarceration and punishment, this theory claims that the reason people choose not to commit crimes is because they do not wish their identities to be defined by broken laws they have left in their wake (Wellford 332)
This labeling creates a chain reaction -- when the 'deviant' is convicted of a crime, they are put in contact mainly with other 'deviant' individuals, and their identity as a criminal estranged from society is reinforced rather than circumvented. An early advocate of labeling theory, Lemert (1967), suggested that if someone labeled 'deviant' embraces the label, rather than sees him or herself with an investment in socially acceptable roles; he or she will identify with the criminal subculture (Paternoster & Iovanni 1989: 359)
"People become stabilized in criminal roles when they are labeled as criminal, are stigmatized, develop criminal identities, are sent to prison, and are excluded from conventional roles. Reintegrative responses are less likely to create defiance and a commitment to crime" (Patchin, 2011)
Groups lacking the formal power to make the rules still maintain their own group norms, and continue in their behavior which is now viewed as criminal by the larger society. This perspective explains both law and criminal justice (why some acts are legally defined as criminal), as well as criminal and deviant behavior (why some individuals commit acts defined as criminal)" (Sees, 2004)