THEME 5
THE VICTIMISED ACTOR MODEL
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
The rational actor model of crime and criminal behaviour regards human beings as possessing
free will. This means that human beings can make rational decisions and to engage in activities of
their choice; according to this theory, criminal behaviour is simply a rationally chosen activity.
The predestined actor model, on the other hand, claims that crime emanates from factors (be they
biological, psychological or social) that are outside the offender’s control and which determine his
or her behaviour. Thus the major concern of this theory is to identify and analyse what is
considered to be the causes that drive individuals to commit criminal acts.
The third model of crime and criminal behaviour claims that the criminal is in some way the victim
of an unjust and unequal society: it is the behaviour and activities of the poor and disadvantaged
that are targeted and criminalised, while the actions of the rich and powerful are simply ignored or
not even defined as criminal
The victimised actor model’s two theoretical foundations are labelling and conflict. Although
labelling and conflict differ, these two perspectives share an important characteristic that
distinguishes them from other explanatory theories.
Biological, psychological and environmental theories portray the offender as a person who is
unable, for some reason or other, to conform to the rules of society. Labelling and conflict theories
draw attention to the role of social institutions in delinquency and crime. Both these perspectives
are based on the premise that those members of society with political power control the behaviour
of others.
The way in which the powerful elite views and responds to certain behaviour determines whether a
particular action will be regarded as legal (acceptable) or criminal (against the law).
These two perspectives came to the fore during the 1960s and 1970s in America, when traditional
social institutions were being called into question and criticised. The Vietnam War and the
corruption of the Nixon administration caused some academics to become suspicious of the
effectiveness and possible discriminating practices of the criminal justice system. Even the
education system was criticised for not giving all members of society equal educational
opportunities.
The role of powerful social institutions such as the government, education, corporations and the
criminal justice system came under the spotlight, because some social scientists believed that
these institutions encouraged delinquency and crime. Those in positions of power protected their
own interests by controlling the behaviour of the lower class or the disadvantaged. As a result of
this critical investigation, two essential issues came to the fore:
The law and the criminal justice system were not applied equitably in the American society.
Those who had been involved in the criminal justice system were labelled as deviants, and
this put them on the road to a career in crime.
In South Africa the criminal justice system has also been subject to considerable criticism.
Although labelling originated in America, this perspective can also be applied to the criminal justice
system in South Africa.
1
,KEY CONCEPTS
BOURGEOISIE
are the wealthy owners of the means of production.
These people are powerful not because of their superior skill, but because they own and
control the means of production.
Marx believed that the bourgeoisie used deception, force, and fraud to steal the production
of the working class (proletariat), whose labour created most of society’s wealth.
The bourgeoisie are those members of society who create the shape of criminal law
CLASS STRUGGLE
is a Marxist principle that claims there is continuous conflict between political and economic
groups (e.g. the bourgeoisie and the proletariat) for power.
All history is the history of class struggles
COMMUNISM
is a theory advocating the elimination of private property.
Its proponents believe that, with the abolition of private property and the disappearance of
the class nature of the state (i.e. when communism triumphs), crime will virtually disappear
CONFLICT MODEL OF CRIME
is a model based on the assumption that differences in race, class, income and age cause
groups to fight for power.
Groups with the most power pass laws that protect the status quo against resistance by
marginalised groups.
Definitions of crime depend on who is in power, with less powerful groups characterised
and targeted as criminals to keep them in a subordinate position
CONFLICT PERSPECTIVE
maintains that society is composed of diverse groups with conflicting values and interests.
In all societies, these groups have differential access to power, prestige and wealth.
The Marxist approach to conflict theory focuses on economic determinism and the
importance of social class
LABELLING PERSPECTIVE,
in essence, explains criminal behaviour as a reaction to having been labelled as a
delinquent.
When subjects are stigmatised as delinquents, they are frequently driven to acting out a
self-fulfilling prophecy.
In short, labelling pushes violators onto a path of further deviance.
Labelling theorists assert that those in power place labels on the powerless, labels that
cannot be removed.
The labelling perspective is also known as the Societal Reaction School
LUMPENPROLETARIAT
is the lower classes; the criminal class
MODE OF PRODUCTION
2
, is a Marxist concept that refers to how things are produced and the social relations of
production
PRIMARY DEVIANCE
is a term coined by Edwin Lemert to describe criminal conduct that has no real long-term
influence on the perpetrator.
These acts are quickly forgotten and do not cause any chronic syndrome
PROLETARIAT
refers to the working class
SECONDARY DEVIANCE
is deviance that results from society’s reaction to offenders’ primary deviance, often causing
them to accept their identity as deviant.
SOCIAL CLASSES
are groups of people who share the same position in the same production system
POSSIBLE ESSAY QUESTION:
STUDY UNIT 5.1
THE LABELLING PERSPECTIVE
5.1.1 INTRODUCTION
The labelling perspective challenges our view of crime and criminal justice.
According to proponents of the labelling perspective, crime is a social process.
As such, it involves different perceptions of what constitutes ‘‘good’’ or ‘‘bad’’ behaviour (or
persons), and those specific power relationships that determine what (or who) is deemed to
be ‘‘deviant’’ or an offender.
Crime is not an ‘‘objective’’ phenomenon – instead, it is an outcome of specific types of
human interaction between the offender, the victim and the officials of the criminal justice
system.
Labelling theorists argue that earlier theories focused excessively on the individual deviant
while neglecting the different ways in which people react to deviant behaviour; hence the
term social response theories.
Labelling theorists criticised criminologists for overemphasising the original (initial) deviant
act and the characteristics of the offender.
However, the definition of crime changes over time (an example here is the
decriminalisation of abortion) and therefore labelling theorists question the argument that,
because crime is bad, those who commit crime are also bad, and that a criminal act is
necessarily bad.
3
THE VICTIMISED ACTOR MODEL
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
The rational actor model of crime and criminal behaviour regards human beings as possessing
free will. This means that human beings can make rational decisions and to engage in activities of
their choice; according to this theory, criminal behaviour is simply a rationally chosen activity.
The predestined actor model, on the other hand, claims that crime emanates from factors (be they
biological, psychological or social) that are outside the offender’s control and which determine his
or her behaviour. Thus the major concern of this theory is to identify and analyse what is
considered to be the causes that drive individuals to commit criminal acts.
The third model of crime and criminal behaviour claims that the criminal is in some way the victim
of an unjust and unequal society: it is the behaviour and activities of the poor and disadvantaged
that are targeted and criminalised, while the actions of the rich and powerful are simply ignored or
not even defined as criminal
The victimised actor model’s two theoretical foundations are labelling and conflict. Although
labelling and conflict differ, these two perspectives share an important characteristic that
distinguishes them from other explanatory theories.
Biological, psychological and environmental theories portray the offender as a person who is
unable, for some reason or other, to conform to the rules of society. Labelling and conflict theories
draw attention to the role of social institutions in delinquency and crime. Both these perspectives
are based on the premise that those members of society with political power control the behaviour
of others.
The way in which the powerful elite views and responds to certain behaviour determines whether a
particular action will be regarded as legal (acceptable) or criminal (against the law).
These two perspectives came to the fore during the 1960s and 1970s in America, when traditional
social institutions were being called into question and criticised. The Vietnam War and the
corruption of the Nixon administration caused some academics to become suspicious of the
effectiveness and possible discriminating practices of the criminal justice system. Even the
education system was criticised for not giving all members of society equal educational
opportunities.
The role of powerful social institutions such as the government, education, corporations and the
criminal justice system came under the spotlight, because some social scientists believed that
these institutions encouraged delinquency and crime. Those in positions of power protected their
own interests by controlling the behaviour of the lower class or the disadvantaged. As a result of
this critical investigation, two essential issues came to the fore:
The law and the criminal justice system were not applied equitably in the American society.
Those who had been involved in the criminal justice system were labelled as deviants, and
this put them on the road to a career in crime.
In South Africa the criminal justice system has also been subject to considerable criticism.
Although labelling originated in America, this perspective can also be applied to the criminal justice
system in South Africa.
1
,KEY CONCEPTS
BOURGEOISIE
are the wealthy owners of the means of production.
These people are powerful not because of their superior skill, but because they own and
control the means of production.
Marx believed that the bourgeoisie used deception, force, and fraud to steal the production
of the working class (proletariat), whose labour created most of society’s wealth.
The bourgeoisie are those members of society who create the shape of criminal law
CLASS STRUGGLE
is a Marxist principle that claims there is continuous conflict between political and economic
groups (e.g. the bourgeoisie and the proletariat) for power.
All history is the history of class struggles
COMMUNISM
is a theory advocating the elimination of private property.
Its proponents believe that, with the abolition of private property and the disappearance of
the class nature of the state (i.e. when communism triumphs), crime will virtually disappear
CONFLICT MODEL OF CRIME
is a model based on the assumption that differences in race, class, income and age cause
groups to fight for power.
Groups with the most power pass laws that protect the status quo against resistance by
marginalised groups.
Definitions of crime depend on who is in power, with less powerful groups characterised
and targeted as criminals to keep them in a subordinate position
CONFLICT PERSPECTIVE
maintains that society is composed of diverse groups with conflicting values and interests.
In all societies, these groups have differential access to power, prestige and wealth.
The Marxist approach to conflict theory focuses on economic determinism and the
importance of social class
LABELLING PERSPECTIVE,
in essence, explains criminal behaviour as a reaction to having been labelled as a
delinquent.
When subjects are stigmatised as delinquents, they are frequently driven to acting out a
self-fulfilling prophecy.
In short, labelling pushes violators onto a path of further deviance.
Labelling theorists assert that those in power place labels on the powerless, labels that
cannot be removed.
The labelling perspective is also known as the Societal Reaction School
LUMPENPROLETARIAT
is the lower classes; the criminal class
MODE OF PRODUCTION
2
, is a Marxist concept that refers to how things are produced and the social relations of
production
PRIMARY DEVIANCE
is a term coined by Edwin Lemert to describe criminal conduct that has no real long-term
influence on the perpetrator.
These acts are quickly forgotten and do not cause any chronic syndrome
PROLETARIAT
refers to the working class
SECONDARY DEVIANCE
is deviance that results from society’s reaction to offenders’ primary deviance, often causing
them to accept their identity as deviant.
SOCIAL CLASSES
are groups of people who share the same position in the same production system
POSSIBLE ESSAY QUESTION:
STUDY UNIT 5.1
THE LABELLING PERSPECTIVE
5.1.1 INTRODUCTION
The labelling perspective challenges our view of crime and criminal justice.
According to proponents of the labelling perspective, crime is a social process.
As such, it involves different perceptions of what constitutes ‘‘good’’ or ‘‘bad’’ behaviour (or
persons), and those specific power relationships that determine what (or who) is deemed to
be ‘‘deviant’’ or an offender.
Crime is not an ‘‘objective’’ phenomenon – instead, it is an outcome of specific types of
human interaction between the offender, the victim and the officials of the criminal justice
system.
Labelling theorists argue that earlier theories focused excessively on the individual deviant
while neglecting the different ways in which people react to deviant behaviour; hence the
term social response theories.
Labelling theorists criticised criminologists for overemphasising the original (initial) deviant
act and the characteristics of the offender.
However, the definition of crime changes over time (an example here is the
decriminalisation of abortion) and therefore labelling theorists question the argument that,
because crime is bad, those who commit crime are also bad, and that a criminal act is
necessarily bad.
3
