Labelling theory focuses on how and why some people and their behaviour come to be labelled as deviant
or criminal. It also examines the effects that labelling has on those who are labelled. It uses concepts such as
master status and deviance amplification to understand the processes by which crime and deviance are
socially constructed.
However, critics argue that labelling theory fails to explain why some people commit deviant or criminal acts
in the first place.
Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the usefulness of labelling theory in
understanding crime and deviance (30 marks June 2018 Original)
Becker looks at how and why certain acts are labelled and defined as criminal. Labelling theorists
argue no act in itself is inherently criminal and it is society's reaction that defines it. For this reason
official statistics such as crime statistics are seen as social constructs. For Becker, a deviant is simply
someone whom the label has been successfully applied to. Becker is interested in the role of moral
entrepreneurs who lead a moral crusade to change the law in the belief it will benefit those to
whom it is applied. For example, Justice for dads who fight for equal rights for divorced Fathers.
However, a new law leads to a new group of outsiders who break the law and an expansion of social
control agencies to enforce and impose labels. Becker notes how social control agencies campaign
for change to increase their own power. For example, the US federal Bureau of Narcotics
successfully campaigned for the passing of the marijuana tax act to outlaw marijuana due to ill
effects on young people. Becker argues it was really to extend the Bureau’s sphere of influence.
However, Becker fails to analyse the source of this power. For example, Marxists argue it fails to
examine links between the labelling process and capitalism.
Cicourel seeks to understand “how and why” some people become labelled as deviant. He argues
that officer's decisions to make arrests are influenced by their typifications. Typifications are
stereotypes of what typical offenders are like such as being working class and ethnic minorities. This
results in law enforcement showing a class bias, for example, where police monitor working class
areas more closely and therefore find more crime. Thus, leading to more arrests and the
confirmation of their stereotypes. This results in an invalid distorted picture in the official statistics
as crime is simply being found where they are looking for it. These typifications are then passed
down through generations of officers via canteen culture in which these stereotypes become
internalised. Other social justice agencies also hold typifications which judge how far someone gets
into the criminal justice system, for example courts hold typifications about delinquents such as
them coming from broken homes, which makes them more likely to be sentenced. Cicourel also
argues that justice is negotiable and it is not fixed. For example, middle classes are more likely to
avoid sentencing as their parents can negotiate for them and they are seen as untypical delinquents.
For example, Brock Turner sexually assaulted an unconscious girl and his Father sent a character
reference to the courts showing his dedicated sportsmanship and the fact he attended Stanford
University , and as a result he only received 6 months of county jail and a 3 year probation. Cicourel
demonstrates how official statistics only really tell us about the activity of the police, prosecutors
and judges rather than the actual amount of crime in society. Cicourel can be criticised for giving the
offender a victim status by arguing they are passive victims of labelling and ignoring free will in that
they may choose to commit crime.
or criminal. It also examines the effects that labelling has on those who are labelled. It uses concepts such as
master status and deviance amplification to understand the processes by which crime and deviance are
socially constructed.
However, critics argue that labelling theory fails to explain why some people commit deviant or criminal acts
in the first place.
Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the usefulness of labelling theory in
understanding crime and deviance (30 marks June 2018 Original)
Becker looks at how and why certain acts are labelled and defined as criminal. Labelling theorists
argue no act in itself is inherently criminal and it is society's reaction that defines it. For this reason
official statistics such as crime statistics are seen as social constructs. For Becker, a deviant is simply
someone whom the label has been successfully applied to. Becker is interested in the role of moral
entrepreneurs who lead a moral crusade to change the law in the belief it will benefit those to
whom it is applied. For example, Justice for dads who fight for equal rights for divorced Fathers.
However, a new law leads to a new group of outsiders who break the law and an expansion of social
control agencies to enforce and impose labels. Becker notes how social control agencies campaign
for change to increase their own power. For example, the US federal Bureau of Narcotics
successfully campaigned for the passing of the marijuana tax act to outlaw marijuana due to ill
effects on young people. Becker argues it was really to extend the Bureau’s sphere of influence.
However, Becker fails to analyse the source of this power. For example, Marxists argue it fails to
examine links between the labelling process and capitalism.
Cicourel seeks to understand “how and why” some people become labelled as deviant. He argues
that officer's decisions to make arrests are influenced by their typifications. Typifications are
stereotypes of what typical offenders are like such as being working class and ethnic minorities. This
results in law enforcement showing a class bias, for example, where police monitor working class
areas more closely and therefore find more crime. Thus, leading to more arrests and the
confirmation of their stereotypes. This results in an invalid distorted picture in the official statistics
as crime is simply being found where they are looking for it. These typifications are then passed
down through generations of officers via canteen culture in which these stereotypes become
internalised. Other social justice agencies also hold typifications which judge how far someone gets
into the criminal justice system, for example courts hold typifications about delinquents such as
them coming from broken homes, which makes them more likely to be sentenced. Cicourel also
argues that justice is negotiable and it is not fixed. For example, middle classes are more likely to
avoid sentencing as their parents can negotiate for them and they are seen as untypical delinquents.
For example, Brock Turner sexually assaulted an unconscious girl and his Father sent a character
reference to the courts showing his dedicated sportsmanship and the fact he attended Stanford
University , and as a result he only received 6 months of county jail and a 3 year probation. Cicourel
demonstrates how official statistics only really tell us about the activity of the police, prosecutors
and judges rather than the actual amount of crime in society. Cicourel can be criticised for giving the
offender a victim status by arguing they are passive victims of labelling and ignoring free will in that
they may choose to commit crime.
