Modern Labelling Theory of Crime

The labelling theory was propounded by Тannenbaum in 1938 who believed that tagging, defining, identifying, segregating and describing criminals by labelling them under different heads was helpful in treatment of offenders. Thereafter Lemert (1951) preferred to label offenders as persons with primary deviance and secondary deviance.

The former do not see themselves as deviant whereas the latter accept their deviant status. According to Lemert primary deviance arises out of biological, psychological and or sociological reasons while the secondary deviance is caused by social reaction to primary deviation. Therefore societal reaction has a direct bearing on these two deviant types.

Being a ‘criminal’ becomes a matter of status for these deviants and because of this self-image, there is a constant pressure on them to behave as a deviant.

The modern labelling theory, however, recognise that ‘societies’ create crime by enacting laws and therefore the substantive nature of law should be the object of study. Sometimes these are called criminalization theories and they have some resemblance to societal reaction to crime.

According to Ditton (1979), labelling theories which focus on State power to control crime are considered as branches of controlology. They treat criminal justice agencies as part of social control mechanisms, like education, mental health, mass media all of which are used by the State for crime control. The ultimate goal according to these theorists is to control troublesome population of criminals.

John Braithwaite modelled his reintegrative theory on social control which he called as shaming. There are two types of social control viz. reintegrative and disintegrative.

Reintegrative social control implies bringing the offender back into the fold of society while disintegrative social control focuses on shunning the offender from society for social good. Braithwaite argues that disintegrative shaming (social order) creates a class of outcasts who indulge into criminality as they find it difficult to return back to society as law-abiding citizens. They therefore become more entrenched in crime as a result of being branded as criminals.

The reintegrative shaming, however, can be accomplished if there is societal gesture of forgiveness and readiness to decertify the offenders as deviant. In modern civilised societies urbanisation, heterogeneity, mobility and excessive materialism have led to an increase in deviants back at the same time States are endeavouring to afford them opportunities to shun deviant role and come back to the social fold as normal citizens.

Howard Becker (1963) developed his theory of labelling (also known as social reaction theory) on the assumption that people are likely to engage in rule-breaking behaviour as essentially different from the members of rule-making or rule-abiding society. The law-breakers see themselves morally at odds with those who are law-abiding.

Becker labels these law’-breakers as “outsider” and holds that they accept the label attached to them and they begin to view themselves as different from “mainstream” of society. The deviants first indulge in primary deviance intentionally or unintentionally and gradually step into the arena of secondary deviance.

A deviant who is denied means to carry out daily routines, turns to illegitimate means to make a living. The affiliation of the labelled deviant with an organised group of criminals provides him moral support and he joins the organised crime thus learning new forms of deviance through differential associations.

Becker recognises four types of citizens according to their behaviour in society labelling them differently. The numbers of society that are rule-abiding and free of labels are described as conforming citizens, while those who are labelled without breaking a law are termed as falsely accused- Those citizens who exhibit law-breaking behaviour are labelled as pure deviants, while those that break law yet avoid labelling are called secret deviants.

It must be stated hat Becker’s theory of labeling though popular has encountered several criticisms. Many sociologists and criminologists view this theory as a purely theoretical approach to crime and criminals without any empirical basis. The distinction between primary and secondary deviance seems to be futile as it is influenced by changing variables.

The challenge to labelling theory on theoretical and empirical grounds seems to be justified. Some criminologists view labelling theory as declining in its importance due to lack of empirical support.

Some sociologists have called the labelling theory as “the shoe fits, wear it” theory. It suggests that society makes deviance by passing laws infringement of which constitutes deviance and the law-breakers are labelled as ‘deviants’. Deviance, according to this theory is not the act that a person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others, of rules, laws and sanctions to the “offender”. A deviant is one to whom people so label.

As Calhoun rightly pointed out labelling theory is especially crucial to understanding juvenile delinquency because it is during the time of adolescence that juvenile’s self-identities are formed. Labelling theory also helps to explain the long-term consequences of a deviant label on a person’s social status.

Thus, if a juvenile is labelled as deviant or delinquent, then his self-identity may develop as such and he will be more prone to become a hardened criminal. Because of his/her negative self-concept he or she is likely to choose a crime carrier and associate with other professional or organised groups of criminals.

It may be stated that modern criminologists lay greater stress on multiple causation theory because they consider crime as a social phenomenon, the political society reacting through punishment, treatment or preventive measures as the sequence of interaction is the ultimate object of criminology.

They suggest that social control mechanism must be very selective in the legal norms for enforcement in their disposition of law violators. They advocate restructuring the existing social arrangements to eliminate crime from society.

The current theory of Indian criminal jurisprudence is based on seven fundamental notions, viz., the principle of legality, mens rea, conduct, consequence of mens rea and conduct, harm, causation and punishment. With the change in time, the criminal law has radically changed and the concept of criminal liability therefore, faces new problems.

Consequently, there is need for complete replacement of punishment by recent rehabilitative measures for certain categories of offenders so as to make the administration of criminal justice efficacious and meaningful.

It must, however, be realised that mere treatment of offenders in correctional institutions does not help in their ultimate rehabilitation as it does not ward off the stigma which the society attaches to the released inmates. Considered from this standpoint, the punishment of the offender does not end with the termination of his institutional incarceration but it continues as a life-long record, making it difficult for an offender to go back to the community as a decent law-abiding citizen despite his genuine and sincere efforts to lead an honest and up-right life.

This problem can be effectively tackled by developing adequate after-care services as an integral part of the correctional method of treatment of offenders. Unfortunately, this important aspect of rehabilitative process has, by and large, remained neglected in the present-day Indian penal system. Though there are some shelter-homes and after-care centres in some States, but they are hardly sufficient to cater to the needs of ever-increasing number of released prisoners.

Before concluding, it must be stated that the modern trend in penology and sentencing procedures is to emphasise the humanist principle of individualisation of punishment to suit the offender and his resocialisation. The penal policy should be aimed at protecting the society by preventing crime.

It must be accepted that punishment is institutionalised violence and it can be justified only when it deters the offender from committing the offence in future and also deters others from indulging in criminal acts. While choosing any system of punishment the intended effects thereof need to be considered very carefully.

Unduly tough measures of punishment would lead to feelings of resentment and rejection which would frustrate the very purpose of penal justice. The punishment should be severe enough to deter but not too severe to be brutal. Likewise, it should be moderate enough to be human but not too moderate to be ineffective.

It has to be so designed as to reform the offender and reclaim him as a law abiding member of the society. The focus of attention should be to make the offender realise that the offence which he has committed is not only harmful to the society of which he is an integral part, but is harmful to his own future as well. It is only then, that the true object of penology can be said to have been achieved.